Talk:Pacific Electric

Untitled
Some notes: /list of lines /corporate history /downtown routings

A fine article
Congratulations to the contributors. Bryan 22:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

pacific electric railway relief map from 1920
http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb638nb72q/ (material in public domain) If this is a useful map, would someone care to add it to the article? -Tonyinthailand 08:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Influence on other systems
I've removed the following text from the article because it reads like a babelfish translation that needs quite a bit of work (and citations) first: ==Affected foreign countries== ===Japan===
 * Pacific electric which was the company which performed rapid transit with the exclusive orbit subject resembled closely towards a Japanese electrification private railroad than American other electric railroads.


 * There was it in what I could put what Pacific electric railroad and a Japanese private railroad came to resemble together for development of electric railroad technology, and living apart with other routes was able to perform by having been a subsidiary of the Southern Pacific railroad which was population growth having advanced, a trunk route in an area, but a part of a Japanese early stage of electric railroad engineer and manager hit route construction and inspected Pacific electric, and there was the direct side to be affected.


 * Hankyu and Tokyu, take in technique of Pacific electric and Huntington performing railroad extension and residential land development in parallel positively from the establishment of a business period, and it may be said that it is a successful example. In the bedroom town by Development along the line of Pacific electric, inhabitants move to a very large house than a thing of the suburbs with expansion of a freeway network, and I take place, and it is it with the town where the inhabitants who cannot "have a car" live in, and there is not a little the area that became a slum occurring frequently of a brutal crime in the integrated telephone service riot that occurred along ex-Long Beach line Pacific electric abolition several years later as a start in the line. When thought about this, technique of Pacific electric as a developer was over without settling in Los Angeles as the head family, and it watched fixation in impossible Japanese metropolitan area or Keihanshin district area rather to be completely dependent on a car from the crowd degree; can ask it it.


 * In the present, it is said that influence amounts to the train bodies color of a red system such as Keikyu, Meitetsu (as for Meitetsu, car turn mark style of handwriting or electric locomotive body color) even if only the painting says, and the body color of Kanto Bus approximately just imitates the bus body color of Pacific electric railroad. But, as for the colour of the ground, it of Pacific electric was silver for white of Kanto Bus. （Kanto Bus regarded the ground as the silver painting to a head at the beginning of 1950's, too.） In addition, a logo is similar shape, too. Pacific electric can always ask this about what was incised on the mind as a certain model for an early stage of electric railway and bus enterprise.

Slambo (Speak) 18:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What were GM and the other companies convicted of?
Many people frame their opinion about the GM Streetcar Conspiracy by starting with the statement that GM et al were convicted of conspiring to rip up streetcar systems across the country. This is an incorrect interpretation of the federal lawsuit, and is often presented as prima facie evidence that the conspiracy was real, and that the companies were guilty as charged. The problem is that the two counts that they were charged with in the lawsuit were simply 1: Conspiring to monopolize the provision of transportation services, and 2: Conspiring to monopolize the sale of equipment and supplies to their subsidiaries (National City Lines and others). They were acquitted on the first charge of trying to monopolize transportation services, but were convicted on the second charge of trying to monopolize the equipment sales to their subsidiary companies.

They were never charged with anything like a conspiracy to rip up streetcar lines, only that they didn't allow competitors to sell the City Lines tires, fuel, and buses.

The conviction was appealed, and the original conviction was upheld by the appeals court. The appeals court ruling contains a summary of the charges, and how they were interpreted, and can be examined in the link below:

http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/770576

Many sites available on internet are very wrong about the court case and the court verdict. They often reference other similar-thinking sites as proof of what they are saying, and it has reached a point where there are so many references and mutual cross references to incorrect information, that readers have come to believe that GM was convicted of conspiring to shut down streetcar lines simply by the imposing number of web sites that say it is so. One of the hazards of internet.

Instead of linking to web sites that contain various authors' opinions about the court case, the reference to the appeals court ruling, cited above, should be the conclusive reference cited in this article, as any other sites typically repeat urban legends, without proper documentation. The court ruling is a clean, seminal source, and is not colored by people's interpretation of the case.

