daveklepperThen the Connecticut Company was not sold directly to the State by the railroad but passed though other private hands?
This depends on the legal status of the corporation that actually owned the Connecticut Company in 1976.
Obviously, the New York, New Haven and Hartford railroad didn't survive being rolled into Penn Central. Just as Penn Central's railroad didn't survive being rolled into Conrail. The question is whether some "New Haven" corporate entity survived the loss of the 'steam railroad' assets but kept that portion of the transit portfolio (only three cities at that point) through to its acquisition by local or State entities. (Bridgeport runs its own; I don't know if that city's system was conveyed to Connecticut Transit first and only later to the local organization).
I had never thought the "New Haven" survived the forced marriage into PC as its own owning corporation, but there are other examples where a railroad corporation would shuck its railroad assets (American Premier Underwriters of course being one example) or a rail manufacturer would diversify away (Alco Products) so I'm reluctant to correct Mr. Klepper on that point without knowing much harder fact.
Deggesty, you are close enough to ask the right question, and I did ride that train many times, also. The train I had in mind was the Everglades, which lost the reason for its name at the time of the Florida East Coast strike, when it changed from a Washigton - Miami local to a Washington - Jacksonville local, but kept its sleeper for a while. All before Amtrak was more than 47 years ago, and someone with ACL timetable can check on my memory.
Then the Conecticut Compnany was not sold directly to the State by the railroad but passed though other private hands?
The Havana Special also carried a New York-WIlimngitn, N.C. 10-6 Pullman.
The new name was Gulf Coast Special. However, the through cars to Tampa did not last long; in April of 1967 I rode #76 from Tampa to Jacksonville, spending an uncomfortable night in an ACL heavyweight coach.
Johnny
I'm pretty sure the train with the 14 Rmt sleeper is the Havana Special, a Washington-Jacksonville nearly-all-stops train of the Atlantic Coast Line, which swapped blocks of head end cars with other ACL trains at Rocky Mount NC. It was assigned an ACF-built 14 Rmt 2DR sleeper for NY-Miami service. A prewar 10 Rmt 5 DBR car was also carried New York-Tampa in the winter season. ACL did have some 21 Roomette cars as well.
The 14-2s were rebuilt to 7DBR/2DR cars for Florida Special service in the early 1960s. The Havana Special was renamed in 1962 and discontinued at the time of the FEC strike.
New Haven became part of the Penn Central in 1969. The former traction properties were gone from its holdings before that.
The Connecticut Comany operated streetcars and buses in many Connecticut towns and cities, and by 1951 was an all-bus system. It became a Gos.vernment run operation in the 1970s. Hartford streetcars were replaced with buses just before WWII, but New Haven's lasted through the war, with bustitution starting in 1947. The Mechnics Railroad continued to use some tracks for freight service.
If you mean the Connecticut Company, the answer is 'Seventies' (bicentennial year to be more precise). But I don't know if the "New Haven" was still its own corporate entity, perhaps especially after Conrail Day that year...
Bridgeport, Waterbury, and New Britain were the areas being subsidized after 1973, but I'm not sure if "Connecticut Transit" took those divisions over in toto in 1976. Only the latter two are still operated by that entity, I think.
NYC had a bunch of cars (I think built starting 1948) that had 22 roomettes. B&O had some 16/4 but they were duplex.
Still working on the 14 roomette cars.
The New Haven at one time owned most of the electric streetcar and interurban systems in southern New England. The last one owned by the New Haven wasn't sold until long after bus substitution. Give the decade the New Haven unloaded it.
Not the Southern. Did any other railroad have sleepers with that configuration? My memory may be way off on this, but I think the public timetable did say 14 roometes. A normal all-roomette car has 22 roomettes? Thanks in advance for any answer.
daveklepper And the two cars assigned were probably 16-roomette cars with one reserved for company business and one for the porter.
And the two cars assigned were probably 16-roomette cars with one reserved for company business and one for the porter.
