Jones1945for people who wanted to enjoy a quiet long-distance overnight train ride, Broadway was the perfect train for them!
The real last laugh, and revenge in spades for the Liberty Limited (the advantage for which came via NYC's P&LE) was in 1958, when the Century got coaches and the 'smart set' went in droves to a PRR that knew exactly what mattered, and honestly tried. Problem was that by then the smart set was giving way to the jet set, and nothing was going to work any more.
Having been a patron of both trains, the Broadway into the Amtrak era and the rd until dwngraded to one catch-all Albany - Buffalo with through-car connections both ends, I can say that standards of food and service on both trains remained pretty good, and a lot better than most other LDs of both RR and others, the absolute worst being the NYCentral's downgraded Chicago - Detroit on-board service.
On Amtrak, the now-equipped with coaches and a sleeper-coach Broadway, westbound discharge and eastbound pick-up, would only handle NYC - Harrisburg and beyond. I made frequent business trips NY - Lancaster. occasionally buying a NY - Harrisburg round-trip and using it to an from Lancaster, where the Broadway did always stop. And always enjoyed a good meal.
OvermodTwisting around Philadelphia, twitching along the Middle Division and over Horse Shoe, then whizzing across Ohio and Indiana as opposed to The Water Level Route -- You Can Sleep?
Was the Broadway route really that bad? Since I don't have first-hand experience, I inclined to not believing the "Water Level Route -- You Can Sleep" PR thing was a really big deal. You know Pennsy had a list of long-distance overnight trains served between New York and Chicago and used the same route as the Broadway, like the Manhattan Limited, Golden Arrow, Admiral, and the General which was considered a successful train in terms of ridership. Please enlighten me if I was wrong!
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
I of course did not ride any of the PRR trains, and I doubt the PC trains, or the Amtrak trains replacing them, were at all representative of PRR track standards at least in the postwar '40s when higher speed came to matter.
But as Juniatha pointed out, when you look at PRR's own promotional films you can see the general lack of what we'd consider general high-speed ride quality today. And the sources I've talked to over the years have mentioned that sleeping on parts of the PRR route could be a difficult thing if the constant motion didn't lull you.
If you look at lateral compliance in PRR trucks (at least before the late introduction of OSH in the early to mid '50s) and then think about how loaded Pullmans would behave over the Middle and Pittsburgh divisions...
I would cheerfully defer to Mr. Klepper or others who 'were there' and would understand well where particular ride motions were present and how they arose.
OvermodBut as Juniatha pointed out, when you look at PRR's own promotional films you can see the general lack of what we'd consider general high-speed ride quality today. And the sources I've talked to over the years have mentioned that sleeping on parts of the PRR route could be a difficult thing if the constant motion didn't lull you.
No wonder why the Century had been leading the game until the 1950s...... Sleep well my dear "Standard Railroad of the World"......
OvermodBut as Juniatha pointed out, when you look at PRR's own promotional films you can see the general lack of what we'd consider general high-speed ride quality today.
For those who haven't seen it, Juniatha referred to a 1946 PRR promo film called "Clear Track Ahead." There's a sequence involving some cab shots of a PRR steam lcomotive, I don't know what kind, but you can plainly see the cab going bouncy-bouncy as the scenery whizzes by outside the window.
The film's easily found on YouTube.
She also pointed out, and quite rightly, that at that time the Pennsy's obsession with 100 MPH passenger running was pretty illogical if that film was any indication of what the track conditions were like.
daveklepperOn Amtrak, the now-equipped with coaches and a sleeper-coach Broadway, westbound discharge and eastbound pick-up, would only handle NYC - Harrisburg and beyond. I made frequent business trips NY - Lancaster. occasionally buying a NY - Harrisburg round-trip and using it to an from Lancaster, where the Broadway did always stop. And always enjoyed a good meal.
Would the conductor lecture you about getting on or off at the unapproved station?
The advantage of a Broadway Creek Duplex Room over a regular Roomett, without going to the cost of a Bedroom,. could compesate for the smoother ride, overall, on the Century. But I don't recall having a problem with a good night's sleep on either train. The trains with the problem for me were those with switching, both directions at Buffalo. and eastbound at Harrfisburg. (Westbound, usually still awake and happy to go front and watch the engine change.) Even that was just a minor problem, not a great reduction of the enjoyment of an overnight train ride.
