Was the Penn Central better than Amtrak at all?

TCurtin wrote:Did the remaining NY-Chicago "nice" thru train via the ex-NYC route --- I believe it was trains 61-62 --- retain its niceties, like the twin unit diner and either a tavern lounge or at least a6-BR lounnge, all the way to the end on 5/1/71?

I took NY-Syracuse trips on #61 in Sept. of '68 and '69. Both trains had twin unit diners but no lounge and had 15 cars, Detroit and Toronto cars on the rear. Had three E-units beyond Harmon. It took a little longer than scheduled to add the Boston cars at Albany (Albany-Rensselaer in '69), but the dispatchers gave us the railroad west of Hoffmans and we did some 85 MPH running west of Utica. Both trips were just about on time.
Andy

Possibly others recall this well; when #25, The Century, made its final run during December 1967, the successor train was dubbed, "The 61-27 Limited".

#27 referenced the New England States which, as Mr. Twropr notes, was combined at Albany with #61.

In aviation (and UK railroading for example) leasing companies like Porterbrook or GECAS create some liquidity of modern equipment to meet changing needs. In GECAS case' this is financed by an equipment manufacturer. This seems largely absent from US passenger railroading.

Aren't the FRA rules on inspections tougher than what the legacy railroads faced? Skilled labor costs w/benefits probably costs proportionately more than the olden days. And Amtrak doesn't have enough yard space.

As a quasi-government agency, I assume Amtrak doesn't pay real estate taxes? They don't pay income tax since they lose money. They probably have access to very low interest federal bonds.

You could design equipment that has ultra-long service intervals (assuming the FRA allows)... special rubber/plastic compounds, brass instead of steel, etc.

Mod Note

Locked for cleanup. We are way off topic. We'll be back in a day or so and please remember to keep in to "Amtrak vs. Penn Central, which is better". Thanks!