[PRCo] Re: Streetcars in D.C.

[John Swindler]

Intentional???  Doubtful

 

But how many transit managers spend their holidays observing transit observations overseas???  Why would decision makers know what options were available for light rail overhead construction???  That's why they hired consultants.

 

Cheers

John

 


 
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:55:05 -0700
> From: pcc_sr at yahoo.com
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Streetcars in D.C.
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org; Charlesebrown at webtv.net; ktjosephson at embarqmail.com; Milwaukee-electric at dementia.org; rpmurphy at charter.net
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> > From: robert simpson <bobs at pacbell.net>
> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > Sent: Thu, April 8, 2010 4:10:52 PM
> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: Streetcars in D.C.
> 
> > Wonder if they were intended to be "ugly" -
> > or if it was really state-of-the-art for the era in
> > which they were originally built? 
> > They didn't have as efficient insulation at that time.
> 
> > Bob 
> > from Krazy Kalifornia
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> Mr.Simpson;
> 
> As stated the 'ugliness' of the overhead as intentional is
> postulation; 'insider' confirmation would be needed as
> foundation for 'proving' such a charge wouldn't it. The
> history of Pats hostility toward trolleys is well documented
> from Mr.Dameron through the authority's balking at the
> rebuilding of the Overbrook line which seems quite
> successful now completed. This gives some credence
> to the postulation.
> 
> Insulation is hardly the problem; it is the massive towers
> used to hold up the overhead. Some have commented
> such towers are more in line with the mainline PRR RR
> and GG1 operation. Simple span or floating span
> overhead was in use by a very high percentage of
> light rail operations world wide when this unsightly
> Pgh overhead was constructed. This lends more
> credence to the postulation when much simpler
> overhead is available doesn't it.
> 
> Mr.Swindler mentions Pat was advised not to install
> such heavy overhead yet ignored the advice. Again,
> this adds more to the postulation that a company
> which abandoned trolleys before buses were available,
> which openly denigrated trolleys, which balked at
> light rail construction, which balked at rebuilding
> the Overbrook line did significantly over build the
> light rail infrastructure to continue the denigration.
> 
> I thought this original postulation was 'interesting;'
> after this simple review it gains a little more respect
> doesn't it. Maybe Mr.Tennyson has more inside
> information on the project. 'If' this was the intention
> of Pat it 'apparently' was not successful in
> canceling light rail construction elsewhere.
> 
> Constant writing on this topic over 30+years has
> worn itself out hasn't it. It is time to put this
> topic to rest.
> 
> 
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> > From: Ken and Tracie 
> <ktjosephson at embarqmail.com>
> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > Sent: Thu, April 8, 2010 5:11:17 PM
> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: 
> Streetcars in D.C.
> 
> > Fine, since you can't find the flippin' 
> "delete" key, I'm outta here!
> 
> > K.
> ________________________________
> ________________________________
> 
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Phillip Clark Campbell 
> <pcc_sr at yahoo.com>
> >> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org; ktjosephson at embarqmail.com
> >> Sent: Sat, April 10, 2010 
> 10:26:50 AM
> >> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Streetcars in D.C.
> 
> 
> >> Mr.Josephson;
> 
> >> This is preaching to the choir isn't it. Isn't it in the archives
> >> here where it is postulated that Pgh. used the excessive
> >> 
> overhead purposely to denigrate transit? Endless discussion
> >> of same hasn't changed the situation has it. This does get
> >> very tedious with time.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Phil
> >> 
> >> 
> This is an extreme reaction isn't it. Little in life is one sided; if
> you are irritated with a 
> response then others are not overjoyed with
> the same posts ad 
> infinitum ad nauseum. If the observation that
> the delete key should 
> be exercised is valid so is the observation
> that discretion in 
> posting needs attention. These are flips sides of
> a coin to use a 
> phrase with a very thin edge in between.
> 
> The email list address 
> in your original post was interesting: '@prn....'
> Since you work 
> security for a hospital you are probably familiar with
> 'prn' as a Dr. shorthand on prescriptions for 'take-as-needed.'
> It seems railfans 
> rehash old stories 'as-needed' to comfort
> themselves on the loss of 
> trolleys or other similar topics.
> 
> Isn't this overhead 
> construction some 30+years old now? Has anyone
> heard the 'industry' 
> complain or cancel rail construction because of
> unsightly overhead in Pittsburgh? The only place I have seen such
> comments is from the 
> railfans. We need to forget it and move on.
> It is now ancient 
> history.
> 
> 
> Phil
> 
> > >> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > >> Cc: Milwaukee-electric at dementia.org;
> > >> Charlesebrown at webtv.net;
> > >> SCOTT GREIG <m1903a1 at sbcglobal.net>;
> > >> Rick Murphy <rpmurphy at charter.net>
> > 
> >> Sent: Wed, April 7, 2010 5:55:51 PM
> > >> Subject: 
> [PRCo] Fw: [SFMuniHistory] Streetcars in> D.C.
> > 
> > 
> > >> Fwd: [SFMuniHistory] Streetcars in D.C.
> > >> From: Richard C. DeArmond=20
> > >> To: prn-list at sfu.ca=20
> > 
> > >> Overhead trolley wire does not have to be
> > 
> >> massive and ugly.
> > >> (As is in Pittsburgh) It can be almost invisible ...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2