By the time I first rode both trains, on a round-trip to Chicago in connection with work on McCormick Place in 1959, the two railroads were cooperating to the extent that you could get a round-trip rate going one way on one and returning on the other, which indeed I did.
Unless one was riding all the way between NY and Chicago or Chicago and NY, it didn't matter as all intermediate stops were different. But note, too, "cooperation" was not a word to be used but rather in the spirit (and business of) "competition" would be more applicable. Both trains served their respective railroads and respective clientle well.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Of course the word (or words) Broadway goes back to the Dutch. This picture is in the book about the artist Grif Teller.
https://books.google.com/books?id=6sZVp41FVOsC&pg=PA84&dq=%22one+afternoon+in+the+summer+of+1927+grif+teller%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMpqiN9dnMAhWMWz4KHW3rDEYQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22one%20afternoon%20in%20the%20summer%20of%201927%20grif%20teller%22&f=true
Fabulous wanswheel! That would appear to settle things...have never seen this one before. Thanks
Pennsylvania Special was still the train's name in MCMX, but PRR was already giving regards to Broadway.
wjstixNote that it is the "Broad Way Limited", referring to PRR's broad four-track mainline. The train name had nothing to do with New York City's Broadway theater district.
It didn't ... by then. Go back and re-read the quote from the PRR passenger agent that Mike (wanswheel) found.
It's pretty clear that the "Broadway" was originally given that name to identify it with New York City, and that it was differentiated later ... for some reason. I can think of several potential ones, but don't know the "right" ones. This certainly shows the importance of reading and understanding the primary sources in understanding the history of situations like this...
wanswheel
Note that it is the "Broad Way Limited", referring to PRR's broad four-track mainline. The train name had nothing to do with New York City's Broadway theater district.
The Broadway picked up some patronage in its last decade after the NYC moved to add coaches to the 20th Century Limited in 1958. From Karl Zimmerman's article "The end of the all-Pullman Limiteds" in Summer 2008 Classic Trains:
"Ironically, the Broadway enjoyed perhaps its finest hour in the decade before being stripped of its all Pullman cachet. Prior to that, it had sailed in the shadow of its direct rival, NYC's 20th Century Limited. After April 1958, however, when NYC combined the Commodore Vanderbilt (already with coaches) and the Century, PRR's all Pullman Broadway finally had its day in the sun...Marketing became more aggressive, capitalizing on the train now being the only all-Pullman New York to Chicago service. In the first year, Broadway ridership jumped 14%, reversing a downward trend."
--Reed
wjstix I have heard that part of the difference in patronage came from the New York Central being more connected with New York City - it's headquarters were there, and it's advertising stressed the ease of travel for businessmen leaving the city for Chicago (or points in between). The Broadway was apparently seen by many in the traveling public as a Philadelphia train, and of course the Pennsy was headquartered there. Both great trains, but sometimes people's perceptions are more important than the reality.
I have heard that part of the difference in patronage came from the New York Central being more connected with New York City - it's headquarters were there, and it's advertising stressed the ease of travel for businessmen leaving the city for Chicago (or points in between). The Broadway was apparently seen by many in the traveling public as a Philadelphia train, and of course the Pennsy was headquartered there. Both great trains, but sometimes people's perceptions are more important than the reality.
True and somewhat the intention of the PRR to associate it with Philly.
After WWI and the reinstatement of the Broadway it did, as mentioned, lose some of its momentum. In 1925 the PRR instituted a program that targeted westbound travelers for the Broadway, particularly those from Philadelphia (and to some degree Washington D.C.). The campaign advertising stressed the "broad way" of the four track main from Philly. Westbound trains were also equipped with complimentary items that stressed this theme, such as postcards, notepaper, etc., that had the two word spelling of Broad Way, unlike the the eastbound that still used the traditional one word version.
Travel from Chicago recovered faster and the railroad felt there was no need for any targeted advertising. The Philly based campaign would last into the early 1930's where once again the ridership was falling off due to the depression. It was this campaign that years later started the rumor that the Broadway's name was due to the four track mainline.
