The Chicago-Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, or Seattle fare was the same for all routes. And, if you bought a round trip ticket to San Franciso, you could go to Los Angeles, up to Seattle, and return to Chicago. Also Pullman fares between Chicago and the West Coast were the same whether you spent two nights or three nights on the train.
I am not certain, but I have the impression that the fare from Montgomery, Alabama, to Washington, D.C. was the same whether you went through Atlanta or Waycross.
Johnny
How involved was the government in controlling the passenger rates at that time?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
In the Classic Era, say up to the beginning of massive train-offs with the impact of efficient air transportation, around 1954 or so, the NY - Chicago fare via the Erie, LV-GTW. or NKP-DL&W was LESS than via the PRR, NYC, and B&O. Two groups of fares, the same for the routes in both catagories. With extra fare applicable to the top coach and all=Pullman trains of the PRR and NYC only.
I believe Chicago - LA and Chicago - SF was the same for all routes, RI-SP, AT&SF, C&NW-UP, C&NW-UP-SP, and CB&Q-D&RGW-WP, the latter the same via the Moffet or via the Royal George.
Similarly, the PRR offered a side-trip to Washinton DC between NYC and Chicago to compete with the B&O.
The NYCentral was the same via Cleveland or via Detroit, and offered a side-trip to Niagra Falls.
The AT&SF was the same via Raton Pass or via Amerillo.
But the extra fares applied only to the top trains, Super Chief, CofLA, CofSF, Century, Broadway, El Cap, Pacemaker.
Boston - Chicago was the same via New York City or direct via the B&A or B&M and Albany.
DeggestyIncidentally, the fare between Boston and New York was the same, no matter which route you took, before Amtrak. I recall that, after Amtrak began operation, someone who was not familiar with the concept of competitive fares was amazed to learn that they were the same.
Just a thought: I understand that before deregulation, the carriers were required to charge the lowest rate for freight shipments between two points no matter which route was actually taken. I wonder if there was a similar requirement for passenger fares, or, if not, maybe the railroads just carried that mindset over to the passenger service.
daveklepper OK. It is the Speed Merchant and not the Daniel Webster. But some of this equipment did run into Amtrak operations. For a short time, Amtrak had an "Inland Route" NY GCT - Boston, but change in New Haven to and from a Shoreline train, schedule via Springfield. And when I rode it, just once, because I was staying in the Boston area with a friend living in Newton. the New Haven - Boston via Springfield train was partially Roger Williams equipment, one cabcar and one intermediate car, plus a regular Budd. This schedule did not last long. Nothing unusual on the trip, no food service, but on time and equipment clean.
OK. It is the Speed Merchant and not the Daniel Webster. But some of this equipment did run into Amtrak operations. For a short time, Amtrak had an "Inland Route" NY GCT - Boston, but change in New Haven to and from a Shoreline train, schedule via Springfield. And when I rode it, just once, because I was staying in the Boston area with a friend living in Newton. the New Haven - Boston via Springfield train was partially Roger Williams equipment, one cabcar and one intermediate car, plus a regular Budd.
This schedule did not last long. Nothing unusual on the trip, no food service, but on time and equipment clean.
Incidentally, the fare between Boston and New York was the same, no matter which route you took, before Amtrak. I recall that, after Amtrak began operation, someone who was not familiar with the concept of competitive fares was amazed to learn that they were the same.
Question: Were any of the Pullman-built New Haven AC-DC post-WWII Budckey Domain - ordered 4400s, air-conditioned "Washboards" saved? This museum would be the logical place.
aegrotatioThat comment is unnecessary.
Before you get all snippety as the forum police, be reminded that we have extensive threads -- more than one or two -- about this particular subject and Joe's opinions concerning it.
It is worthless to point out what Acela speed might be in the sections it has distinctive advantage; what matters is time, and the gains made by Acela over conventional equipment operated at its comparable speed are not particularly significant.
You can't have a conversation and call people suckers.
You need to go back and read the context. The point Joe was initially making was concerning the second-generation Acelas, in particular that a very substantial amount of their 'HSR' speed potential would be, and will be, almost completely wasted on the NEC even if all the right-of-way improvements likely finished during their effective service lives are made. That is the technical context ... not that the perceived amenities or marketing cachet of the 'Acela' service fail to justify its retention as a class of service, or that some amount of fully-completed spending to buy ridiculously-overqualified trainsets is 'wasted'.
However, Joe's point was, and is, that the money allocated for the HSR sets might be much more gainfully spent ... for NEC service in the next couple of decades ... on more conventional equipment that can still make respectable timings between Boston and NYC and NYC and Washington, with the money so saved put into amenity improvements both for Acela service and some of the only-slightly-slower regional trainsets.
AEM-7 and ACS-64 cannot meet either schedule, either.
Quite frankly, Joe (who has run the locomotives and equipment) thinks it can meet a practical schedule -- at least to the extent of practical sub-three-hour timings from New York to Washington, and he has distinctive experience with both the original and modified sections of route from New York north and east, as that was his service area. Equally frankly, I would take his word over yours unless you can substantiate the claim from experience.
