Fastest times between PHL and CHI

"The best time offered by the Pennsy's Broadway Limited was 15:30 on the eastbound. I don't know whether rival New York Central's 20th Century Limited matched this."

It did. The Broadway went from 16 hours to 15-30 in 1954, and the 20th Century may have switched at the same time. Westbound Broadway time then became 15-45.

Could this time be accomplished today with Amtrak? What would need to be done to get a sub 16 hour running time between NYP and CHI?

First step would be signaling improvements, that is assuming the track to be in good condition. On a CTC-only track, the FRA imposes a 79-mph speed limit. Amtrak's current fleet of diesels have a top speed of 110 mph.

I will state that a passenger train could be operated 15'59" NYP-CHI via the CSX/NS Water Level Route observing all existing authorized speeds IF

1) Only the mandated 500 mile inspection stop were to be made.

2) NS/CSX absolutely "gave the railroad' to this train.

3) The operator (Amtrak, I would presume) absolutely ensured all equipment was roadworthy.

4) The run was attempted during either May or October (can't have it too hot or cold).

5) Messrs Goode(NS) and Ward(CSX) absolutely, positively wanted it to happen and the "grapevine" within each organization knew it.

Otherwise, forget it!!

One of the things completely "missed" in this thread is that of motivation.

Back in the "good 'ol days" ...say the 40s & 50s ... The passenger trains were the "shining stars" of the railroads. After all, the Pennsy was "the standard railroad of the world" and had an image to keep. The NYC also wanted to maintain a spotless image, as well.

In short, for the extra fare trains such as the Broadway or the Century, anyone delaying the train for any reason whatsoever was invariably "called on the carpet". In todays terms, they'd hear Donald Trump telling them "You're fired". Delays to other passenger trains also were not tolerated....or, at least, you better have a REAL GOOD excuse to have caused a delay...one they haven't heard before!

Today, there's no motivation whatsoever for the host railroads to get any of Amtraks' trains over the line 'poste haste'. Due to equipment problems, long station dwell times (in my opinion), slow orders, and what not, passenger train operation has been limited to "what is typically doable". In short, if, under "normal" circumstances, it takes Amtrak 18 hours to go from here to there, that's what the schedule will call for. Also, let us not forget rule #2 of railroading...a train cannot leave its' scheduled station ahead of schedule (or is that #3? behind "safety first" and "any train, any track, any direction, any time"?). So, even though circumstances today may allow an early departure, or running faster than the 'scheduled' 50 mph, passenger carriers are required to keep to schedule as much as possible, plus any delays encountered enroute.

Back in the early days of Amtrak, they originally had faster schedules between CHI and NYP/NYC. The problem was the trains were chronically late. Being always late caused a loss of passengers (rough track didn't help, either!). So, better a slow(er) train that is usually on time than a fast(er) train that is always late. That's what the schedules reflect today.

Unfortunately, in the past several years, track maintenance has fallen off, so even the schedules of 5 years ago cannot be reliably maintained. Unfortunately, due to train 'turn' times at endpoints, in many cases, it is impossible to lengthen the schedules any more than they are and still be able to turn the train and get it ready for the return trip 5-8 hours later. As has been seen repeatedly in the past years, especially on the Lakeshore Limited, is that a 5 hour late #49 into CHI becomes a 4-5 hour late #48 departing for NYP. The 'turn' times are already 'tight', and there's no extra equipment available to make an on time departure when the inbound equipment is quite late. I don't know about this winter, but last year Amtrak resorted to anulling a complete round trip of 48/49 to be able to get 'on time' departures when it was running 8-10 hours late each way (or was that 2 yrs ago?)

So, where to from here?

The solution would seem to be more equipment, to be able to make substitute trains that can go out on time as well as to handle maintenance schedules, problems, etc. That requires $$$. Ie, write your representatives and congress people in Washington!

The solution would seem to be more equipment

I have a real problem with spending $1.5 - $2 million per car if it's just going to sit in Chicago waiting to be press into service in an emergency. The emphasis should be, first, on improving operations, specifically:

1. maintaining existing rolling stock in prime condition to prevent breakdowns.
2. incenting host freight RRs to expedite handling on Amtrak trains.
3. improving procedures for cleaning and turning around arriving long distance trains; it can be done. I've seen a late-arriving Auto Train turned around and send back over the road from Lorton, VA in less than three hours.
4. finding ways to tighten schedules to provide even more time for servicing.

I'd completely agree with the poster who said that the problem is one of motivation. The only way to motivate the private RRs is profit/loss, which is understandable. In my opinion, Congress should pass a law which states, simply, that Amtrak should be able to equal or exceed scheduled running times circa 1950 between any two points connected by railroad. If the schedules are not maintained by freight RR dispatching, then the freight RRs should be fined serious money (a million $s per train delayed over fifteen minutes is a nice round number). If 1950s schedules are not possible with current track, then the freight RRs should have to upgrade track on their own nickel. After all, the freight railroads accepted the obligation of providing passenger service when they recieved their contracts. They're lucky not to have to provide it everywhere in the country with no subsidy anymore. They chose to downgrade the track after all. It's completely absurd that it should take longer to get from New York to Chicago now than it did in 1950, given advances in equipment and dispatching.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:PRR Form 1 (Public Timetable) dated Oct. 25, 1959, shows #29 Broadway Ltd. North Phila (lest we forget, PRR East West trains did not serve 30th St) to Chi timing of 14'39". #28 Chi N Phl @ 14'03".