The "Broad Way" theme was also used in advertising for the PRR's train/plane experiment during this same time period.
The Broadway lost some momentum in World War I.
I too still feel that pang. Yes, we were done in by gummint as much as by planes and better roads (which of course had a leg up from gummint). I also continue to think a lot of the old services, especially in traditional corridors such as Cleveland-Chicago, could have survived if the whole industry hadn't been beggared by the regulators.
Well stated Dakotafred. We can really understand those thoughts looking back, at the time not so much. Also in their defense the railroads went all out, no expense spared in refurbishing and modernizing with incredibly huge investments in new trains and equipment, along with marketing and innovation and maintained a high level of service for a long period of time after 1945. Connecting trains and even good branch line service was there well past it's never to return date. So they gave it one heck of try. The end result however, still disturbs me and I cannot get over just how much we lost. There should have been fair competition, deregulation, common sense and cooperation, even investment, granted at all levels of government as gratitude and as a necessity, for the Herculean and unsung effort by all the railroads for their role in achieving victory in WWII.
All that is now lost to us, including the Century.
Especially in retrospect, from the perspective of today's bottom line-driven executives -- and, if they won't do it, the board will find someone who will -- one can appreciate the frustration of the RR execs of 50 years ago.
On the one hand, they had in their hearts the proud tradition of their roads' long history of good passenger service; in their heads, their responsibility to the shareholders (and to themselves). It must have driven the Perlmans and Menks crazy to see all their hard work toward plant rationalization and innovative freight service eaten alive by passenger deficits enforced by regulators who had no skin in the game.
I try to put myself in their place, when I mourn the demise of the passenger service I grew up with 50-60 years ago.
DeggestyI may have missed them, but I do not recall seeing any notice that the PRR ran additional sections of the Broadway Limited; this seems to have been a regular matter with the 20th Century Limited.
Somewhere -- I think in one of Staufer's books -- is the point that while the Broadway did run in sections when demand warranted, it had notably fewer sections than the Century did on nearly any given day. The Century service was 'that much' better patronized for customers going between the two endpoints (and not needing a particular stop served only by NYC or PRR or a logical connection from one).
I've always thought of 'sections' as a way of dividing a long train into manageable 'chunks' that will (1) fit conveniently into operating block limits, (2) allow near-simultaneous access on parallel platforms without switching or other delays both before departure and after arrival, (3) minimize the distance passengers have to walk to reach the lounge or diner (etc.) and fit the characteristics of available locomotive power (including steam for "climate control") and good train handling ... etc.
When I was a kid reading about early midtrain radio control I immediately thought of the idea of consolidating sections 'on the fly' and controlling them in one long special train much as distributed power might do today. Of course there was comparatively little need for multiple sections ... precious little need, in fact, for even one section as that turned out.
And yes, I can still remember where I was when I read that Perlman was cancelling the Twentieth Century Limited. It seemed at the time to be impossible, made bittersweet only by Perlman's explanation that he wanted to stop the service while it was still professionally worked.
Little did I realize what was coming in the following decade!
Thanks.
Johnny
Deggesty I may have missed them, but I do not recall seeing any notice that the PRR ran additional sections of the Broadway Limited; this seems to have been a regular matter with the 20th Century Limited.
I may have missed them, but I do not recall seeing any notice that the PRR ran additional sections of the Broadway Limited; this seems to have been a regular matter with the 20th Century Limited.
The Broadway did in fact run extra sections. The years prior to the depression were the golden ones for both the Broadway and Century as both railroads were very consious about passenger convienence. The Pullman Company assured both railroads that cars would be available in both Chicago and New York to meet demands of any particular day.
A train was desired to run at a maximum of nine cars, then if sales started to exceed that number and enough space was sold to accomodate thirteen cars it was then a section was created reducing the train to the desired number of approximately nine cars. This was done not so much in response to passenger sales but sales with consideration to passenger comfort. The PRR and NYC wanted patrons to sit, relax, and enjoy a meal in the dining car, not being rushed to accomodate a crowded train, same for the parlor car not being over crowded.
