[PRCo] Re: Pittsburgh - Toronto Trolley Differences Explained

[richard allman]

apparently, the Ontario provincial premier may not see ot eye-to-eye w/ MR. 
Ford, especially given the progress, status of orders, and construction. 
Ford might not get to arbitrarily scrap things a la Fat Chris in New Jersey.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 11:28 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Pittsburgh - Toronto Trolley Differences Explained


> Yup.
>
>
> On Feb 2, 2011, at 10:57 PM, Dwight Long wrote:
>
>> Fred
>> Speaking of Toronto, have you seen that their wonderful-sounding plans 
>> for tramway expansion, toward which they have already spent hundreds of 
>> millions of Canadian dollars, apparently are going to be scrapped by the 
>> newly-elected mayor?  He says "Transit City is over."  Ironically, his 
>> name is-----------------Ford.
>>
>> I kid you not.
>>
>> Dwight
>>
>>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>>  From: Fred Schneider
>>  To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>>  Sent: Wednesday, 02 February, 2011 20:55
>>  Subject: [PRCo] Re: Pittsburgh - Toronto Trolley Differences Explained
>>
>>
>>  I wonder if the $375 and $350 figures for track maintenance were 
>> showing, unwittingly, that the transit commission and the city were 
>> splitting the paving costs 48-52 and neither writer knew the whole truth?
>>
>>  What Palmer chose not to say because it would have made Pittsburgh 
>> Railways look bad was that those long stretches of track to Etna and 
>> Millvale, to Castle Shannon, to Dormont, to Crafton were some the fastest 
>> track in the system.   In an industry where labor is half or more of your 
>> operating costs, increasing labor productivity by increasing speed of the 
>> car is a significant factor.   I suspect that the speed on East Ohio 
>> Street to Millvale and Etna was probably twice the average on Penn or 
>> Centre and perhaps three times faster than Forbes or 5th through Oakland. 
>> If you move twice as fast, and labor is 50% of your costs, you can reduce 
>> your load factor by 25% and make the same money.
>>
>>  I'm not going to touch the track maintenance costs because I'm clueless. 
>> Obviously tearing up a street cost a fortune.   But uncreosoted ties on 
>> open track sure didn't last long either.   I suspect they could have 
>> actually spent as much or more trying to keep the track in one place on 
>> the hill around Boggs and Oak and Morse on the interurbans than the spent 
>> on Forbes or Fifth on track that stayed put.
>>
>>  But Palmer was correct in his comparison of rail in Toronto in 1951 with 
>> Pittsburgh at the same time.   Almost all of the mileage in Toronto at 
>> that time was on streets in very tightly compressed neighborhoods with a 
>> very high riding habit.   A light route in Toronto (Long Branch or Mount 
>> Pleasant) probably hauled as many people per mile as a line like Dormont 
>> or Brookline in Pittsburgh.  The really heavy lines in Toronto (Yonge, 
>> King, Queen, Bloor-Danforth) were like subway lines and two of them are 
>> today.
>>
>>
>>  On Feb 2, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Barry, Matthew R wrote:
>>
>>> An October 3, 1951 Letter to the Editor from C.D. Palmer of the 
>>> Pittsburgh Railways, explaining differences between Toronto and 
>>> Pittsburgh trolley operations.
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
>>> -- Type: image/jpeg
>>> -- Desc: PGH_TORONTO.JPG
>>> -- Size: 246k (252769 bytes)
>>> -- URL : 
>>> http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/PGH_TORONTO.JPG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>