Until 1967, "track speed" in the timetable was never more than 80 mph. Don't think the engine-speed-limit section of the timetable showed more than 80 for any engine.
Were not GG-1s as orginally setup, allowed 100mph if that was track speed? With the break-resonance springs as original? Except for a minority which, although equipped with boilers, were regarded as "freight GG1s" with a different gear ratio, for a maximum of 90 mph?
OvermodIs there a note in the timetable instructions on specific [GG1] engines allowed 100mph?
In 10/78 ten GG1s (including 4935) were allowed 100-- the rest were 90.
In October 1967, when GG1s were first allowed 100, it was 4883 and up-- 4800 to 4882 were 90.
As I recall, there were six G's picked out for the best frames in Spring '78 that were "improved" for the 110mph service; the number was raised by two later. Is there a note in the timetable instructions on specific engines allowed 100mph?
The tire problem was not manifested in 100mph operation as I recall, but I was not carefully discriminating the effect of inadequate Amfleet consist braking from that of higher speed. If someone can find the pictures of the locomotives with loose tires we can confirm what kind of service they were in.
Had I not known the explicit work to make the locomotives capable of running at higher speed, I would have thought the "110mph" referred to 10%-over testing to confirm stability at the normal timetable instructions, which would make sense explaining the 110 story if Amtrak were satisfied with the 3:20 timing and no more than 100 peak.
Part of the issue involved 'snubbers', which on the Gs were not hydraulic or friction devices but tuned (more appropriately, mistuned) springs that would break resonance in the primary suspension. They were removed from the fleet fairly early but with the advent of 100mph operation I for one thought they, or some other device like them, needed to be provided again. For speed much in excess of 100mph I'd begin to expect hydraulic damping...
Electroliner 1935Somewhere I have a photo I took back in the sixties, in the front vestibule on a metroliner that shows the digital speedometer indicating 115 mph. This was when it was PC. We could not have stopped for any obstrucing thing that we could have seen. Cab signals said we had the ROW and a clear track. If a track gang had been working and fouled the track, as happened last year, the engineer could not have seen it in time to stop.
We could not have stopped for any obstrucing thing that we could have seen. Cab signals said we had the ROW and a clear track. If a track gang had been working and fouled the track, as happened last year, the engineer could not have seen it in time to stop.
When operating at anything faster than Restricted Speed, trains cease being vehicles that can safely operate on the their line of sight. When the signal indicates CLEAR and your 15K ton train is moving at it's allowed 50 MPH, your stopping distance is well beyond your line of sight on tangent track and the reality is that there is a awful lot of curvature built into lines that were laid out to follow the various creeks, streams and rivers by their founding engineering personnel riding on horse back with their transits and rods.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
DeggestyAs to the account of fast running in Florida, the trainman was not going to admit that the rngineer was disregarding the ICC's dictum. And, when I witnessed fast running on track with nothing more than ABS, I said nothing to any railroad employee--even when I was sitting right beside the engineer.
Also, when I rode the Roanoke NRHS, Independence Limited between Portsmouth and Ft. Wayne behind 611 with Mr. G Clayter at the throttle west of Belville, I clocked us at under 50 seconds between mileposts and the TT speed limit for passenger trains was 60. On the bus to the motel, I asked some of the crew how fast we had gone, and got back the answer "sixty".
Somewhere I have a photo I took back in the sixties, in the front vestibule on a metroliner that shows the digital speedometer indicating 115 mph. This was when it was PC.
BaltACD timz Sure-- for all I know they ran 200 mph. But GG1 limit in the Special Instructions was 100. (Offhand guess: the Metroliner MU cars were limited to 105 mph by then.) Those that didn't live through the 40's 50's and 60's can't comprehend how legitigous our society has become in the following 50 years. Back in the day there were paper restrictions and there was reality - they rarely agreed!
timz Sure-- for all I know they ran 200 mph. But GG1 limit in the Special Instructions was 100. (Offhand guess: the Metroliner MU cars were limited to 105 mph by then.)
(Offhand guess: the Metroliner MU cars were limited to 105 mph by then.)
Those that didn't live through the 40's 50's and 60's can't comprehend how legitigous our society has become in the following 50 years. Back in the day there were paper restrictions and there was reality - they rarely agreed!