The conductors Philadelphia -Harrisburg conductors seemed supportive of my game. NY - Philly possibly less so. My last ride using this plan was two or three days before the timetable change that dropped the Broadway. On boarding at Lancaster. the conductor said, "Dave, go back (or forward?) to the first sleeper, and in Bedroom ? some friends are expecting you." And indeed, two friends, I think Bob Presby and Ray Crapo. had a double bedroom, coming from Chicago, and expected me to join them. But after the reversal at 30th Street, the new conductor said: "Mr. Klepper, you are not supposed to be ridiing in a sleeper, and I have to ask you to find a coach seat." I promptly went to the diner and had my dinner, and one of my two friends joined me.
It sounds like the railroads were fairly tollerant of you game. Unlike today's airlines, where if you don't complete a leg of your flight, they will cancel the rest of your trip including return flight, and may come after you with penalties.
Back then, those conductors also saw me on NY-Chicago sleeper trips.
I would not try something like this on Amtrak today.
Correction, it was an early lunch or a late breakfast, not dinner.
Thanks, Dave, I love your stories.
I am looking for the service record of Pullman's "Indian Point":
(Source: HAGLEY DIGITAL ARCHIVES)
If you know the service record of this streamlined heavyweight baggage lounge car, like which named train it was assigned, please let me know, thanks a lot!
I surely thought someone would have commented on this by now.
This car was built to Pullman plan 3415 E, apparently a common one for these betterment cars. I'm sure the Pullman collection at the Newberry Library has some material on them. This one is characterized as a "baggage/buffet/club/smoker" while at least one other PRR car built to this plan was a "baggage/buffet lounge" -- I don't know if that signifies a detail or amenity difference.
Here is a car list that references this plan; it contains a list of references that might assist further research:
http://prr.railfan.net/passenger/GSPEAR/GSPEAR_PRR_Heavyweight_Pullmans.pdf
I'd post this question over on RyPN where serious preservationists slather at the thought of enlightening you about Pullman heavyweight-betterment stock.
Thank you so much, Overmod! Very useful link of the car. So another car that also got a similar betterment treatment was the "Indian Rock". Both cars were probably refurbished for the eastbound and westbound of the same named train. I have never seen any other photo of this type of betterment cars elsewhere. I will try posting on RyPN as you suggested.
The plan 3415 baggage-lounges were assigned to PRR, B&O, New Haven and CN trains before they were rebuilt as "betterment cars" while still Pullman-owned, with the PRR cars getting PRR exterior streamlining. Most if not all of them were sold in 1942 to the lines where they were assigned. Pullman continued to operate the cars at least on PRR until the late 1940s - an oddity since the lounge seats were not usually sold to passengers, though Pullman made pretty good revenue from the Buffet.
Most likely they were assigned to a high second-tier train like the William Penn, the Federal or the General - basically any heavily first-class train except the Broadway that did not have a baggage car assigned.
BaltACD When electrification was implemented the PRR GG-1's beat anything and everything the B&O had - steam or diesel.
In 1967, after having ridden B&O's Washington Night Express, I boarded a PRR train in Washington for the last leg of my trip to Baltimore. Having only seen photos of GG-1's I knew this would be a memorable half-hour trip. Nevertheless, when the train departed it got up to speed so fast that I felt as if I were being pressed back against my seat. It was the fastest train I ever rode until maybe the Acelas were introduced. I still recall the trip vividly after 54 years.
Questions: In 1967, what was the top speed we could make between WAS & Baltimore? And why did PRR let me use their train using my B&O ticket?
NKP guy BaltACD When electrification was implemented the PRR GG-1's beat anything and everything the B&O had - steam or diesel. In 1967, after having ridden B&O's Washington Night Express, I boarded a PRR train in Washington for the last leg of my trip to Baltimore. Having only seen photos of GG-1's I knew this would be a memorable half-hour trip. Nevertheless, when the train departed it got up to speed so fast that I felt as if I were being pressed back against my seat. It was the fastest train I ever rode until maybe the Acelas were introduced. I still recall the trip vividly after 54 years. Questions: In 1967, what was the top speed we could make between WAS & Baltimore? And why did PRR let me use their train using my B&O ticket?
