[PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW

[John Swindler]

That it remained mostly rail meant that the railways wanted to minimize the cost of rail removal.
 
Track on Browns Hill Rd. was retained in 1958 with plan to re-route 55 from Glenwood Bridge to Homestead High Level Bridge.  So will have to check some old Trolley Fare issues to see if there is mention of reason to abandon 56 as a rail liine.  Maybe a paving project in McKeesport.  It wasn't Glenwood Bridge because this survived into PAT era as access route for 65/55 cars.  Still remember the last trip - or at least most of it.  Dozed off on last car around 4 a.m. somewhere around Mesta Machine.
 
As for 56A, suspect that was a newer short turn established after 1914.  Otherwise the numbers in the high 50s would have allowed for it.
 
Cheers
John  
 
 

 

> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:44:43 -0700
> From: pcc_sr at yahoo.com
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org; pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> 
> Mr.Gula,
> This just underscores the old addage of the only constant is
> change doesn't it.  It is a given since the beginning of time that
> people move and change habits and direction if not purpose.
> The light rail movement across the country for the last several
> decades seems to underscore another old addage:  back to the
> future or everything that goes around then comes around.  Rail
> was removed in most of those places and now it is back again.
> 
> 56A in the 1950s forward was little more than 11-East St, 14-Avalon,
> 37-Shannon, 43-Neeld, 47-Carrick via tunnel, 57-Glenwood,
> 88-Frankstown Short and others -- simple rush hour trippers over
> the heaviest portion of the line.  A look at schedules (where available)
> for the whole PRCo system revealed longer headways with time.
> Ridership went down on all lines, some more than others.
> 
> I am skeptical that finding a letter about tracks on the new Glenwood 
> 
> bridge means PRCo wanted to eliminate rail on lighter routes.  We do
> not know all the reasoning that went behind that decision; every thought
> and idea and comment is not recorded for our benefit.  Many factors
> would weigh on such a decision; the imminent Pat takeover for one.
> The wheels on a public authority started turning much faster in the mid-
> 1950s.  Why would PRCo entertain such expenses when they would be
> forced out of business in just a few years?  Yes, the rwy did renew some
> track in the latter 1950s but on a heavier portion of the line.
> 
> Mr.Lybarger has written here onlist that the rwy essentially received its
> requests when it petitioned the PUC about service changes.  If the full
> 56-line was a drain then why wasn't the line outbound of Lincoln Place
> abandoned?  The fact that until 1959 the rwy remained essentially intact
> speaks volumes loudly that the rwy wanted to maintain rail doesn't it.
> We can ask the same questions about other lines as well.
> 
> "Part" of the purpose of the railway is to offer "service" for mobility.  Owl
> lines might run at a deficit offset / absorbed by rush hour service.  Mid-
> day service is similar -- not all trips at all hours of the days shall run
> packed cars.  This is quite standard.
> 
> To reduce transit considerations simply to an economic study would 
> 
> see the vast majority of lines eliminated wouldn't it.  Indeed, a 
> 
> tremendous number of business would cease to exist as well, not because
> of a loss of transit, but if Christmas was eliminated!  How many times
> has it been reported that:  "if it weren't for Christmas, many businesses
> would operate in the red."  If such is true, why not open those businesses
> only at Christmas?  Why not save the loss of operating all year?
> 
> It hasn't been lost on me:  when a transit line is lost due to low ridership,
> another line just takes its place.  It won't take long that all transit would
> be eliminated on that basis alone.
> 
> We don't have the whole picture and never shall; most employees of any
> company will tell us:  'the public knows what happens before we the
> employees do.  Please -- let's not generalize about the rwy intent some
> half century ago without substantial evidence.
> 
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >________________________________
> >From: George W. Gula <scranton-pa at comcast.net>
> >To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> >Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2011 8:43 PM
> >Subject: [PRCo] Rt 56 ROW
> >
> >Lets examine the entire route. Heavy traffic made for a very slow-going ride
> >in and outbound on Second Avenue along the J&L Mill and though the Hazelwood
> >and Glenwood areas. By the time Route 56 was abandoned in 1963, ridership
> >was going down and these neighborhoods were changing.
> >
> >Beyond the Glenwood neighborhood and the Glenwood Bridge, the PRW stretched
> >fairly straight through Hays and Lincoln Place to Dravosburg. Between Hays
> >and Lincoln Place, the line ran alongside a very narrow Mifflin Road, which
> >everyone wanted to see widened. The classic ROW was actually between Lincoln
> >Place and Dravosburg, but served a moderate to lightly settled area and
> >provided only light traffic outside the rush hour beyond Lincoln Place. In
> >fact there were 56A cars that ran out only as far as Lincoln Place.
> >
> >The PRCo was interested in getting out of the streetcar business on these
> >marginal lines. There is an letter I found in the PTM archives some years
> >ago in which PRCo had told PennDot around 1957 not to plan for tracks in the
> >Glenwood Bridge when it was replaced. This occurred in 1963 and the line was
> >abandoned.
> >
> >PRCo was interested in maintaining rail service on the heavy lines in the
> >East End and South Hills where it made economic sense but operating
> >streetcars on the rest of the system would only occur if it made economic
> >sense. Today, McKeesport, Glenwood, Hazelwood and Hays have lost significant
> >population. One can shoot a cannon and it wouldn't hit anything for blocks.
> >PRCo saw this coming and correctly got out of the rail business there.
> >
> >
> >George Gula 
> >
>