The Southern did have a few 14 roomette 6 double bedroom cars, but they were not ordinarily used on the trains out of Washingotn.
Dislexia working again, with a time-warp. I really should have written early 1960s, not 1970's, and I am sure the sleeper was removed before 1971's May 1 Amtrak Day. Apologies. Possibly the train also came off ealier with the loss of mail. Again, apologies.
1960s, not 1970s!
So far as I know, the only road that did not go into Amtrak and still operated sleeper service after 4/30/71 was the Southern, which then operated 10-6 cars only. It did have interline service with Amtrak, and for a time operated a Boston-Los Angeles car on the Southern Crescent..
In 1970, it was operating a 10-6 car between New York City and Greenville, S.C. on the Piedmont--but I believe that this car was discontinued aafter 4/30/71. It may have continued headend interchange in Washington. Also, I have the impression that there was no headend interchange with the N&W after 4/30/71 (the crew change point for the trains that ran through Bristol was Monroe, Virginia).
Hints: The route of the train is covered by one popular Amtrak train today which goes beyond the specific train's endpoints. The name of the train did not describe it during the period of operation but was applicable before it was downgraded and applciagle when it interlined with railroad that directly served the area of the descriptive name. It interchanged passengers and head=end cars wiith another train at its midpoint crew-change and refulling station.
The sleeper may have come off in the early 70s.
No meal service.
Overmod it would seem logical to me that providing cars rather than whole dedicated trains represented a relatively cheap and fair way to provide 'transcontinental' one-seat (or bed) rides without fantastic amounts of capital and operating expense... ...Even today, Amtrak doesn't have a through-car service -- perhaps an artifact of sleeper clearances in the East, but I suspect more than that an absence of sustainable volume.)
it would seem logical to me that providing cars rather than whole dedicated trains represented a relatively cheap and fair way to provide 'transcontinental' one-seat (or bed) rides without fantastic amounts of capital and operating expense...
...Even today, Amtrak doesn't have a through-car service -- perhaps an artifact of sleeper clearances in the East, but I suspect more than that an absence of sustainable volume.)
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
Good analysis. And you should be able to answer the question.
Jones1945a Class I Railroad tried to conduct a research about the possibilities of a trans-continental passenger service with its rival, but they couldn’t reach consensus thus the research was stopped.
The question then becomes, though, whether this research was a direct predecessor of the various through-car services that provided much of the functional advantages of full transcontinental trains without the obvious pre-Diesel drawbacks.
I for one have always wondered a bit at why, in a regulated environment, there was so much confusing rotation of the through cars among the various trains -- it would seem logical to me that providing cars rather than whole dedicated trains represented a relatively cheap and fair way to provide 'transcontinental' one-seat (or bed) rides without fantastic amounts of capital and operating expense.
(And it answered, in a way, Young's comment about the hog: it would seem that any particular desire to run full passenger trains from coast to coast died out somewhere between the late '40s and the end of the '50s. Even today, Amtrak doesn't have a through-car service -- perhaps an artifact of sleeper clearances in the East, but I suspect more than that an absence of sustainable volume.)
In the 1970's a railroad that still has a reputation for wanting passengers and providing good service ran a basically overnight and part of the next morning name-train that had been downgraded smewhat and handled mainly head-end business, witih considerable switching in and out of head-end cars around the midpoint for interchanage with other trains. The train was carried between its origine and a joint interchange passenger station by another railroad, doing the same as for the first railroad's premium trains. The train carried one 14-roomette lightweight slteeper in addition to air-conditioned coaches, the latter lightweight outside the railroad's heavy traffice period. At the time, the train served nearly all local stations, and its passenger traffic was local, not end-to-end. It ran either daily or daily except Sat. night, Sun. morning. E-units were regular power.
Raiilroads, train name, end-points, place where head-end cars were switched in and out.
Congrats, Dave, it's your turn!
Fine fine fine. Just as long as we don't get another New York City Subway system question. My head will 'splode.