I have no idea of the PRR speeds allowed during that period of time, however, that was a period of time where there was a lot of 'Wink Wink - Nod Nod' that was in effect concerning speed compliance.
I think, but don't have any proof, that there was a local agreement between PRR & B&O to honor each other's tickets between Baltimore and Washington.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
rcdryeMost likely they were assigned to a high second-tier train like the William Penn, the Federal or the General - basically any heavily first-class train except the Broadway that did not have a baggage car assigned.
Thanks for that, rcdrye!
In 1967 a lot of cross-honoring was in effect. Including PRR-NYCentral NYC - Chicago! Used it!
Regarding top speed, probably 100mph. Just short of 110 at most.
The special instructions for high-speed operation (CT4310?CT4301) came out October 1, 1967, ahead of the planned introduction which I recall was to be October 29. This was the first time certain GG1s were legally enabled to run 100mph. As Tim Zukas has repeatedly pointed out, legal timetable authority to run faster was apparently never made.
There are plenty of 'stories' about faster running. Some are downright frightening. The experiences I had with Gs were all in the era of 'crystallization' cracking, and post-PC.
Amtrak rated GG1s at 100MPH on certain stretches - even allowed 105 for a while on GG1s equipped with roller bearings on all axles on Metroliner trains that replaced the MU sets. The Gs did have impressive acceleration - one of the reasons the E60Cs that were supposed to replace them were not considered acceptable by engineers - even aside from their poor ride and truck geometry issues. An AEM7 could match or beat a GG1 with a light train - the HHP8 "Hippos" had great acceleration but little else to recommend them.
In addition to cross-honoring there were many tariffs that allowed alternate routes for the same fare, often on competing carriers. This was a different arrangement from the pools where two or more railroads shared revenue between certain points. Many railroads also had ticket honoring arrangements with bus operators - SP tickets were accepted on Pacific Greyhound Lines for years. Some of the arrangements were noted in the Official Guid, but many were not.
OvermodThe special instructions for high-speed operation (CT4310?) came out October 1, 1967, ahead of the planned introduction which I recall was to be October 29. This was the first time certain GG1s were legally enabled to run 100mph. As Tim Zukas has repeatedly pointed out, legal timetable authority to run faster was apparently never made.
What was the "timetable top speed" before Oct 1967? I bet it was 90mph wasn't it?
Another cross-honoring, NYC-Boston tickets were not only direct via Shore Line, but also via Springfield, usiing the Boston and Albany (NYCentral) Sringfield Boston, or via Harford and through Willamantic, and possibly, not sure about this, but still all NYNH&H. via Waterbury-Hartford-Willamantic. But not via Albany or Pittsfield.
Jones1945What was the "timetable top speed" before Oct 1967? I bet it was 90mph wasn't it?
PC Employee timetable from Nov 14, 1971 has a max passenger speed of 80 MPH between New York and Washington. A separate table calls out maximum speed for Metroliner equipment (along with one class of Silverliners) , which shows an allowed top speed of 100. Today's 125MPH MAS is the result of the NECIP from the late 1970s/early 1980s.
What PRR was very good at was keeping dwell time at stations to a minimum. By making quick station stops and returning to full speed, overall train performance was still very good even with a relatively modest maximum speed.
I can assure you that speeds of 100mph were regilarly attained in PRR days, legal or not.
Overmod Jones1945 What was the "timetable top speed" before Oct 1967? I bet it was 90mph wasn't it? Highest I've seen is 80.
Jones1945 What was the "timetable top speed" before Oct 1967? I bet it was 90mph wasn't it?
Highest I've seen is 80.
I am a little bit disappointed with the timetable top speed, even though PRR probably operated theirs trains at 100mph quite often...
Regarding rc and dwell times: Most PRR NEC stations had high platforms for level boarding, unique for intercity in North America at the time.
In late 1939, The PRR request a Loewy proposal for streamlining one or more E6s and K4s. While the streamlining was applied to four K4s for the South Wind and Jeffersonian, the E6s project was limited to artist renderings. Note the headlight was supposed to be placed above the smokebox door, but the final design of the streamlined K4s was equipped with a thick-framed headlight which was placed in the middle of the smokebox door.
I wonder what trains the streamlined E6s would have been assigned to. Hauling sections of first-class named trains?
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