[PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW

[Herb Brannon]

I guess CD Palmer didn't know his own company then.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 00:12, Dwight Long <dwightlong at verizon.net> wrote:

>
> Herb
>
> In 1951 PRC did NOT have sufficient PCCs to fill all the schedules.
> Furthermore, PCCs could not fill all the schedules even had their been
> sufficient numbers of them to do so, as there were still routes then which
> required double end cars.  The latter situation was not changed until the
> end of 1953 and Jones cars were still required as rush hour supplements
> until 1954.
>
> Dwight
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Herb Brannon" <hrbran at cavtel.net>
> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 9:53 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW
>
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
Herb Brannon
In Cuyahoga Valley National Park