243129 zugmann Lasted 20 years. Must have something going for it. P.T. Barnum said it best
zugmann Lasted 20 years. Must have something going for it.
Lasted 20 years. Must have something going for it.
P.T. Barnum said it best
That comment is unnecessary. You can't have a conversation and call people suckers. The Acela is 30 MPH faster NY to Boston. It is only 10 MPH faster DC to NY.
BaltACD B&O, Chessie and early CSX didn't think T&E personnel were able to legibly write their names on their Timeslips.
B&O, Chessie and early CSX didn't think T&E personnel were able to legibly write their names on their Timeslips.
They were right. And there are still a lot of people with that problem today. Sometimes I wonder how they all got through grade school.
Of course we don't have paper tickets anymore, I am thinking of things like clearances, track warrants, timebooks and notebooks.
I doesn't help that a lot of the writing was and is done aboard moving cabooses or locomotives.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
BaltACDDon't know about your experiences. B&O, Chessie and early CSX didn't think T&E personnel were able to legibly write their names on their Timeslips. Every T&E member was given a inked rubber stamp to imprint their names and ID numbers onto the timeslips. All other information and claims on the timeslips were hand written.
Same here I still have my rubber stamp and 243129 was my employee number.
243129 Anyone interested in blank New Haven form 19's, New Haven, New York Central and Penn Central road and yard time slips?
Anyone interested in blank New Haven form 19's, New Haven, New York Central and Penn Central road and yard time slips?
Don't know about your experiences.
B&O, Chessie and early CSX didn't think T&E personnel were able to legibly write their names on their Timeslips. Every T&E member was given a inked rubber stamp to imprint their names and ID numbers onto the timeslips. All other information and claims on the timeslips were hand written.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Wonderful, often unique equipment. Thanks, guys!!
Appreciate the nostalgiac material. Could do a better job with my HP scanner, but here is the best I can manage from your digital photos:
" />
The New Haven certainly had some varied equipment.
I still think it is a pity that no train with both practical ride quality and practical pendulum tilt could be built to run with the Speed Merchant FMs, since as locomotives they were supposed to be reasonably successful ... all that smoke in the publicity photos to the contrary!
They'd have been interesting with the Alcan cars that would become the LRC, and at least theoretically CLC would have had both the interest and the rights to evolve the design... with two examples sitting at Cedar Hill for the taking, and perhaps the two B&M examples still available 'cheap'... interest in quantity production of these prior to '69 might have averted the strike and preserved the company ... at least a while longer...
(By the way, everyone knows the Matter paint job (aka 'McGinnis paint') but do they know the Marcel Breuer counterpart on B&M?)
Overmod Dan'l Webster was the train that used the Baldwin Mekydro locomotives (RP-125?) and funky two-tone caterpillar cars. I don't think this or the Speed Merchant FMs were still actively running during Joe's time, but any stories regarding them ... including those shared by other engineers ... would be interesting to me.
Dan'l Webster was the train that used the Baldwin Mekydro locomotives (RP-125?) and funky two-tone caterpillar cars. I don't think this or the Speed Merchant FMs were still actively running during Joe's time, but any stories regarding them ... including those shared by other engineers ... would be interesting to me.
This from the 1957 edition of 'Along the Line' the New Haven newsletter.
24: I did not suggest that you suggested that I steal. You are absolutely correct about my not having occupied a revenue seat. But I had put my suitcase in the overhead rack above a seat, and the conductor saw me enter the car and retreave my suitcase.
Probably, if the conductor had not been in the car, I would not have returned the ticket for a refund, but simply used it for another return New Haven - Penn Station trip in the future.
Come to think of it, and none of this conversation actually occured to me at the time, it was just a quick reaction on my part because that is what the membership in a particular congregation taught me to do. At the time, i carried (Sep 1971 - May 1996) a monthly New York - White Plains commuter ticket, for my daily "reverse" commute. Going to the trolley museum or going to teach my yearly lecture on theater acoustics at the Yale Drama School, I would leave from GCT and show the conductor this monthly pass, which was good on the New Haven Division as far as Harrision, and pay the on-board Harrison - New Haven fare, considerably less than Conrail or Metro North GCT - New Haven. But coming back on a late Sunday afternoon, I would often want to spend the extra money for a comfortable reclining seat to snooz, use of the snack bar and maybe even find a menue sufficient to have a subsitute for a restaurant dinner in New York, so I'd splurge on an Amtrak ticket.
Think of this: The conductor sees me enter the car, retreave my suitcase from the overhead rack, and then sees me depart the car. He may have a good memory and be certain that he never received a ticket from me and did not see me on the train until then. Think of the possibilities of what he thinks I am. And sporting a knitted small yarmuka as well!
But I did not think of all of this. I just handed him the ticket because the teachers at my congregation taught me it is the right thing to do.