As a final thought: Since National City Lines had less influence over the Pacific Electric than on other streetcar lines in the country, perhaps the bulk of the discussion of the conspiracy theory should be contained in the article covering that subject. This article would only need to contain a summary of the actions National City Lines took while they owned the system, and direct readers to the conspiracy theory article, where the subject would be in one place, and could be explored in more detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Form19y (talk • contribs) 02:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Location ADD Inland Empire (IE)
The IE is Not a LA Suburb so it should be added to the Locale next to Los Angeles and suburbs. Salcan (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy
There wasn't a conspiracy involved with the demise of Pacific Electric. National Lines had little to do with Pacific Electric. Let's not drag that bit in. Binksternet (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, I took out this section, but I noticed the cited Kunstler book The Geography of Nowhere and saved it to be brought down to join the list of books at the bottom. It describes how the Pacific Electric lines "connected the dots" and helped shape LA. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And from that same book (91-92): "In 1943, another NCL affiliate, American City Lines, converted trolleys to busses in nineteen more cities, including Pacific Electric's "Big Red" trolley line in Los Angeles. A federal jury indicted GM for criminal conspiracy in the Los Angeles case in 1949, [...]"Synchronism (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that quote. Can you use Kunstler page numbers as references for the following two paragraphs as well? Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know that book, but I can tell you point blank that Pacific Electric was a wholly owned subsidiary of Southern Pacific from 1910 through 1953, and only then did the passenger operations become Metropolitan Coach Lines. It is improper to quote inaccurate text in an attempt to link National City Lines to Pacific Electric.  In fact, throughout the war, Pacific Electric saw record rail service.  Oleknutlee (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the section above entitled "What were GM and the other companies convicted of?" will answer your claim of a conspiracy in any capacity. Oleknutlee (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source? It's a well regarded book, can you back up your assertations that it is inaccurate?Synchronism (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you knew the corporate history of Pacific Electric, you would not be asking that question. Oleknutlee (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * GM et al profited from the gradual decline of Pacific Electric's passenger rail operations, especially in street-running, through scrapping and provision of busses, the part of the conspiracy they were convicted of. The replacement of shared ROWs with the Los Angeles Railway also constituted part of the conversion of PE's system. The dismantling of much of the LAR prompted further dismantling of the PE.  To say there is no relation between GM et al and the Pacific Electric is absurd.  No, PE was never owned by NCL, but that's not what the quote says.  Synchronism (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "If you knew the corporate history of Pacific Electric, you would not be asking that question..." Okay, cite an author who does know. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that a request for for me or Oleknutlee?Synchronism (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ira L. Swett for starters. It's not difficult to come by, just look at erha.org or Google.  Oleknutlee (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well what does Swett say that is at odds with what Kunstler says?Synchronism (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Kunstler is espousing opinion whereas Swett documented facts. To say GM profited from PE's purchase of buses can be said of White as well, but so what?  There is no evidence of GM or NCL being affiliated with PE in any business operative capacity.  Oleknutlee (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Kunstler has his opinions like anyone else but his book is about the history of land use in the United States. Your saying X but your not giving us any way of verifying X, so to start:  what does Swett say that is at odds with what Kunstler says?Synchronism (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a perfect resource for you... http://www.erha.org/mcl.htm  ...an excerpt from "From Railway to Freeway Pacific Electric and the Motor Coach" by Eli Bail.  Oleknutlee (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not doing your sourcing for you, can you summarize some of the salient points?Synchronism (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like you to explain how a book written on land use qualifies as a history of the Pacific Electric Railway. I'm just pointing you towards more valid sources, it's up to you to take advantage.  Oleknutlee (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't, it qualifies as a reliable source. Transportation is one of the main considerations of the study of land use. If you plan on contributing to the encyclopedia it is strongly desired that you be able to prove (WP:RS) what you are saying and you haven't done that, specifically: How is Kunstler inaccurate?  If there is another outtake on whether PE and GM have a special connection it should also be represented in the article.  Removing referenced text from the encyclopedia is totally unconstructive, it ought to contributed to with reliable sources.Synchronism (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone, including Kunstler, can write a book filled with inaccurate information. I question Kunstler's sources, can you provide his references, or do you simply believe anything published regardless of merit?  You have yet to provide any concrete evidence for your claims.  Quite frankly I wonder just how you yourself are affiliated with Pacific Electric.  Oleknutlee (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * More importantly, I think it would be interesting to know your rationale for directly contradicting the corporate history already spelled out by the preceding section entitled "Dismantling", which I've no contention with as it's admirably accurate. Oleknutlee (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Replace both existng info templates
Replace both existing info templates with the alternate template shown while filling in all the data, etc.: Peter Horn 16:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Peter Horn 16:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Great American Streetcar Scandal?
The 'Great American Streetcar Scandal' section in this article doesn't actually contain any specific references to Pacific Electric Railway or its services. There are certainly two or more versions of what happened and we need to make sure that we are right.

