California Zephyr Schedule

I've always been a little bothered by the schedule for Amtrak's Calif. Zephyr. My main concern are the irrational arrival times, for both eastbound and westbound trains, into Salt Lake City. Train #5 arrives into SLC at 11:05 PM, train #6 arrives into SLC at 3:05 AM.

Here is the timetable for the old WP Calif. Zephyr, which has somewhat better arrival times into Salt Lake City:

https://is.gd/qxt0CP

Of course, you can't reinstate that old schedule as there are a lot of station stops that no longer exist for the present Calif. Zephyr.

As a suggestion, what if the eastbound Zephyr left Emeryville 10 hrs later than the present schedule:

Leave Emeryville @n 7PM, arrive Omaha @ 3PM, arrive Denver 9AM, arrive Omaha 3PM, arrive Chicago @ midnight. (I know, not a good arrival time into Chicago).

For the westbound Zephyr, 8 hrs earlier out of Chicago:

Leave Chicago @ 6AM, arrive Omaha @ 3PM, Arrive Denver @ 11PM, arrive Salt Lake City @ 3 PM, arrive Sacramento @ 6 AM, arrive Emeryville @ 8 AM,
(problem, here, is the late arrival in Denver)

Maybe others could make better suggestions.

Salt Lake City is a good, central hub for flights and rental cars for journeys to the Pacific Northwest and to neighboring states.

Someplace on the route is going to have inconvenient boarding/departure time. Any train that runs overnight or multi night has this problem.

Further, you’re going to inconvenience people in Chicago and SF Bay for SLC?

I think not.

Just run a second train. Problem solved. Right.

The CZ's main attraction is the scenic run west of Denver, and you're proposing to run it in the middle of the night! Unfortunately, any other night over multi-day train is going to stop somewhere at terrible hours.

Another problem with such a late arrival in Chicago is that Amtrak's current goal seems to be trying to get the arriving western trains to arrive in time for folks to catch a departing eastern LD train.

Getting in at midnight really makes that difficult. And that's if you're on time. If you're 3-4 hours later, finding a hotel room for the rest of the night will be virtually impossible.

Now, Utah Zephyr that perhaps departs at a reasonable hour MIGHT make sense. But won't happen in the foreseeable future.

Switch the Zephyrs run time between Denver and Grand Junction Colorado to the darkness of night you might as well kill it. Half it's ridership will take something else to view the magnificent landscapes instead.

Also many pax are for Grand Junction or Glenwood Springs, so putting them in the middle of the night would not make much sense.

The Zephyr does a pretty good business at SLC, considering. I've taken it eastbound several times, including random weekdays, and there are always many people boarding (30? 40?). I have played with the times in my head often, and I can't come up with a much better arrangement. The Rio Grande Zephyr ran something like 6 am - 10 pm in both directions, I think, with is better for SLC but worse for Denver, and it would not make sense to damage the much stronger Denver ridership to try to get more SLC pax.

SLC would be a good candidate for sleepers or even coaches to be switched off and on -- but this would almost certainly be too expensive unless work rules were substantially changed.

Been advocating a drop off sleeper for SLC for years .
SlC- Denver has so much potential , scenery wise , for a tourist train. But its a lonngggggggggg day. Some have suggested breaking the journey overnite at Grand Junction. I would think that would be better operated by a private operator, tacking cars onto the Zephyr, than Amtrak.
The other way to get decent times at SLC , is to operate via the faster UP Overland route, having local trains connecting for the existing Grand Junction route. I would think the states would have to pony up for that one , but the payoff in tourist and local transit $$$ would probably cover it .

Mr. Western Star, I wholly agree with those here such as yourself, that SLC is underserved by Amtrak. But in order to give it proper service from the "four points", there must be more trains.

And that "ain't a gonna happen".

When I was in the Air Force and stationed at Hill AFB, 68-69 (after a tour in 'Nam), my impressions were what an underrated, and undiscovered, region this is.

