[PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW

[John Swindler]

The PUC records showed $300,000 payment state to PRC in west end abandonment petition.  That bought a few buses.
 

 

> From: trams2 at comcast.net
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW
> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:09:35 -0400
> 
> Never overlook the fact that PRC wanted as much physical plant on the books
> to depreciate as it could realistically have. This helped for ratemaking
> purposes.
> 
> 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
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org
> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org] On Behalf Of John
> Swindler
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 2:12 PM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> > >
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>