In the 1970s Snell claimed in testimony to the Senate some claims which have been repeated many times since, but which are also disputed, that:


 * "In 1938, General Motors and Standard Oil of California organized Pacific City Lines (PCL) as an affiliate of National City Lines to motorize west coast electric railways. The following year PCL acquired, scrapped, and substituted bus lines for three northern California electric rail systems in Fresno, San Jose, and Stockton. In 1940 GM, Standard Oil, and Firestone “assumed the active management of Pacific (City Lines)” in order to supervise its California operations more directly. That year, PCL began to acquire and scrap portions of the $100 million Pacific Electric system, including rail lines from Los Angeles to Glendale, Burbank, Pasadena, and San Bernardino.203 Subsequently, in December 1944, another NCL affiliate (American City Lines) was financed by GM and Standard Oil to motorize downtown Los Angeles. At the time, the Pacific Electric shared downtown Los Angeles trackage with a local electric streetcar company, the Los Angeles Railway. American City Lines purchased the local system, scrapped its electric transit cars, tore down its power transmission lines, ripped up the tracks, and placed GM diesel buses fueled by Standard Oil on Los Angeles’ crowded streets.204 In sum, GM and its auto-industrial allies severed Los Angeles’ regional rail links and then motorized its downtown heart.205

Guy Span has written a detailed critic of the above saying:
 * "Snell’s report can also be misleading (apparently intentionally so). Snell says, "In 1940, GM, Standard Oil and Firestone assumed an active control in Pacific (City Lines)… That year, PCL began to acquire and scrap portions of the $100 million Pacific Electric System (of Roger Rabbit fame)." This statement implies that PCL was getting control of Pacific Electric, when in reality, all they did was acquire the local streetcar systems of Pacific Electric in Glendale and Pasadena and then convert them to buses. Many superficial readers jump on this statement as proof that GM moved in the Red Cars of the Pacific Electric. The ugly little fact is that PCL never acquired Pacific Electric (it was owned by Southern Pacific Railroad until 1953)."

His version of what actually happened is here.

Can I suggest that we research the above a bit and then rework the content to match with what we find and avoid blindly following these claims unless they can be proved to be true? I can vouch that Span's critic of Snell's work in relation the New York is valid, so we should be careful about blindly using Snell's version which was after-all researched over 30 years ago and GM certainly weren't being open about what they had been up to!

--PeterEastern (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed some of the more general content from the section that didn't really belong in this article and have added some more specific claims that Span makes as a better approximation to what happened while we work on it. I will do some more research over the coming days. PeterEastern (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to say that I have now completed a review of the article and I hope that I have integrated the 'scandal' content into the general narrative in a fair way. I think this in general confirms that Span's view is much more accurate than Snell's early work which has indeed been repeated in many publications, but is still wrong in places! Overall I think the article demonstrates that PE was doomed long before it was taken over. If one wants to see a system that was 'killed' then I think Key System is the best place to start which I was working on yesterday and found very illuminating. PeterEastern (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Counting reds
Can anybody say how many cars the line had in service in the '30s & '40s? Or at all? IMO, it'd be worth adding. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  20:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

L.A. Noire
Hi. Could one add info about such a nice videogame as L.A. Noire that has L.A. in 40s including PE system and buildings. (idk if them are ok in it but it's definitely notable fact for "in culture" section of this article). I'm too lazy to do it on my own, sorry for that :) -- Base talk сontr.  07:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

References/Citations
In relation to the subject of the history of the Pacific Electric's Western Division and its ancestor lines and companies, I may have at my disposal some bibliographical reference material that could prove useful to substantiate some of the references that need to be cited.

