[PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW

[Herb Brannon]

Both interesting and noteworthy are the comments of C. D. Palmer, PRCo
President 1951-1964, given in a 1969 interview,
"*The principal reason for substitution of buses for trolleys was the high
track investment....throughout the entire reorganization and receivership
period, large sums were expended in construction of track and purchase of
cars. For example, the trustees in the 77-B proceeding, who operated the
property between 1938 and 1951, purchased PCC cars and carried on a
considerable program of track construction. They considered it their duty,
and no one with any responsibility objected, to maintain and preserve the
property in their possession pending reorganization of the system.
Additionally, it was the belief of the trustees and the management that
better service could be provided the Allegheny County community by means of
trolleys than would be the case by substituting buses. The company and the
trustees used the bus for feeder service, in substitution for trolley
service where it was economically indicated, and for express service. Thus,
by 1951, Pittsburgh Railways, with sufficient PCC cars to fill all the
schedules, had the benefit of a modernized system with track generally in a
good state of repair.*"

>From 1960 to the PATransit takeover on March 1, 1964, Palmer said of that
period of time,

".*.....the management of the Railways operated in a normal, businesslike
manner and applied normal maintenance to its' property. However, we did
scrutinize capital expenditures rather carefully......*"

Comments?






On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 20:17, Phillip Clark Campbell <pcc_sr at yahoo.com>wrote:

> Mr.Lybarger;
>
> Did this happen to the PRC, a private company?  I understand
> public authorities like Pat being subsidized but not the private
> companies.  Could you please explain?
>
> Your comments and Mr.Swindler's tend to dispel the idea that
> PRC was anxious to replace light rail lines if one may use that
> term for that time period--maybe light ridership rail lines is more
> appropriate isn't it.
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> >From: Edward H. Lybarger <trams2 at comcast.net>
> >To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> >Sent: Monday, August 8, 2011 3:09 PM
> >Subject: [PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW
> >
> >Also never overlook the fact that they couldn't easily afford to buy the
> >replacement buses on their own...it always seemed to require some help
> from
> >someone -- usually you and me via the PA Department of Highways.
> >
> >Ed
> >
>
>


-- 
Herb Brannon
In Cuyahoga Valley National Park