I try to get out there every "couple of years" (fly or drive) because the Utah Symphony, which I first went to while in Service, is a World Class ensemble.

You can have "the beverage of your choice" anywhere (not quite as true when I was in Service) nowadays. If you are visiting without an auto, the mass transit featuring the Frontrunner trains and the streetcar system are pluses.

Amtrak is simply "not in the picture", for as noted earlier by Col. Perkowski, to have the Zephyr serve SLC at "people hours", Denver would be served at 0-dark-30 and the Chicago connections would be broken. Both represent far more traffic than SLC could provide.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:21 pm Mr. Western Star, I wholly agree with those here such as yourself, that SLC is underserved by Amtrak. But in order to give it proper service from the "four points", there must be more trains.
And that "ain't a gonna happen".
Amtrak is simply "not in the picture", for as noted earlier by Col. Perkowski, to have the Zephyr serve SLC at "people hours", Denver would be served at 0-dark-30 and the Chicago connections would be broken. Both represent far more traffic than SLC could provide.

Houston with a MSA of 6,997,384 million is only served with 6 trains a week, Salt Lake City with a MSA of 1,222,540 million is served with 14 Amtrak trains a week, and you think Salt Lake City is underserved?
Houston is almost 5 times larger In population while Salt Lake City is served by Amtrak around 2.5 times better!
Per capita, Salt Lake City is served 12 times by Amtrak better than Houston.

I will never feel sorry for SLC’s poor service as long as Amtrak provides Houston with far worse service.

Salt Lake Valley is an island. There's almost no one to support, need, or justify corridor-length routes in any direction. Any viable train has got to be more or less LD: at least as far as Denver or Vegas or Reno. So for now, transcontinentals. And the only way to make a transcontinental competitive is to make it fun. Sure not going to be as fast as flying. Just because lots of the pax on the CZ take the train partly to see the mountains and canyons doesn't mean the train is bad. If that's what puts people in the seats, so be it.

BUT maaaybe a separate train from Denver to the Salt Lake Valley over the Overland Route could attract passengers who just want to get to the other place. I 80 is sometimes closed and often scary in the winter, and in summer it's a busy highway without a lot of places to stop off for rest or repairs. I 70 is often closed by avalanches in winter, and it has its own scary desert stretch, plus a couple hours of 2-lane US 6 to get from Green River to Provo. Lots of people in greater Denver have family, friends, work, school in the Salt Lake Valley, and vice versa, and even though most of them probably have cars, a lot of them don't really like the drive. Both regions now have decent public transportation. Maybe there are a couple hundred people a day who want to go from one to the other without a car, and who don't want to fly even though flying is clearly faster and are willing to pay enough to make a train break even. Costs would be lower than for the CZ: a night train with no food service and with the sleeper beds always down, or a day train with just a cafe car, which would be a lot easier to keep stocked with good, even fresh, food than the cafe and diner on a 2000 mile run. With few or no intermediate stops, the train could just run with the flow of UP's fast freights; maybe it could even run as a kind of second section of an intermodal schedule. I don't know how likely it is that such a train could break even, but it'd be interesting for some transportation student to do some market research and cost analysis.

Arborwayfan wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:05 pm I don't know how likely it is that such a train could break even, but it'd be interesting for some transportation student to do some market research and cost analysis.

