[PRCo] Re: Route 40 1700's

[Dwight Long]

Fred

Was Mrs. Finkelhor the successor to Anne X. Alpern, whose epic battle with 
CD Palmer I do remember?

It is for all the reasons you cite, and more, that I doubt PRC ever made a 
PUC rate of return.

Dwight

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 7:03 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Route 40 1700's


> How do you make money when (1) the city was constantly fighting you, (2) 
> the union would go out on strike for weeks at a time and leave you with 
> 100 unneeded cars, (3) the PUC allowed competing bus companies to run 
> along your routes with open doors, and (4) the city was the municipalities 
> you service were losing 1 to 2 percent of its population every year since 
> 1950?
>
> Remember all the arguments in the early 1960s between Mrs. Finkelhor of 
> the city and the PRC because the Railways was diverting money into things 
> that might make money instead of losing it ... fire alarms and real estate 
> (putting gas stations inside the loops).
>
>
> On Feb 18, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Dwight Long wrote:
>
>> Fred
>>
>> I understand the principles of public utility rate making and you have 
>> stated them reasonably well.
>>
>> But I still have not seen any FACTS that show that PRC EVER (after  WW II 
>> and the couple of years following it) came close to making a PUC rate of 
>> return, even on an inflated rate base.  I don’t think they did.  If you 
>> have facts to prove that wrong, let’s see them, and you can make me a 
>> believer.
>>
>> The electric company and the gas company could achieve PUC rates of 
>> return because they were natural monopolies.  PRC had competition.  I 
>> don’t think they could.
>>
>> Dwight
>>
>> From: Fred Schneider
>> Sent: Saturday, 18 February, 2012 15:51
>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Route 40 1700's
>> Superficially it looks like PAT's policy was all about keeping the newest 
>> cars.
>>
>> The state previously allowed companies to keep any undepreciated property 
>> in the rate base so it paid to keep anything that had value.   I have 
>> been told that motorman didn't like the 1200s because of their 
>> spring-applied, air-release brake system.   But in a company that set 
>> fares based on the value of its property, it made sense to keep cars that 
>> were not depreciated.  It is my understanding that 20 years was a normal 
>> depreciation cycle for a streetcar.  If you had 100 cars built in 1940 
>> for which paid about $1.9 million (crude guess) and 1/20th of that value 
>> was left plus whatever you added through shop work -- paint, etc. -- you 
>> might still have had $100,000 to add into the rate base in 1959 by 
>> keeping the 1200s but nothing by keeping the 1100s.   Therefore, it made 
>> more sense in 1959 to scrap 21-year-old 1100s and keep 19-year old 1200s 
>> even if you had 1100s that were in better shape or better loved.   Then a 
>> year later, when the depreciation runs out, you can begin s!
> cr!
>> apping 1200s.   The depreciation was also a deduction from income and 
>> reduced income taxes for Pittsburgh Railways.
>>
>> There was a very logical reason for that under Pittsburgh Railways 
>> management to scrap the oldest cars and keep the new ones --- it was a 
>> private corporation subject to rules of a private corporation.
>>
>> But the PUC regulated fares and rates for private utilities allowing a 
>> "fair rate of return on investment."   The same rules did not apply for 
>> PAT.   So they didn't have to keep any particular group of cars just 
>> because they were not depreciated and it is clear that they didn't. 
>> After the East End routes were abandoned, all the remaining General 
>> Electric cars including the 1700s which were only 18 years old, were 
>> retired.   Westinghouse 1600s were retained while GE 1700s were scrapped. 
>> Different rules ... we apparently keep what is easier to keep on the 
>> road.   There is no such thing as depreciation.  If I am not mistaken, I 
>> remember seeing a note from Harold Geissenheimer that he also liked the 
>> 1600s because they were cooler in the summer and wanted to keep some of 
>> them.  So even personal feelings could enter into the picture with PAT.
>>
>> The curious thing about your picture Bob is that it shows the brief 
>> reassignment of some of those Keating cars in the interval between the 
>> conversion of the North Side lines and their retirement after the East 
>> End conversion.   I had forgotten that for several years, Tunnel was a 
>> barn that had both Westinghouse and GE cars.    I'll bet the odds are 
>> really good that I rode it home to Grandma's home on Perrysville Avenue. 
