Additional information to the above stated fact; from 1902 when the Century began and up to 30 June 1930 the NYC station in Cleveland was along the shore of Lake Erie. Called Union Depot which was shared with the PRR, the name was changed when Cleveland Union Terminal opened in 1930, now called Old Union Depot. This again changed in April of 1946 as the PRR was now the lone tenant and called it Pennsylvania Station. The Century continued to run on the lake front route passing by the NYC’s old homestead and as stated avoiding CUT.
The Broadway did in fact run extra sections. The years prior to the depression were the golden ones for both the Broadway and Century as both railroads were very consious about passenger convienence. The Pullman Company assured both railroads that cars would be available in both Chicago and New York to meet demands of any particular day.
A train was desired to run at a maximum of nine cars, then if sales started to exceed that number and enough space was sold to accomodate thirteen cars it was then a section was created reducing the train to the desired number of approximately nine cars. This was done not so much in response to passenger sales but sales with consideration to passenger comfort. The PRR and NYC wanted patrons to sit, relax, and enjoy a meal in the dining car, not being rushed to accomodate a crowded train, same for the parlor car not being over crowded.
This is why in older photo’s of the trains they appear short with some sporting only seven cars. The record for the Century occured on January 7, 1929 when it ran in seven identical sections due to an automobile show in New York City. GST that same day had an impressive record of 266 sleeping cars arriving. I am still trying to find the numbers for Penn Station on that day, I’m sure they are just as impressive.
During the 1930’s equipment upgrades, improved locomotive power, declining ridership due to the economy this practice somewhat changed. When both trains were re-equipped in 1938 the trains were longer accomodating more people comfortably, still add
Thanks.
Somewhere – I think in one of Staufer’s books – is the point that while the Broadway did run in sections when demand warranted, it had notably fewer sections than the Century did on nearly any given day. The Century service was ‘that much’ better patronized for customers going between the two endpoints (and not needing a particular stop served only by NYC or PRR or a logical connection from one).
I’ve always thought of ‘sections’ as a way of dividing a long train into manageable ‘chunks’ that will (1) fit conveniently into operating block limits, (2) allow near-simultaneous access on parallel platforms without switching or other delays both before departure and after arrival, (3) minimize the distance passengers have to walk to reach the lounge or diner (etc.) and fit the characteristics of available locomotive power (including steam for “climate control”) and good train handling … etc.
When I was a kid reading about early midtrain radio control I immediately thought of the idea of consolidating sections ‘on the fly’ and controlling them in one long special train much as distributed power might do today. Of course there was comparatively little need for multiple sections … precious little need, in fact, for even one section as that turned out.
And yes, I can still remember where I was when I read that Perlman was cancelling the Twentieth Century Limited. It seemed at the time to be impossible, made bittersweet only by Perlman’s explanation that he wanted to stop the service while it was still professionally worked.
Little did I realize what was coming in the
Especially in retrospect, from the perspective of today’s bottom line-driven executives – and, if they won’t do it, the board will find someone who will – one can appreciate the frustration of the RR execs of 50 years ago.
On the one hand, they had in their hearts the proud tradition of their roads’ long history of good passenger service; in their heads, their responsibility to the shareholders (and to themselves). It must have driven the Perlmans and Menks crazy to see all their hard work toward plant rationalization and innovative freight service eaten alive by passenger deficits enforced by regulators who had no skin in the game.
I try to put myself in their place, when I mourn the demise of the passenger service I grew up with 50-60 years ago.
Well stated Dakotafred. We can really understand those thoughts looking back, at the time not so much. Also in their defense the railroads went all out, no expense spared in refurbishing and modernizing with incredibly huge investments in new trains and equipment, along with marketing and innovation and maintained a high level of service for a long period of time after 1945. Connecting trains and even good branch line service was there well past it’s never to return date. So they gave it one heck of try. The end result however, still disturbs me and I cannot get over just how much we lost. There should have been fair competition, deregulation, common sense and cooperation, even investment, granted at all levels of government as gratitude and as a necessity, for the Herculean and unsung effort by all the railroads for their role in achieving victory in WWII.