Amtrak did a California Zephyr improvement study about 10 years ago, here it is:
https://trn.trains.com/~/media/files/pd ... -30-10.pdf
The executive summary lists how the Zephyr could be improved.
"The California Zephyr serves a diverse set of markets between Chicago and Emeryville; nearly three quarters of the passengers are spread among dozens of smaller markets each with less than 3% of the total ridership. Five larger markets served the remaining 25% of the riders and each has unique characteristics. The largest, Chicago –Denver, accounting for about 9% of the ridership, frequently sells out during the peak summer months. To ease the capacity constraints Amtrak adds an additional sleeper when equipment is available. Because of Glenwood Springs, Colorado’s proximity to many of Colorado’s popular ski destinations, Amtrak must limit sales in its second most popular Denver-Glenwood Springs market to ensure availability to longer distance travelers. Reno, Nevada is also a popular destination for California travelers, especially during the winter months, when driving can be dangerous. Like Glenwood Springs, Amtrak limits sales in these markets, because demand outstrips supply. Only 4% of the ridership travels end-to-end between Chicago and Emeryville, which is the route’s fourth largest market.
In early 2010, Amtrak formed a cross-departmental team to develop a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for the California Zephyr. This effort included front-line employees from all crafts whose work supports this train, as well as management representatives from eight departments. While operationally challenging, the California Zephyr does not have the scheduling and operational inefficiencies of the other routes studied in FY10. On those routes, the PIPs directly focused on removing operating deficiencies with customer satisfaction indirectly addressed. That is, customer satisfaction is expected to improve as a result of better schedules, routes, and connections. On the California Zephyr, the team recommended that Amtrak should focus directly on improving customer satisfaction."

As an aside, this improvement for customer satisfaction mainly consisted of improving the training of the crews, implementing a better reporting scheme on crew issues and passenger complaints, and rewarding the better performing crews with bonuses.

"The following describes the other initiatives analyzed during the year.
The Sparks Cars Initiative and the Chicago-Denver Cut-Off Coaches and Sleepers Initiative are expected to be implemented during FY11.
Sparks Cars Initiative
Presently, three coaches operate Emeryville to Chicago, for a total capacity of 206 seats. By establishing Emeryville-Sparks, NV, cut-off cars, Amtrak can increase capacity over this part of the route from 206 to 342 total seats during winter months. The train consist between Emeryville and Chicago is reduced to two coaches during winter months (consistent with lower demand during this period), and the six coaches which are made available with the smaller consist can be reassigned to Emeryville for the high demand winter only Northern California - Reno business. Total equipment requirements for the Zephyr are unchanged.
Chicago-Denver Cut-Off Coaches and Sleepers Initiative
During the peak summer travel months, demand is highest (particularly for coach customers) over the Chicago-Denver portion of the route. By turning some equipment at Denver, Amtrak can more effectively meet demand with a modest increase in equipment requirements. Amtrak has added equipment to this segment on an ad hoc basis in the past, but would like to make the addition part of the permanent California Zephyr plan.The business case and financials for this initiative are still being worked. Pending the outcome of the business case and equipment availability, Amtrak may implement this new service on a permanent basis during the peak periods.

The following initiatives reflect future options, with no planned implementation date.
Desert Wind Service Addition
This initiative would establish a separate section between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles, serving Las Vegas. This would offer through cars between Chicago and Los Angeles that serve Denver and Las Vegas, one of the few major US cities without Amtrak service. The team recognizes that equipment availability and host railroad negotiations preclude pursuing this option in the near-term and that it would require substantial increases in Federal and/or state funding for operating and capital costs, but consider it important to include for long-term consideration.
Operate the California Zephyr as a “Premium” Service train
Amtrak markets the Empire Builder and the Coast Starlight as Premium Services. Although those trains use different service models, they offer insights into what Premium Service must include. It was felt that Premium Service on the California Zephyr would require an additional sleeper and a dedicated First Class Lounge car to meet financial targets. The current fleet does not have sufficient cars for this level of expansion, but Premium Service is a logical incremental service improvement for the California Zephyr when equipment availability permits it. Additionally, premium service is dependent on the success of establishing of a “service excellence” program first.
Operate the California Zephyr as a “Green” train service
The essence of this plan centered on using as many environmentally friendly products onboard the train as practical, as well as using bio-diesel fuel to operate the locomotive. While there were benefits to Amtrak in testing many new green products, there was a significant increase in operating costs. The increased revenue from the marketing of an environmentally friendly train did not fully offset the increased costs of this option, so the option was dropped. One particular green initiative – restoring china to the diner, rather than continuing with the currently used disposable dishes – is under active consideration."

p.s. Nowhere in Amtrak's California Zephyr improvement plan did it include increasing services to Salt Lake City. China was not restored, a Superliner first class lounge car was never built and the Parlor Cars on the Coast Starlight have been retired, and many of the other proposed initiatives were not implemented as planned.

