[PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW

[Phillip Clark Campbell]

Thank you, Mr.Brannon,

This is very informative.  Do you have a collection of PRC documents?
I knew of the trustee care but it is interesting to get the take of the
rwy on same.


Phil





>________________________________
>From: Herb Brannon <hrbran at cavtel.net>
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
>Sent: Monday, August 8, 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
>