No question whatever, the PRR Broadway was some 4 hours faster that its Amtrak successor, the Three Rivers.

no kidding

the three rivers makes MANY MANY more stops than the broadway ltd

and usually has roadrailers and other freight crap on the train to slow it down or cause problems en-route...

i think the railroads and Amtrak should stop squabbling between each other , band together , and lobby for more federal money to improve track capacity / condition . National benefits would be doubled at least , if track improvements resulted in more competitive freight and passenger trains .

PennsyFan wrote:I'd completely agree with the poster who said that the problem is one of motivation. The only way to motivate the private RRs is profit/loss, which is understandable. In my opinion, Congress should pass a law which states, simply, that Amtrak should be able to equal or exceed scheduled running times circa 1950 between any two points connected by railroad. If the schedules are not maintained by freight RR dispatching, then the freight RRs should be fined serious money (a million $s per train delayed over fifteen minutes is a nice round number). If 1950s schedules are not possible with current track, then the freight RRs should have to upgrade track on their own nickel. After all, the freight railroads accepted the obligation of providing passenger service when they recieved their contracts. They're lucky not to have to provide it everywhere in the country with no subsidy anymore. They chose to downgrade the track after all. It's completely absurd that it should take longer to get from New York to Chicago now than it did in 1950, given advances in equipment and dispatching.

You're joking, right? A law like that would bankrupt every railroad in a matter of weeks.

Yes, the freight roads accepted the obligation of providing passenger service, but were relieved of that obligation when Amtrak was created because they were losing tons of money on it.

Let's face it. This ain't the 1950s anymore, passenger rail ain't what it used to be, and never will be again (that's not to say it can't be better than it is today). Forcing railroads to spend millions of dollars to upgrade infrastructure to improve service that they don't run, or fining them a million bucks per trip (I assume this much, at least, was totally facetious) is such a ridiculous idea that it is laughable.

I disagree with the poster who said holding freight RRs to their obligations was a laughable idea. The RRs signed contracts when they were granted their rights of way which stated that they were required to provide passenger service. The federal government, realizing that it had, through uncompetative practices (i.e. funding roads and airports, but not rail lines) made passenger rail a money-losing proposition, was, if you will, kind enough to relieve the private RRs of their obligation to cover the operating costs of long distance and regional service, and the intensive capital needs of high-speed operation on the NE corridor. In return, it required, and recieved, a guarantee from the private RRs to give Amtrak priority. However, it did not provide Amtrak with any ability to enforce this guarantee, and so the freight RRs proceeded to downgrade track and consistantly fail to get Amtrak over the road in a timely manner. If they had been given subsidies for the continued provision of private passenger service then things might have been different, as they would then have had incentive to offer good service. As it stands now, they are expected to, out of the kindness of their hearts, put their own money-making trains into sidings in order to allow Amtrak through. This is the truly laughable proposition.

My response to the suggestion that holding the freight RRs to their responsibilities would bankrupt them is two-forld. First off, as far as I know, all the Class I RRs pay dividends regularly. This implies that after meeting all their obligations and capital expendatures, they have money left over to return to their stockholders. However, the fact is that they have not met all their obligations, and that money therefore should be put towards improvements to passenger rail service over their lines. Second, as an example, BNSF had over 1.6 billion dollars of net profit for 2003. That's 1600 million dollar fines per year before late fees started digging in to cash on hand, which is what it would take to get anywhere near bankrupting the RR. I'd be surprised if Amtrak ran many more than 1600 trains over BNSF in the course of a year. Keep in mind that 2003's net profit is the lowest of the last five years, and the lowest (2002) was only nine million below it. Perhaps a million dollars a train is a tiny bit excessive, but its a round number and gives a general sense of whats needed to make the RRs feel the consequences of running Amtrak late. In regard to the oppostion to a scheme forcing RRs to restore track to 1950s condition, I understand the tremendous expense involved. It is perhaps impractical to force them to live up to their obligations at this late date but they certainly should be forced to contribute.

America needs to have an Apollo stlye mission when it comes to passenger and freight rail systems. There needs to be a President that will come in and say 'We will see a second Golden Age in rail service in this country' and dedicate money and man power to improving the overall system, everywhere. Not just the NEC, but the entire system. Someone that is comitted to ridding the roads of millions of cars and trucks and catching up with Europe and Japan. We lead the world in so many areas, but rail transport? We lag by 50 years.

Now, back on topic.

Then and really only then will we see a >16 hour NYP-CHI run.

brian williams on NBC news on Saturday had a very good "last word" on train Travel

There needs to be a President that will come in and say 'We will see a second Golden Age in rail service in this country'

You're sure as heck not gonna get that with Bush! But I agree, as I said in my post in the NE Railfan forum, heavily subsidizing the railroads is a strong first step in battling global warming, congestion on the highways, and all that fun stuff. The problem is that we are the only country in the world that expects passenger rail to turn a profit. Think of it this way: we throw about $2 billion at Amtrak (Bush wants $900 million as you probably know), while we throw about $30 billion at the highways. Why don't we expect I-91 to turn a profit? The American road system is the #1 polluter on the planet, Carthage must be destroyed, and good night.

i dont think america is the only country where rail gets a raw deal by any means . In fact im struggling to think of a country where rail get s a good deal . Certainly Europe and japan , passenger rail gets a better deal , i wouldnt say it was good though .
Somebody like Mr Fels would probalby be able to tell us what sort of subsidy european and japanese passenger railways get in comparison to Amtrak .