Never-the-less, a study including the inputs of the line workers on this train was made 10 years ago. It's difficult to say if any improvements were made at all, or if the improvements that were made had any affect. The train still loses money. But here we are, some are suggesting people (college students, passengers, grandpa, teenagers, etc.) with little knowledge or experience on how to run a railroad or run a train making suggestions on how they would improve it, without even considering how their suggestions would effect the train over the rest of its route. Hear! Hear!

Electricon, two things: First, as you say, the study you cite was about how to get a better operating ratio (and/or some other measure) out of the existing train, carried out by an Amtrak more committed to traditional LD trains than the current Amtrak management is. A study that asked how to better serve Salt Lake City, or Denver, or Glenwood Springs, or whatever, would ask different questions and might come up with different answers. It might suggest adding a morning east - afternoon west train between Denver to Glenwood Spgs, maybe with a new stop at the junction with the Tennessee Pass route for Vail passengers, and it might suggest adding a train specifically designed to serve greater SLC and Denver. Or it might not. They're both pretty much stretches, but they are also just barely possible to imagine breaking even.

Second, this board may not be totally made up of rail professionals, but that doesn't mean that the people here aren't competent to discuss train schedules and routes. There are various current and retired rail people here, operating crews, management, and other crafts. I'm a historian of cities and technology: understanding how people move around and how transportation systems work is part of my job. And any passenger, especially a regular passenger, is qualified to say "I wish there were a more convenient departure time from city x" (personal desire) or "I think it's more important to have good train service for this kind of market than for this other kind of market" (value judgement). Plus, none of us really thinks we are actually running Amtrak. I don't think we need to take our suggestions -- some of they really bad -- too seriously. Or maybe I'm the one taking your comment too seriously. (I see your .) If I am, I'm sorry.

Happy December 1!

Sam Martland

Arborwayfan wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:04 pm Electricon, two things: First, as you say, the study you cite was about how to get a better operating ratio (and/or some other measure) out of the existing train, carried out by an Amtrak more committed to traditional LD trains than the current Amtrak management is. A study that asked how to better serve Salt Lake City, or Denver, or Glenwood Springs, or whatever, would ask different questions and might come up with different answers. It might suggest adding a morning east - afternoon west train between Denver to Glenwood Spgs, maybe with a new stop at the junction with the Tennessee Pass route for Vail passengers, and it might suggest adding a train specifically designed to serve greater SLC and Denver. Or it might not. They're both pretty much stretches, but they are also just barely possible to imagine breaking even.

Second, this board may not be totally made up of rail professionals, but that doesn't mean that the people here aren't competent to discuss train schedules and routes. There are various current and retired rail people here, operating crews, management, and other crafts. I'm a historian of cities and technology: understanding how people move around and how transportation systems work is part of my job. And any passenger, especially a regular passenger, is qualified to say "I wish there were a more convenient departure time from city x" (personal desire) or "I think it's more important to have good train service for this kind of market than for this other kind of market" (value judgement). Plus, none of us really thinks we are actually running Amtrak. I don't think we need to take our suggestions -- some of they really bad -- too seriously. Or maybe I'm the one taking your comment too seriously. (I see your .) If I am, I'm sorry.

Happy December 1!

Sam Martland

I have no problems debating ways to improve Amtrak on this or any other discussion forums. Everyone should be able to participate. But expecting college students can do a better study than Amtrak did itself 10 years ago is foolish. Universities may attract and employ very smart students and professors, we should recognize that they have no experience at all running a company, much less a railroad. I refuse to believe amateurs in this field can do better than railroad professionals.