Some of the history needs to be cleared up and clarified as well.

Tom 18:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

PE as bus-owner.
Los Angeles Motor Coach Company, initially formed as LA Motor Bus, was a joint venture of the PE and LARy as a widening of the response to the McAdoo led -or fronted- bus proposal. PE Land Company, a PE subsidiary, also had a few bus lines of its own, as did several smaller players, to say nothing of the steam roads, stages, and long-haul bus lines. Most of the "empty space" at the time of the great merger was being developed through the twenties, and little of it was served by electric traction. This should be reflected here, I think. Anmccaff (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Pacific Electric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20030621112515/http://www.westworld.com:80/~elson/larail/PE/tunnel.html to http://www.westworld.com/~elson/larail/PE/tunnel.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070810081035/http://www.mta.net/images/HuntingtonLibrary.pdf to http://www.mta.net/images/HuntingtonLibrary.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101223215825/http://www.disneylandnews.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=538 to http://www.disneylandnews.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=538

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Pacific Electric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090529055132/http://www.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us:80/govt/pet.htm to http://www.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us/govt/pet.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Article Name
Some difference of opinion on the article name. Pacific Electric or Pacific Electric Railway - From what source is the article name? I don't see it but have heard the company referred to as both and seen reporting marks as PE and PERy - What is official source? Lexlex (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Its full name was the Pacific Electric Railway Company. Easy enough to check; the California Railroad Commission's reports made it into a lot of libraries that use Worldcat, as did a fair number of its own publications.  Anmccaff (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

(So put the Railway back, already.)
 * '"Pacific Electric Railway Company" is not the edit you made: Your edit omitted 'Company'. We can use the legal name or the common name, but making up a third version isn't really acceptable. The company publicly referred to itself as "Pacific Electric" in consumer publications and in public display, for example the headquarters building is called only the "Pacific Electric Building" — the crown moulding clearly shows only PE (See [This Photo]). And probably most telling, the words in the logo are only "Pacific Electric" with no mention of "Railway Company". I would think that because Pacific Electric is the more common name, that should be both lead and article title. Otherwise, the article should be moved to reflect the actual company name and that should be used in the lead. Personally I have no preference, but I think a mismatched article name and title is confusing. Lexlex (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For precedence, note that the Amtrak article name is not the legal name "National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)" Lexlex (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Pacific Electric," "Pacific Electric Railway" and "Pacific Electric Railway Company" were all used: a very different situation from Amtrak, where the short dba name dominates completely. The "Red Car System" stuff, on the other hand, is largely a foamerism.


 * Look at General Motors, Ford Motors, Burlington Northern, Pennsylvania Railroad, New York Central for other precedence. "Precedences", by the look of it. Anmccaff (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"Successors?" Maybe. "Revival?" No.
More betterer, but still NKR. The PE was a privately held mixed system that did not cease to exist, rather was absorbed into the SP, which in turn was gobbled up by the UP. It got out of the passenger business, passing it off to a series of operators, first private, then public. The last a PE-built passenger line ran was in the early sixties.

The continuity simply isn't there, except in some foamers minds. This article should be split, or renamed to reflect the two separate operations. Heavy weight and medium electric rail is pack in some places, but the PE is still gone. Anmccaff (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe "Route Revivals"? Anmccaff (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no verifiable reference for either view, so lets ,maintain the status quo.
Could you expand on this? I'say there are a considerable number of verifiable references for one of the views. Adler, Bianco, Bottles, Levinson, Post, and Richmond, for an accessible start. Anmccaff (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If that were true, then you could have easily added one to validate your edit. You didn't, I reverted, we're discussing. So now you can add it, and were good to go. Simples.--Morphenniel (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)