And I have to admit, now that I think about it, that if I had not seen the conductor, the chances are that I would have used the ticket on my next return New Haven - New York trip where the Amtrak schedule was at least as convenient as the Metro North. Today, studying at an Orthodox Jerusalem Yeshiva, I really do not know. If I did mail the ticket, it might look like the conductor did not do his job. Or they would find out the Noel gave me a cab ride, and my Boston and Maine employee's engine pass was 21 years long gone. Using the ticket on the next occasion would make the most sense. OK?
The DC arrangement as I recall for the Roger Williams as built was 200hp DC motors shaft-driving the 'idle' outer axles on the RDC trucks. What I dimly remember was that operations in the tunnel were only about 20mph so this was 'plenty'. However I can also think of a host of reasons this would be 'inadequate' starting with satisfactory location of the third-rail shoe,fuse, etc. so there is little surprise the DC gear was removed early.
NYC for years towed RDCs into GCT behind normal electric MU trains -- we have had threads on this.
OvermodI do not recall the DC equipment on the RDCs being particularly large, and I suspect it was sized only to operate where the law required 'electric' operation, probably at relatively low track speed
I do not recall RDC equipment ever being operated in DC territory.
OvermodI would be highly interested in where the change to DC was practically made on the Roger Williams trains, how fast they could be operated in straight DC, and how reliable the arrangement was in practice, including bad weather. I would not be too surprised to find them not cut over to DC until 125th St or even approaching the Park Avenue tunnel
As stated previously I don't remember the Roger Williams being equipped for DC operation.
I can pass on my method of changeover with FL-9's
The third rail shoes were to be deployed(lowered) after passing Mount Vernon station and before Mount Vernon tower. There was a rake-off block located west of the tower. DC operation began at Woodlawn, diesel was my choice until entering Park Av. tunnel where I switched to DC but left the diesels idling as the DC compressor was sub par. The diesels were shut down at Tower U 59th St.
DC operation on the FL-9 was used only to get the train platformed without smoking up the 'house'.
The EP-5 was only slightly better on DC. Sluggish trying to get up to speed.
Electroliner 1935Did the modified Budd Car trains have the standard Budd car controls or did they have something like a standard locomotive throttle system?
As far as I can recall,the Roger Williams had standard Budd (RDC) controls. I do not recall it being equipped for third rail operation.
When I hired, the three trains were stored adjacent to Cedar Hill engine house. I never operated them. The Webster had a problem with DC operation. It was the victim of numerous fires. They, as today's forays into HSR are also, futile on the existing ROW.
Dan'l Webster was the train that used the Baldwin Mekydro locomotives (RP-125?RP-210) and funky two-tone caterpillar cars. I don't think this or the Speed Merchant FMs were still actively running during Joe's time, but any stories regarding them ... including those shared by other engineers ... would be interesting to me.
Roger Williams was the 'hot rodded' RDC train. (I think it is wiser to call them "RDCs" instead of 'Budds' or 'Budd cars' because it reduces confusion with other Budd products). I too would like to know the difference (if any) in the operating controls and seating. Since these were nominally designed for higher top speed the difference might be substantial -- and equipment might have been changed over their surprisingly long (for lightweight '50s trains) service life.
At least one of the streamlined-nose cars has survived so the cab equipment could still be checked. But I prefer firsthand recollection.
I do not recall the DC equipment on the RDCs being particularly large, and I suspect it was sized only to operate where the law required 'electric' operation, probably at relatively low track speed. I would be highly interested in where the change to DC was practically made on the Roger Williams trains, how fast they could be operated in straight DC, and how reliable the arrangement was in practice, including bad weather. I would not be too surprised to find them not cut over to DC until 125th St or even approaching the Park Avenue tunnel entry especially in later years... but we have someone at hand who will know.
daveklepperSome-one suggested I take the ticket to a ticket office and get a refund! Or mail it for a refund. I have to admit that in an earlier stage of my life I probably would have done that! I've learned that the best protection against the temptation to steal is to be as thoroughy honest as one can be at all times.
I resent your implication of me encouraging you to 'steal'.
daveklepperI think the 125th St. - GCT special 600V DC third-rail equipment
The New Haven changeover to DC was Woodlawn-GCT
daveklepperHe must be referreing to the special Daniel Webster Budd equipment,
The Roger Williams consisted of Budd equipment not the Daniel Webster.
daveklepperRegarding my handing the conductor the ticket, goes with my wearing a kippah. If I had done anything like your suggestion, would I not be a hypocrit? You would not make the suggestion to a priest, minister, or rabbi, would you? (Or Imam?)
Yes I would have. You did not occupy a revenue seat and you were my guest.
Got it. Thanks.
Some-one suggested I take the ticket to a ticket office and get a refund! Or mail it for a refund.
I have to admit that in an earlier stage of my life I probably would have done that! I've learned that the best protection against the temptation to steal is to be as thoroughy honest as one can be at all times.
I think the 125th St. - GCT special 600V DC third-rail equipment may have been removed at one point, because with the McGinnis departure (or even earlier), they were removed from NY - Boston service and used with regular Budds and MUed in trains with them.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.