As to the account of fast running in Florida, the trainman was not going to admit that the engineer was disregarding the ICC's dictum. And, when I witnessed fast running on track with nothing more than ABS, I said nothing to any railroad employee--even when I was sitting right beside the engineer.
Johnny
timzSure-- for all I know they ran 200 mph. But GG1 limit in the Special Instructions was 100. (Offhand guess: the Metroliner MU cars were limited to 105 mph by then.)
Until more Federal oversight became common, there were always cases of supervisors and engineers collaborating on overspeeding.
Recounted before on a Forum: Riding the obs of the Silver Metior north from Jacksonville around 1961. Mile-after-mile in eactly 36 seconds = 100mph. Rear brakeman in the opposite rear-viewing seat. I: Do you know how fast we are going? He: The ICC speed limit for this line is 79 miles-per-hour, and that is as fast as we are going. I: But I see each mile in 36 seconds. He: The ICC speed limit for this line is 79 miles-per-hour, and that is as fast as we are going.
And go back to the 120mph T1 thread.
Sure-- for all I know they ran 200 mph. But GG1 limit in the Special Instructions was 100.
(Edit: in 10/77 GG1s were 90 mph, Metroliner MUs were 105; in 10/78, 100 and 110.)
We had this discussion before. Trust me that some of the trains ran at 110 peak 'as improved' - physics does not lie. It certainly didn't last very long!
Overmod...the [1970s] attempt to use rebuilt GG1s with Amfleet equipment first at 110 and then prospectively at 120mph
daveklepper I rode the NES during that period. The latest Boston arrival was four hours late. Not good, but not as awful as 21 hours. Occasionally it was on-time or a few miniiutes early. By 1965 it no longer bypassed Cleveland Terminal like the Century, running along the Lake-Front, but detoured for a revenue stop at the Terminal. I often then rode coach Dayton - Cleveland or St. louis = Cleveland or Cincinnati - Cleveland and then a roomette on the NES to Boston. All the equipment showed wear. Not sparkling shiny like the AT&SF and UP. And when between-train-time permitted, dinner was in the Terminal's Oak Room instead of the diner, and on occasion my dinner was with Walter Holtkamp Sr., organ builder. The organ-choir arrangement at Manhattan's Corpus Christe R. C. Church, near Columbia U., resulted from one such dinner meeting, and for people who like chamber music, the "Musinc before 1800" series at the church is excellent. Earlier it was second only to the Century. Ah David, the old oak room, thier a memory. But it did fare better the Cleveland Union terminal.
I rode the NES during that period. The latest Boston arrival was four hours late. Not good, but not as awful as 21 hours. Occasionally it was on-time or a few miniiutes early. By 1965 it no longer bypassed Cleveland Terminal like the Century, running along the Lake-Front, but detoured for a revenue stop at the Terminal. I often then rode coach Dayton - Cleveland or St. louis = Cleveland or Cincinnati - Cleveland and then a roomette on the NES to Boston. All the equipment showed wear. Not sparkling shiny like the AT&SF and UP. And when between-train-time permitted, dinner was in the Terminal's Oak Room instead of the diner, and on occasion my dinner was with Walter Holtkamp Sr., organ builder. The organ-choir arrangement at Manhattan's Corpus Christe R. C. Church, near Columbia U., resulted from one such dinner meeting, and for people who like chamber music, the "Musinc before 1800" series at the church is excellent.
Earlier it was second only to the Century.
My grandfather, who loved trains, would every year travel roundtrip from Chicago to Springfield, MA during September on the New England States to visit family. He did this until 1965. After his experience of the NES arriving Springfield 21 hours late, he flew from O'Hare to Bradley from then on. The train lost time hour by hour throughout the trip. Not because of a derailment or bad weather or other significant event. He didn't fail rail travel. Rail travel failed him.
In 1957, except for Sundays, there were three daily Congressionals - Morning, Midday, and Afternoon - each way between New York and Washington.
In 1953 there were just two daily Congressionals each way between New York and Washington.
The Afternoon Congressionals showed the best schedule times of 3 hours, 35 minutes both ways. I rode the Morning and Afternoon trains frequently. I remember them being on-time most of the time.
In 1957 the one way parlor car fare between New York and Washington or vice-versa, was $12.66, and the seat charge was $2.59. The one way coach fare either way was $8.36. The 1953 numbers were $10.05, $2.09, and $7.58.
