[PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW

[Dwight Long]

Ed

That's an equally plausible explanation to mine that he was just simplifying 
the situation in 1951.  Even at that, it was more accurate than the crap we 
often get from corporate PR types these days.

I would take more issue with his comment about providing "normal" 
maintenance right up to PAAC takeover.  Perhaps so on mechanical work, but 
certainly not on cosmetics!

A strange, "small world" thing happened Sunday.  I was in Pittsburgh, having 
arrived on Bennett Levin's "Pacific Express" special from Hoboken.  I left 
the train there and returned to Philly on the Dog, but before leaving, I 
took a Boston enthusiast out to South Hills Village on the PAT tram.  On our 
way back from a quick meal at the Red Robin I was expounding about the last 
PCC trip back in 1999, and a person sitting on the station bench overheard 
my pontificating and interjected himself into the conversation.  It was "Mr. 
Conductor."  It is indeed a small world.

Regards
Dwight




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Edward H. Lybarger" <trams2 at comcast.net>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 4:50 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW


> 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
>
>
>
>
>