This is why in older photo's of the trains they appear short with some sporting only seven cars. The record for the Century occured on January 7, 1929 when it ran in seven identical sections due to an automobile show in New York City. GST that same day had an impressive record of 266 sleeping cars arriving. I am still trying to find the numbers for Penn Station on that day, I'm sure they are just as impressive.
During the 1930's equipment upgrades, improved locomotive power, declining ridership due to the economy this practice somewhat changed. When both trains were re-equipped in 1938 the trains were longer accomodating more people comfortably, still additional sections were operated, more so on the NYC. The PRR's "General" kept the Broadway ridership down as it basically was a cheaper, slower version of it. Upgraded Trail Blazer and Pacemaker trains didn't help either, quite impressive coach trains with many ammenities. The Broadway did occasionally run in sections after this time and into its Penn Central years.
When I am researching info for articles I keep an eye out for information on these two trains, sifting through years of newspapers is time consuming and tedious as "Wanswheel" I am sure can attest to. The story of the Broadway and the Century to me is a fascinating study, the more I read into it these two railroads were more in cooperation with eachother to keep the public interest than they let on.
Also, a previous post lists an NYC yard in Cleveland as Colingwood, its Collinwood. I once interviewd a former NYC employee who years ago passed away. He on occasion would be assigned to the Century and I asked if the rumor about the Century stopping to let off passengers in Cleveland was true. Cleveland back then was an industrial giant and the home to many influential business moguls, at one time to include John D. Rockefeller. He said if they did that person was usually riding in a trailing section...money talked.
He also explained about a single locomotive and crew that would sit on a special siding near Berea Tower on Clevelands near west side. They would wait for the Century to pass through an assigned distance of track that was monitored for them in case the Century were to breakdown requiring a change in locomotive. If this happened they delivered the locomotive getting the Century back on the road again in minimal time.
nyc#25 The "Century" operated via the lake front and avoided CUT.
The "Century" operated via the lake front and avoided CUT.
Additional information to the above stated fact; from 1902 when the Century began and up to 30 June 1930 the NYC station in Cleveland was along the shore of Lake Erie. Called Union Depot which was shared with the PRR, the name was changed when Cleveland Union Terminal opened in 1930, now called Old Union Depot. This again changed in April of 1946 as the PRR was now the lone tenant and called it Pennsylvania Station. The Century continued to run on the lake front route passing by the NYC's old homestead and as stated avoiding CUT.
Farm Implements, Aug. 28, 1916
The Two Finest Trains in the World
By H.C. Beckman, Manager, Special Centrifugals Department, Chicago Office, De Laval Separator Co.
In thousands of hotel writing rooms all over the country are handsomely colored lithographs of the New York Central Twentieth Century Limited, the twenty-hour train (used to be eighteen) running between Chicago and New York, a train of solid Pullmans of steel construction and the latest design throughout, equipped with every conceivable convenience—barber shop, bathroom, valet, fine large buffet smoker for the men, combination library and observation car for the ladies, stenographer for the busy business man, colored maids for the ladies, telephone connections which make it possible to telephone from the train at stations; in fact, everything that the ingenuity of man has been able to devise for the comfort and convenience of the traveler. No wonder you say this train is universally regarded as the finest train in the world. If a friend asks you “What is the best train from Chicago to New York, regardless of expense,” you would answer without hesitation, “The Twentieth Century Limited, by all means.”
Now, what are the real facts? The Twentieth Century is unquestionably a wonderful train, but is it the finest train in the world? Have you ever heard of the Broadway Limited? If you have never made a trip on it, or particularly if you have never even heard it, you probably will be very much surprised to know that this train is the exact counterpart in all essential details of the Twentieth Century. It makes the trip in exactly same time, departs and arrives at the same time; has exactly the same equipment, the same kind of cars, the same barber shop, bathroom, stenographers, telephones and everything else that the Century has and, in fact, to all intents and purposes the trains are in identically the same class.
