Railway Preservation News
https://www.rypn.org/forums/

Abilene, TX trolley tracks removed
https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26990		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Sloan [ Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Abilene, TX trolley tracks removed
http://www.reporternews.com/news/2009/j ... s-torn-up/
Author:  Bob Davis [ Tue Jan 27, 2009 10:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abilene, TX trolley tracks removed
I clicked on the link and read the newspaper article about the trolley tracks being salvaged. It mentioned that the streetcar line opened in 2907, but didn't say when the line was abandoned. There's a website that lists systems abandoned since 1945; Abilene is not listed, so it probably quit in the 1930's (along with so many other trolley lines). There were comments below the article, one of which provided links to articles about the "GM conspiracy" and another which recalled E. Jay Quimby's efforts to stem the tide of electric railway abandonments. The question for us in the railway preservation field is: How should we respond to museum visitors who blame the disappearance of trolley lines on General Motors?
Author:  wesp [ Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Abilene, TX trolley tracks removed
I usually explain that in general the tracks and equipment had served their useful structural and mechanical lives. The decreasing ridership of the 20s and 30s brought on by private auto ownership meant that there was no incentive to invest private money in new infrastructure and equipment, and with some exceptions, the era of public financing and operation of was mass transit was years away. Under these circumstance the trolley's decline was inevitable. National City Lines was an opportunistic effort to cash in on the situation.

Wesley
Author:  Romi Romano [ Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abilene, TX trolley tracks removed
[quote="wesp"] "I usually explain that in general the tracks and equipment had served their useful structural and mechanical lives. The decreasing ridership of the 20s and 30s... National City Lines was an opportunistic effort to cash in on the situation."

This is a statement that I am making of the facts that I have found based on the balanced research that I did last semester for my English Composition class. While some of GM's (and others in Detroit) movement was opportunistic, the basis for the systematic removal of trolley and other transit systems started in 1922. In 1921 GM lost $65 million, in 1922 Alfred P. Sloan established a special unit within GM to replace America’s trolley lines with cars, trucks, and buses. The National City Lines (NSL) (and others) was used later to purchase lines that were viable.

After NSL took over a line there was a systematic downgrading of the right of way and equipment, giving the impression that the trolley was an outmoded means of transportation. The irony is that most city bus lines follow the exact routes today that the trolley had covered. Another bonus for converting to buses was there was no longer a need to maintain a fleet of snowplows, sweepers, and other maintenance vehicles.

There are other allegations made that Detroit used financial threats and intimidation during this period as well.

The information I have cited is part of the public record. See: Snell, Bradford (1974) American Ground Transport, Part 4A of Hearings in S. 1167, The Industrial Reorganization Act, before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee of the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session (Washington, D.C.: 1974).

Romi Romano
Author:  wilkinsd [ Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abilene, TX trolley tracks removed
Oh here we go again..... Just because Bradford Snell said it, doesn't mean it's true.

I like to point out that when NCL turned over several of their larger properties over to public operators, streetcars still ran in those cities (St. Louis, Philly, El Paso, Los Angeles). I guess Sloan wasn't too sucessful in his grand, evil, scheeming plan. Instead you can blame Bi State Development, SEPTA, the City of El Paso, and LMATA for killing off the streetcar in those cities.

I know the GM conspiracy is popular fodder, but United Railway of St. Louis already started the abandonment process before NCL took over. NCL considered buying more PCCs, but the investment required to maintain street railways in face of interestate construction, "white flight," suburbanization, and taxation by municipalties was simply too much to withstand. Even in the 1930s, there was industry literature that calcualted the ridership levels a company needed to maintain in order to run a streetcar system, a trolley busy system, and a bus system. Even here in St. Louis, the bus line that sees the most traffic, the 70-Grand line sees ridership that pales in comparison to the days when Red and Cream PCC cars ran up and down the street.

The electric railway industry also didn't do enough by the 1920s to advance the technology of the street railway. By the time the President's Conference started, streetcar technology hadn't advanced much since the era of Sprague. Part of this lack of innovation probably came from complacancy, and partly from having to finance your operation from farebox revenue. In many ways, the PCC was too little too late.

It should be remembered that National City Lines started out buying small city systems. These were the early victims of the automobile, and really didn't need any help from NCL, Sloan or GM to fail as streetcar systems. Back in the days of tax subsidies, transit systems were operated by private companies. After the New Deal, power companies were forced by big government to divest their transit assets. Many systems could no longer hide in the profibility of their power company owners. All of these systems had to live and die by the laws of economics, and their fidicuiary duties to their owners and investors. As such, the bus made sense. I imagine it would have in spite of the alleged meddling of GM. Low startup costs, easy route flexibity, and better suited to handle increasing traffic, the bus made sense on many routes and in many smaller cities.

Mr. Romano is correct, but I think he msises the point when he references work equipment. People often don't understand or appreciate the complex infrastructure that has to be in place to run a street railway system in any city of an appreciable size. You need power facilities, overhead equipment, rail gangs, and all kinds of specialized equipment. Simply put, even in the era of cheap labor, it took a lot of money to make any sort of money in the street railway industry. On the other hand, need to change a bus route? Put up new bus stop signs, and print new timetables. It isn't quite that easy to reroute a street railway route.

I live in a metropolitan area which just rejected a tax hike to pay for Metrolink and other public transportation. Part of the rejection, I believe, comes from the bad taste in the voters mouth given the massive construction cost overruns that occured in the last Metrolink extension. Even I, a fan of rail, sometimes wonder if the investment really yields returns that make it worth the enormous investment to build and operate light rail, especially when the operating ageny has shown to be bad stewards of public money.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/