>> Thanks for the memories, Bob.
>>
>>
>> On Feb 18, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Bob Rathke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 1700's were sometimes seen on route 40, at least in that route's last 
>>> year.  Attached is a photo I took of 1784 in regular service  - on 
>>> Fingal St. on Aug. 19, 1966.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>
>>> From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
>>> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 10:49:35 AM
>>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Re :Fineview PCCs
>>>
>>> There was a document issued by Transit Research Corporation in 1940 
>>> comparing the St. Louis 1500s with the Pittsburgh 1200s.   The basic 
>>> premise was that an all-electric car at that time was ill-suited for 
>>> Pittsburgh's hills and TRC wasn't recommending the St. Louis 1500 type 
>>> for Pittsburgh.
>>> I do not know how the drum springs were changed over time.   I do know 
>>> that the ones on 1707 were inadequate for Henderson Street.   That also 
>>> implies they were inadequate for route 40 because part of Grandview Ave. 
>>> was also 12%.   I would have to believe that was an issue of spring 
>>> tension and not worn shoes.  It stopped fine all day on lesser grades. 
>>> I ran it on lesser grades and had problem stopping it that day.
>>>
>>> We also understand that all springs weaken with time and need to be 
>>> replaced and I have no idea what replacement interval, if any, was 
>>> specified for the application springs for the drum brakes.   Maybe none. 
>>> They were only intended to stop the car from 1 to 2 miles per hour (a 
>>> slow walk) and to hold it.   But I do recall from that one example in 
>>> 1958, it did not work on Henderson Street on a 12 percent grade.   I 
>>> don't recall any similar problems on lower Perrysville Avenue or Federal 
>>> Street with 1700s which I rode frequently (my grandmother lived out that 
>>> way).
>>>
>>> The only other all-electric brake failure example I can cite was near 
>>> the end of PCC service under PAT.   I saw a car stop at Washington 
>>> Junction and roll backwards.  I watched the operator push the break 
>>> pedal all the way down to energize the track brakes to stop the car. 
>>> The operator made a comment to me that they were not fixing what they 
>>> did not have to fix.   In that case the gradient was so minor that I 
>>> suspect PAT simply was negligent in replacing the brake shoes.   Some of 
>>> my contacts at PAT at the time suggested that parts were not ordered 
>>> until they ran out.   Maybe they couldn't fix it because they had no 
>>> parts?   I don't know whether it was a random failure, a lack of parts, 
>>> or simply we aren't going fix cars that are due to be scrapped if we can 
>>> avoid it.
>>>
>>> Herb:   Always 1700s on Arlington or always during PAT regime when you 
>>> worked there?  If I go back to the early 1960s before PAT, my 
>>> recollection was that the 1700s were common on 35, 36, 37, 38, 42 but 
>>> not the hilltop lines (40, 44, 47, 48, 49, 53..   I have pictures of 
>>> 1700s on Carrick but they were all after the white PAT decal appeared on 
>>> the flanks of the cars.   I also have an image of 1600 on Arlington but 
>>> that sucker wound up all over the system - probably making enemies 
>>> everywhere.   Even my earliest pictures under PAT (May 26, 1964) show 
>>> nothing but air cars on the hilltop lines.
>>>
>>> Was this this accidental that PRC was not running 1700s up there when I 
>>> was there?   Or was it a deliberate policy to keep the air brake cars on 
>>> the steepest lines?
>>>
>>> The steepest grades on route 40 ranged from 10.89 to 12.00 percent.
>>>
>>> John St. on the Arlington line (route 48) was 9.64 percent
>>>
>>> New Arlington Avenue reached 9.15 percent above Carson St.
>>>
>>> Now, Herb, that said, route 31/34 used 1700s.   There was a portion of 
>>> Steuben St. that got to 10.06%.  And Perrysville Avenue was was 9.58% 
>>> and they used 1700s.   So it blows the theory doesn't it.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below -- 
>>> -- Type: image/jpg
>>> -- Size: 800k (819994 bytes)
>>> -- URL : http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/60703.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below -- 
>>> -- Type: text/plain
>>> -- Size: 11k (11536 bytes)
>>> -- URL : http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/ecartUbof7b
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
>>> -- Type: image/jpeg
>>> -- Size: 31k (32525 bytes)
>>> -- URL : 
>>> http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/PAT1784-40FingalNight081966.JPG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>