It is not a new train; in fact, this Pennsylvania extra fast train was put on a few months before the Twentieth Century; yet there are ten who know of the Century to one who has ever even heard of the Broadway Limited. The Century carries three or four times as many passengers as the Broadway and frequently runs in two sections of ten and twelve cars, each loaded to the guards, while the Broadway frequently leaves the station with only four or five cars half full, many passengers being those who could not obtain space on the Century.
Why this difference?
It certainly is not due to superior equipment because the equipment is identically the same. It is not due to greater comfort, for if anything, it is more comfortable to travel on the Broadway because it is not crowded. You do not have to fight your way through a crowd to get into the diner, nor walk through an endless maze of sleepers to reach the observation car, only to find every seat taken. On the Broadway there is always plenty of room in the library car and it is seldom that you cannot get a seat on the observation platform.
Then why is it?
The answer is ADVERTISING.
The Century has been advertised from hill to hamlet the country over.
When the Century leaves the station in every seat there is a stamped, colored postcard of the “Finest Train in the World,” ready for you to mail to one of your friends, and you may be sure that nine-tenths of them are mailed. You can always think of some excuse to let some one know that you making the trip to New York on the Century.
The Pennsylvania Railroad crosses the AIIegheny Mountains. The New York Central travels along the valleys of the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers, but even such virtues as are attributed to the road-bed of the latter, because of the “sea-level route,” are largely imaginary and the result of advertising. On the map the Hudson River looks as straight as a string but in actuality there is a scarcely a mile of the shore that is straight. As the New York Central must follow the exact shore line, it in reality has considerably more crooks and curves than the average railroad. To be sure, the Pennsylvania must go uphill a good share of the time, then downhill the rest of the way, but a long grade causes inconvenience to no one on the train but the fireman.
As a study of the power of advertising comparison of these two trains is an interesting problem. Here are two articles of substantially equal merit and equal cost yet one has a three or four times larger sale than the other. –The De Laval Monthly
Also, when the well-heeled travel by private jet, either their own or a rental from say, NetJets, they also avoid encounters with TSA or other airport security.
Don't have to mix with the hoi-polloi in the terminals either.
No waiting on line for that crowd. I'd do it too if I could afford it.
And with the airlines of today - even 1st Class has less 'prestige' for the class of passenger that would book passage on the 20th Century Limited or 'The DeLuxe' - for them to get the class of service they desire, they buy and staff their own jets. Commercial airlines or other means of public transportation - NEVER!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
While its true that the 20th Century Limited and Broadway Limited were equals in terms of equipment, scheduling and amenities, the general public perceived the Century as superior due to NYC's efforts in marketing and branding of the train. Wanswheel's earlier entry which included the 1913 Printer's Ink letter concerning the renaming the Pennsylvania Special to the Broadway Limited hits the nail on the head. The name "20th Century Limited", developed by NYC's general passenger agent, George H Daniels, caught the public's attention right from the beginning.
PRR made a strategic mistake in naming its entry the Pennsylvania Special instead of developing a unique name that also could attract the public's attention. To be fair, in the pre-WW1 years, the prevalent business attitude was that a good product should stand on its own merits and most advertising of the time focused on informing. But at the same time, the novel concept of marketing and branding was starting to be utilized by forward thinking businesses, such as NYC. So during the time that the Pennsylvania Special existed (including the time period between February 1903 and November 1905, when the Special did not run, giving NYC carte blanche with the 20th Century) , NYC was busy cultivating an image and cachet for the Century that appealed to a coveted demographic, the high-profiled moneyed class. To them, riding the Century reinforced their perceived aspirational desires and status. If those individuals hadn't needed such validation, a drawing room in the Pennsylvania Limited or Wolveriene would have sufficied - and for a lot of travelers, that was good enough. So, by the time the Pennsylvania Special became the Broadway Limited, the 20th Century had leg up by being the perceived best way to get from New York to Chicago, a perception that PRR had to constantly fight against.
Santa Fe utilized NYC's approach when it established and operated the pre-WW1 winter-season Santa Fe de-luxe; with advertisements featuring nose-in-the-air butlers and charging an extra fare of $25 1912 dollars (equaling to about $625 in todays money) that train appealed to the same status-conscious clientele that patrionized the Century.