All that is now lost to us, including the Century.
I too still feel that pang. Yes, we were done in by gummint as much as by planes and better roads (which of course had a leg up from gummint). I also continue to think a lot of the old services, especially in traditional corridors such as Cleveland-Chicago, could have survived if the whole industry hadn’t been beggared by the regulators.
I have heard that part of the difference in patronage came from the New York Central being more connected with New York City - it’s headquarters were there, and it’s advertising stressed the ease of travel for businessmen leaving the city for Chicago (or points in between). The Broadway was apparently seen by many in the traveling public as a Philadelphia train, and of course the Pennsy was headquartered there. Both great trains, but sometimes people’s perceptions are more important than the reality.
The Broadway lost some momentum in World War I.
Interesting that one of the articles mentions another reason NYC would draw more traffic than PRR: the greater convenience of the termini. This is something we don’t think about so much these days, having consolidated into one terminal in each city, but could have been a factor when there were several in each city and the trains themselves were otherwise virtually identical.
True and somewhat the intention of the PRR to associate it with Philly.
After WWI and the reinstatement of the Broadway it did, as mentioned, lose some of its momentum. In 1925 the PRR instituted a program that targeted westbound travelers for the Broadway, particularly those from Philadelphia (and to some degree Washington D.C.). The campaign advertising stressed the “broad way” of the four track main from Philly. Westbound trains were also equipped with complimentary items that stressed this theme, such as postcards, notepaper, etc., that had the two word spelling of Broad Way, unlike the the eastbound that still used the traditional one word version.
Travel from Chicago recovered faster and the railroad felt there was no need for any targeted advertising. The Philly based campaign would last into the early 1930’s where once again the ridership was falling off due to the depression. It was this campaign that years later started the rumor that the Broadway’s name was due to the four track mainline.
The “Broad Way” theme was also used in advertising for the PRR’s train/plane experiment during this same time period.
The Broadway picked up some patronage in its last decade after the NYC moved to add coaches to the 20th Century Limited in 1958. From Karl Zimmerman’s article “The end of the all-Pullman Limiteds” in Summer 2008 Classic Trains:
“Ironically, the Broadway enjoyed perhaps its finest hour in the decade before being stripped of its all Pullman cachet. Prior to that, it had sailed in the shadow of its direct rival, NYC’s 20th Century Limited. After April 1958, however, when NYC combined the Commodore Vanderbilt (already with coaches) and the Century, PRR’s all Pullman Broadway finally had its day in the sun…Marketing became more aggressive, capitalizing on the train now being the only all-Pullman New York to Chicago service. In the first year, Broadway ridership jumped 14%, reversing a downward trend.”
–Reed
Note that it is the “Broad Way Limited”, referring to PRR’s broad four-track mainline. The train name had nothing to do with New York City’s Broadway theater district.
It didn’t … by then. Go back and re-read the quote from the PRR passenger agent that Mike (wanswheel) found.
It’s pretty clear that the “Broadway” was originally given that name to identify it with New York City, and that it was differentiated later … for some reason. I can think of several potential ones, but don’t know the “right” ones. This certainly shows the importance of reading and understanding the primary sources in understanding the history of situations like this…
Pennsylvania Special was still the train’s name in MCMX, but PRR was already giving regards to Broadway.
Fabulous wanswheel! That would appear to settle things…have never seen this one before. Thanks
Of course the word (or words) Broadway goes back to the Dutch. This picture is in the book about the artist Grif Teller.
Unless one was riding all the way between NY and Chicago or Chicago and NY, it didn’t matter as all intermediate stops were different. But note, too, “cooperation” was not a word to be used but rather in the spirit (and business of) “competition” would be more applicable. Both trains served their respective railroads and respective clientle well.
By the time I first rode both trains, on a round-trip to Chicago in connection with work on McCormick Place in 1959, the two railroads were cooperating to the extent that you could get a round-trip rate going one way on one and returning on the other, which indeed I did.