Of the 16 daily trains between Washington and New York in 1957, nine of them had dining cars. The other trains, except for The Executive, which had no food service except in the bar lounge car, and The Evening Keystone, which did not have a dining car but did have a coach lunch and refreshment car, had a Coffee Shop Tavern car.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
There is still service on the tracks of the former Inland Route between Boston and New York, but there is no through serivce. The Vermonter uses the track between New York and Springfield, and the Boston section of the Lake Shore Limited uses it between Boston and Springfireld.
In the spring of 1997, my wife and I went through Springfield on a Boston-Richmond train as we went from Boston to New York. That routing did not last long.
In the early days of Amtrak, an Amtrak employee was amazed that the cost of travel between Boston and New York was the same no matter which route you took. He was, apparently, completely unaware of the competitive pricing that availed before Amtrak reconstructed the tariffs.
For instance, Chicago-Baltimore cost the same as Chicago-Washington, whether you rode PRR or B&O. And, as well as I can determine, Montgomery-Washington cost the same whether you went through Atlanta or Waycross (this may have come about after the ACL began operating a New York-Montgomery coach). Also, Chicago-West Coast was the same no matter what route you took or what city was your destination.
Shock Control Was PRR the only railroad offering this route without requiring passengers to switch trains/railroads?
Mr. Klepper has conclusively provided the detail on this. Of course, technically PC and then Amtrak also 'provided' one-seat service, but it was as noted via the ex-PRR and then Shore Line. While Amtrak for a while offered service from New York to Boston over an 'inland route' I don't believe there was any direct train up from Washington or even cuts of cars from there that continued via that route - please correct me if wrong. [edit: yes there was, in the late '90s, and apparently to/from Richmond not just Washington.] And that service, and I believe some of the track used to provide it, are gone now.
The only reason I brought up the Poughkeepsie Bridge in immediately pre-Amtrak times is that it represented the only possible passenger routing that could go all the way from Washington to Boston with one consist, other than going through the New York tunnels and over the Hell Gate, that would not involve great circuits or backhauls, and if stopping in New York were not a priority (e.g. for an Amtrak counterpart to the New England States from Boston to Washington instead of Chicago) Amtrak could, at least in theory, still run via Maybrook, the L&HR, Bel Del and then either PRR or the B&O New York division (bypassing CNJ, using Reading at West Trenton and then Chessie System ex-B&O further south). Neither would be particularly likely even if the Poughkeepsie Bridge had survived; as Mr. Klepper pointed out the B&O had happily given up any service to New York in the Fifties, and while there was precedent for RDC trains to run from Philadelphia as far as Boston (B&O Daylight Speedliner a case in point) they would not happily go through the North River tunnel (perhaps having to be pulled through as the Aerotrain was) and would represent a major capacity loss for the daily Reading train service. Compared to the simplicity of vastly better service with vastly better equipment resources, it's not very surprising that Amtrak concentrated on the ex-PRR/NH route for its through trains.
The PRR-Hell-Gate-Bridge-NYNH&H route Washington (and or Philadelphia) - Boston route was the only route. Before the Hell Gate Bridge, for a short time there was a route that did not touch NYCity and ran via the Poughkeepsie Hudson Rive Bridge, and before that a car ferry from the New Haven's Oak Pont (The Bronx) terminal to Greenville, NJ. So, in your tiime frame there was only one route. Between NY and Washington, the combined CofNJ-Reading-B&O route did give some competitions, but it did not last, ending well before the period you are discussing. The Reading and CNJ did continiue some Philadelphia -Jersey City service (the B&O had buses via the CNJ ferries to Manhattat before their service to Washington ended), but before Amtrak took over this wss down to just two trains each way, to Jersey City in the morning and to Reading Terminal in the evening. During the PC period, the two trains were diverted from Jersey City to PRR's Newark Station. I rode the ex-Wall Street, down to two RDC's, one with a snack bar and light meal service. To avoid confusion in Newark, the departure was called "Reading Terminal" rather than just "Philadelphia."
The PRR service New York - Washington with GG1s, coaches, parlors, and diners during meal time trains, was hourly, inlcuding the two Congressionals and the Boston trains. And in addition, except for a gap in the middle of the day at one period, there were hourly Philadelphia - NY trains which made a few stops, like Princeton Junction and New Brunzwick, that the Washington trains skipped. They left the terminals a half-hour after the Washington - New York trains. Some also had parlor cars, and two each way had diners.