The success of the play and film "20th Century" must have been a thorn on the side of PRR. Fighting fire with fire, PRR cooperated with Hal Roach Studios in a film "Broadway Limited" in 1941. Unfortunately, while the film portrayed the Fleet of Modernism Broadway in a good light, the story itself left something to be desired.
PRR paid a price putting up the Broadway against the 20th Century, the former lacking the aura of the latter. The Broadway didnt have the Century's passenger counts; during the depression years it ran primarily as a corporate face-saving gesture, running almost empty while the Century was still running full, albeit with fewer sections.
A problem with catering to this type of clientele is that they are not permanently beholden to anything and are always searching for something better. As a result, they began taking to the skies, leaving the rails behind. The Century eventually lost its luster when coaches were added and the exclusive services were dropped. The remaining clientele that still used the rails switched to the Broadway, giving that train a golden indian summer of operation.
Myron Bilas
MidlandMike daveklepper The Century never did go into the PublicTerminal, and stopped only in Colingwood for crew change. This was true for many years of The New England States as well. Having ridden both during the good years, a tossup. I presume they took the Belt Line around Cleveland to avoid the 2 engine changes, steam to electric thru CUT, and then back to steam.
daveklepper The Century never did go into the PublicTerminal, and stopped only in Colingwood for crew change. This was true for many years of The New England States as well. Having ridden both during the good years, a tossup.
The Century never did go into the PublicTerminal, and stopped only in Colingwood for crew change. This was true for many years of The New England States as well. Having ridden both during the good years, a tossup.
I presume they took the Belt Line around Cleveland to avoid the 2 engine changes, steam to electric thru CUT, and then back to steam.
Excerpt from Limiteds, Locals, and Expresses in Indiana 1838-1971 by Craig Sanders (2003)
To prevent confusion with the Pennsylvania Limited, the Pennsylvania renamed the Pennsylvania Special the Broadway Limited on November 24, 1912. By some accounts the Pennsy intended the name to be Broad Way Limited in honor of the multiple track mainline between New York and Pittsburgh. But newspaper stories spelled it Broadway, leaving many to erroneously believe the train was named for New York’s theater district.
Excerpt from Printers’ Ink, Jan. 23, 1913
Last summer Printers’ Ink published a letter from a correspondent who was seriously wondering if it had not been a mistake for the Pennsylvania Railroad to have called its eighteen-hour train between New York and Chicago the “Pennsylvania Special” when it already had a “Pennsylvania Limited.” Personally, he said, he was never sure whether it was the “Special” or the “Limited” that made the run in eighteen hours; he found many of his friends to whom he put the question confused, too. He pointed out the fact that nobody was ever confused about the name or character of the “Twentieth Century Limited,” which was known certainly not less by its name than by the advertising of its name.
It is a fact, possibly having no connection with the letter, that the name of the “Pennsylvania Special” was changed within three months afterward to the “Broadway Limited,” a much more satisfactory name and one which really can compete for merit with the name of the New York Central's famous train.
The change, when it was made, awakened a good deal of speculation on this point, which the editor of Printers’ Ink thought to satisfy by finding out the real reasons which prompted it. The road's reply is as follows:
The Pennsylvania Railroad Co., Philadelphia, Jan. 7, 1913
To the Editor of Printers’ Ink:
I have your query in respect to the dropping of the name “Pennsylvania Special,” and the substitution for it of the “Broadway Limited.” You are quite right in your assumption that the name applies to the Pennsylvania's fastest train to Chicago. It has been felt for some time that the old name was not distinctive enough to prevent its confusion with the Pennsylvania Limited, and in casting about for a unique designation the present title was adopted as an appropriate one.
It is obvious that the name of an advertised article, whether it is a particular brand of a product or a train, should carry an advertising value to make it effective. As the nearest railroad station to Broadway is the leaving and arriving point of this train, the embodying of Broadway in its title seems to identify it with the life and activities of the great thoroughfare.
F. N. Barksdale, Advertising Agent
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter