[PRCo] Re: Not a streetcar, BUT

[Edward H. Lybarger]

"Worn out" probably meant that it wasn't draining properly.  Whether that
was the case here or not is not really to be known...but I suspect the claim
was just another part of establishing excess of costs over revenues.  Nobody
at the PSC was about to come out and look at it.

The last time I was there it seemed to be draining pretty well.

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of Derrick
Brashear
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 9:18 AM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Not a streetcar, BUT

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Edward H. Lybarger <trams2 at comcast.net>
wrote:
> An interesting read is West Penn's abandonment petition for this 
> portion of the line.  They naturally cite lack of patronage and 
> operating losses, but go on to discuss the vital need to replace this 
> worn out ballast if they were to have to maintain service, and how 
> that investment would never pay for itself.

What does "worn out" mean? I could take a cynical tack that it's still there
80 years later, but that doesn't mean it was successfully supporting the
track structure in 1930.