While one could be assured of air-conditioning on all these trains, reclining seats were assured only on the two Congressionals and the Senators. On the two other day Boston trains, Colonial and Patrion, and the overnight Federal (which carried sleepers), some reclining seat coaches were in the consist (often New Haven 8600's), but often also some with straight-back seats, including New Haven 8200 "American Flyers" and modernized PRR P70s. The other NY -Washington trains used rebult P70s without reclining seats, sometime one or two with reclining seats. An exception was the brief appearance of the 1955 Budd Keystone deprssed floor experimental consist, which did have reclining seats.
North of New York, there was hourly service to Boston during the day, mostly from GRand Central. The trains from Washington left from Penn, but the New Haven scheduled Springfield trains to and from Grand Central that made across-the-platform connections to and from the Washington - Boston trains at New Haven. Of the trains from Grand Central, the Merchants Limited and the Yankee Clipper was the fastest and usually had the 8600 reclining-seat coaches, and for a while the Merchants had both a diner mainly for parlor car passengers and a grill car mainly for coach passengers, although either could use both. Other Grand Central trains used a mixture of 8200s and 8600s, often with a combine parlor-and- baggage at the head end. These retained their as-built 2-and-1 parlor seating, while the regular parlors were mostly converted to 1-and -1.
All trains described were air-conditioned. As a frequent traveler, the only problem I ever experienced was being too cold with the air-conditioning working too hard.
Riding was generally smooth except jiggling a lot through interlocings.
Shock ControlThanks. Understood about the tracks, but my point is that passengers boarding the Senator could travel from Boston to DC and back on a single train. Was PRR the only railroad offering this route without requiring passengers to switch trains/railroads?
It was a joint New Haven, PRR operation. NH was the dominate Boston-NY carrrier. PRR was the dominate NY-Washington carrier. The B&O-RDG-CNJ route from Washington to New York was a joint operation between those carriers. After 1926 the B&O route terminated in Jersey City with a bus/ferry ride to Manhattan.
Overmod"PRR" never went all the way from Boston to DC; even the dedicated trains like the Senator were handed over to NH at some point, just as the trains out of GCT went onto the New Haven at Woodlawn to travel by way of New Rochelle, and NH didn't become 'part' of a single Northeast Corridor entity until it was folded into PC at the eleventh hour. Only under PC did the GG1s start being run through under the electrification. I believe there was one Metroliner trip that ran straight through to New Haven under the electrification (arranged in Amtrak's first year, I think November 1971), but I think all the other sets were reserved for trips in the 'principal' corridor between New York and Washington which had been rebuilt to handle the appropriate high speeds and relatively low track impacts necessary for the Metroliners to operate properly. There was a "Metroliner" service that ran through to Boston in the early '80s, but this was with Amfleet and more conventional power, including of course an engine change at New Haven. All the other operations from either north or south terminated in the New York region, the PRR/PC being the only railroad with an effective passenger connection across the Hudson anywhere south of Albany. While NYC had plenty of Chicago to Boston trains, they were split from the New York part at Albany and to my knowledge no ex-Great Steel Fleet trains from New York had a direct section going to Boston; they only received cars from there to go west. NYC certainly had no run-through from the east side of the Hudson, and the Empire Connection (which would require a reversing move in Penn Station to continue south anyway; it runs right over the top of the North River bores at virtually a right angle as it enters the station trackage) was not completed until the late '80s. The only possible alternative would be to use the Poughkeepsie bridge, connecting ultimately to the CNJ/Reading/B&O probably where the Belvidere Delaware crossed the West Trenton line, but after the fire in 1970 (which happened before Amtrak) it would be inconceivable to send passengers across that structure even if there were a point in directing them the Great Way Round through northern New Jersey that the Federal used before the Hell Gate Bridge route was done... a route that pointedly came nowhere near New York City.
There was a "Metroliner" service that ran through to Boston in the early '80s, but this was with Amfleet and more conventional power, including of course an engine change at New Haven.
