[PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW

[Herb Brannon]

That sounds like what he was thinking. I'm sure he was aware of what was
happening. I made the post about him not knowing as a "tongue in cheek"
comment and only got one non sequitur reply. Not bad.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 16:50, Edward H. Lybarger <trams2 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Palmer's interview was 15 years after the fact.  Memories fade.  I think he
> simply omitted the word "base" before schedules.  The yellow car trippers
> would have continued beyond 1954 had it not been for the extended strike
> that year.  PRC management wanted in the late '40s to buy one more hundred
> PCC cars, but the 1949 decline in ridership and the pending emergence from
> receivership put an end to that kind of thinking.
>
> Ed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org
> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org] On Behalf Of Herb
> Brannon
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 6:20 AM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Herb Brannon
In Cuyahoga Valley National Park