Ok ladies and gentlemen, it's time to reveal the answer and ROFL to my "Very Shaky English"
In June 1937, PRR and NYC prepare studies for a New York-Los Angeles passenger train on a 56:45 schedule running via Chicago and either the Santa Fe or Overland Route; railroads involved are unable to reach agreement; prior to the advent of air-conditioned cars and diesel locomotives, it was not considered practicable to run equipment for such long distances without cleaning inside and out because of soot.
Dave accurately provided the names of RR's involved (PRR and NYC) and the reason of why both parties couldn't reach agreement (use of equipment) though without detailed specification on his first post, but in Dave's second post, the destinations of the trans-continental trains in this research was accurately, firmly provided (Los Angles and New York City) and the route was considered to take ATSF’s or UP’s Overland route.
Miningman correctly mentioned PRR was involved in the research but didn’t mention about NYCRR which is a very important part of the answer, on the other hand, the answer he provided about the reason it did not pan out was also different from the answer I have in hand, though Miningman correctly provided the route would be New York to Los Angles via Chicago, but he didn’t mention that ATSF’s route was also considered, even though the Overland route was provided in his answer.
Overall, I think Dave’s answer is more accurate and firmer, so I think Dave earned the right to ask the next question. Any objection?
The other railroad that was very forward looking was of course the CB&Q. They could convince either the GN or NP to be partners. And they shared Union Sta. with the PRR, no problem. For AT&SF with either PRR or NYCentral, NY and LA would have been the end-points. PRR-CB&Q - NY and both Seattle and Portland.
But the PRR, and perhaps also GN and NP, more conservative regarding equipment, not ready for lighweights, stopped implementation.
OK ...WAGuess.... using some thinking that somewhat seems logical and likely but will almost certainly be wrong and cause great ROFL as the illuminated ones say (and for far too long now). First off Jones1945 is a big Pennsy fan. So Pennsy it is. Eastern terminus/origin will have to be the late great Pennsylvania Station, so it's the Big Apple or else what's the point.
Western connection has to be in Chicago for the same reasons, anything else is small potatoes. That gives us plenty of big deal Railroads to make a deal with. So who has a like mind with the Pennsy, at least on the surface and goes to places like LA, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle. That would be Union Pacific. How do you get to the Union Pacific trains?...via UP's Bro, Chicago and North Western.
So that's my WAG, ...Pennsy, C&NW, UP.
Perhaps the reason it did not pan out is because Pennsy used Chicago Union Station and C&NW used their own North Western Station and the whole thing fell apart on who's gonna move their Chicago operations to make this work.
OK everyone begin the ROFL.
On the right track, Dave! I think I should reveal the answer by Sunday 11 pm EST (Oct 6,2018) to see if there is any other forum member provide other answer.
Please feel free to take a guess, even a wild guess if you like.
My guess is that it was the AT&SF that initiated the idea, and contacted the PRR and NYCentral, and that differing ideas about equipment, the PRR and NYCentral more conservative, ended the research.
Speaking of D&H, their L. F. Loree, "the first four outside cylinder, triple expansion, non-articulated locomotive." was an interesting experiment.
Before I post my question here, I would like to thank you everyone in this forum who shared your ideas, precious knowledge or experiences with me during the hardest times of my life!
My question is:
After the Great Depression, a Class I Railroad tried to conduct a research about the possibilities of a trans-continental passenger service with its rival, but they couldn’t reach consensus thus the research was stopped. Please provide the names of Railroads participated in this research, the year they conducted this research, the destinations of the trans-continental trains in this research (e.g Norfolk to Seattle) and at least one reason of why RRs couldn’t reach consensus.
And the D&H Scranton - Carbondale passenger service was handled by the same class of 2-8-0s that handled the local freights!
Ok noted! I will post my question here asap
Both, if you want. But just a question of your own was what I was thinking. You did, after all, have a better right answer.
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