All the other operations from either north or south terminated in the New York region, the PRR/PC being the only railroad with an effective passenger connection across the Hudson anywhere south of Albany. While NYC had plenty of Chicago to Boston trains, they were split from the New York part at Albany and to my knowledge no ex-Great Steel Fleet trains from New York had a direct section going to Boston; they only received cars from there to go west. NYC certainly had no run-through from the east side of the Hudson, and the Empire Connection (which would require a reversing move in Penn Station to continue south anyway; it runs right over the top of the North River bores at virtually a right angle as it enters the station trackage) was not completed until the late '80s.
The only possible alternative would be to use the Poughkeepsie bridge, connecting ultimately to the CNJ/Reading/B&O probably where the Belvidere Delaware crossed the West Trenton line, but after the fire in 1970 (which happened before Amtrak) it would be inconceivable to send passengers across that structure even if there were a point in directing them the Great Way Round through northern New Jersey that the Federal used before the Hell Gate Bridge route was done... a route that pointedly came nowhere near New York City.
Thanks. Understood about the tracks, but my point is that passengers boarding the Senator could travel from Boston to DC and back on a single train. Was PRR the only railroad offering this route without requiring passengers to switch trains/railroads?
The NEC was and remains a busy passenger railroad.
Overmod Deggesty ... I cannot give you the time span except that it was after the War and the NYC had many new lightweight cars, but there was a time when Boston had its own train to Chicago, the New England States. I remember the New England States being introduced in 1938 as the connection to the new Century. What you are thinking of was the 1949 establishment of this as 'its own train', direct between Boston and Chicago with no splitting off New York cars. I think the train lost its name very late, in 1967, and the service persisted under PC, I think right up to Amtrak day.
Deggesty ... I cannot give you the time span except that it was after the War and the NYC had many new lightweight cars, but there was a time when Boston had its own train to Chicago, the New England States.
I remember the New England States being introduced in 1938 as the connection to the new Century. What you are thinking of was the 1949 establishment of this as 'its own train', direct between Boston and Chicago with no splitting off New York cars. I think the train lost its name very late, in 1967, and the service persisted under PC, I think right up to Amtrak day.
You are right about the earlier beginning of the New England States, I just looked in a 1943 Guide that I have handy (most of my Guides are in boxes which I have difficulty in looking through because they are heavy and I need to be careful in handling the)m.
You would be correct: the New Haven electrification only went as far east as New Haven, where engines had to be changed to continue to Boston or Springfield. There was no real point in extending the electrification in the early 'lack of money' Amtrak days, and only Federal money could justify the full electrification (which as I recall came with a very expensive realignment for higher speed that revealed an even more expensive (to deal with) line of stone monuments marking the center line of double track. The only real justification for electrification was the absence of practical high-speed self-contained locomotives at the time 150mph service was being planned, any turbine power being understood to be too wasteful of fuel and difficult to use on some of the electrified trackage (see the TurboTrain and what would have to be done to a JetTrain for some instructive examples)
i still find it interesting there was so little practical interest in electrified commuter service in Boston, as there was in Philadelphia and to a lesser extent the feeder services to New York. Was this a Mellen by-product?
EDIT: I did not mention this but it may be important here: starting as early as the mid-Seventies Amtrak started running "Metroliners" that did not use the MP-85 style MUs. One amusing consequence was the attempt to use rebuilt GG1s with Amfleet equipment first at 110 and then prospectively at 120mph to substitute for MUs that needed extensive "rework" to run. This worked quite well... just as with early Audi Quattros... until the time came to stop. Then the limited weight of the consist and the very substantial mass of the GG1 threw a substantial load on the twelve driver... tires. Some of which then decided to go on strike, sometimes at speed. Exit the planned higher-speed G rebuilds; enter the Rc-4 design...
The 'Metroliners' in the '80s that went through to Boston were this kind of train, likely run behind the early 'toasters' to New Haven and then something like F40s 'the rest of the way'.
BaltACD My understanding has been that the NH was not electified to Boston. The electrification from New York all the way to Boston was done under Amtrak ownership.
My understanding has been that the NH was not electified to Boston. The electrification from New York all the way to Boston was done under Amtrak ownership.
Yes, New Haven to Boston electrified operation began in 2000.
Deggesty... I cannot give you the time span except that it was after the War and the NYC had many new lightweight cars, but there was a time when Boston had its own train to Chicago, the New England States.
Overmod, I cannot give you the time span except that it was after the War and the NYC had many new lightweight cars, but there was a time when Boston had its own train to Chicago, the New England States.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.