[PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW

[Dwight Long]

Herb

I lived in the Pittsburgh area at the time and my recollection says that you 
are correct that PRC tried to get the Commonwealth to allow tracks on the 
new bridge.

There was a reasonable way to get West End trams downtown without adding 
additional traffic to the South Hills tunnel or running them over West 
Carson Street, but it was beyond the purse of PRC and in any event would 
have required governmental cooperation and contribution.  That was to have 
extended the line beyond where its PRW ended (sorry, I'm at work and do not 
have a track map with me) near the West End circle more or less along the 
ROW of the West End Belt Ry to the southern mouth of the Wabash tunnel, then 
through it and across the Mon on the alignment of the Wabash bridge (whose 
piers were still in place).

Instead of that, we got a busway over a very similar alignment--many years 
later.

One can only dream of what might have been.

Dwight

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herb Brannon" <hrbran at cavtel.net>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 6:44 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW


> The US sheep, pardon me, general public, was enamored with all those 
> chrome
> bumpers and tail fins in 1959. Hey, it's time to get "modern", or so 
> "they"
> told everyone. Who needed a streetcar..............by the year 2000 "they"
> said we would have our own helicopters and flying autos for personal
> transportation.
> I agree that the 27/28 should have been retained "if" a faster entry into
> downtown could have been realized other than Carson Street and the
> Smithfield Street Bridge. No tracks were going on the Fort Pitt Bridge.
> Robert Parker, PATransit Manager of Transportation (1960s/1970s), and one 
> of
> C.D. Palmers right-hand guys in PRCo days, told me back in 1975 that PRCo
> wanted to run cars across the new bridge. Parker even said they (PRCo)
> promised the Commonwealth that they would run them at speed (40-50 mph)
> across the bridge. The Commonwealth, however, saw only chrome bumpers and
> tail fins.............no boxy trolleys spewing fire and brimstone on the
> pavement on that bridge !
>
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 18:26, Dwight Long <dwightlong at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> John
>>
>> Not much for all the infrastructure that was sacrificed.
>>
>> The 27/28 line could have been the nucleus of a west end light rail
>> network,
>> including airport access.  Its axing was a tragedy.
>>
>> The other lines probably were bus candidates anyway (Rt 30 for carhouse
>> access an exception), but that trunk line should have been preserved.  Of
>> course "light rail transit" was not even a glimmer in the eyes of USA 
>> urban
>> transport planners back then.  Too bad for that.
>>
>> Dwight
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Swindler" <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
>> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:08 PM
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Herb Brannon
> In Cuyahoga Valley National Park
>
>
>