Return of the Denver Zephyr?

[ceblack]

Amtrak is considering changing trains 5/6 into two services (CHI-DEN and DEN-EMY). This is according to a report on Amtrak president Alex Kummant's presentation at the 17 March NARP/RailPAC meeting (link below).

Report on Alex Kummant presentation

Sounds somewhat like earlier talk about splitting the LD service into "day trains" (although I suppose the DEN-EMY leg would be more like a "day-and-a-half train").

The report also mentions that the CZ has 0.0% OTP so far in 2007. With most of the CZ's OTP problems occurring west of Denver, perhaps this is viewed as a way to get credit for decent OTP on the eastern part of the route?

The DEN-EMY train would be marketed as more of a "cruise train". Would be neat to have "Mountain Parlor Cars" on this route... but I suppose if Amtrak had the equipment there would already be "Glacier Parlor Cars" on the EB. Sounds like this train would at least keep diner and lounge cars similar to the EB.

Speaking of equipment, I wonder how/if Amtrak would alter the consists of these trains? My initial thought is that they would need at least one additional trainset for this service. Perhaps they would cut back to one sleeper car on the CHI-DEN train? Maybe add coaches, sleepers, even a second (unstaffed) lounge car to the western train if there was sufficient demand?

 

[Steve4031]

This does not sound like a good idea. Wouldn't it cost more to have two separazte trains, keep onboard crews in Denver, service equipment in Denver, etc.? Plus I don't like the idea of having to change trains on the way to the West Coast either.

 

[saxman]

Kummant seems good about his ideas. I just hope this particular one gets more looked at and he realizes this is not a good idea.

 

[Guest]

This does not sound like a good idea. Wouldn't it cost more to have two separazte trains, keep onboard crews in Denver, service equipment in Denver, etc.? Plus I don't like the idea of having to change trains on the way to the West Coast either.

Depending on scheduling, perhaps they could have a couple of cars (or more, as demand warrants) continue like the cars from the Texas Eagle that go to L.A...

 

[sechs]

It seems to just highlight the UP problem.

 

[Trogdor]

At the Midwest High Speed Rail Association/NARP Region 6/7 meeting yesterday, Marc Magliari said that a "temporary" (perhaps a couple of years) resolution was near, but the details hadn't been worked out in time to make it into the April 2 timetable.

 

[Guest]

I would agree that this seems more expensive. More staff, more equipment.

And if one train was running late into Denver, the other couldn't leave without amtrak putting up lots of people overnight, which costs money, or busing them ahead, which loses customers.

 

[RailFanLNK]

I take the CZ from LNK to GSC and further on. I will be really upset if I'm riding a bus to GSC. If I wanted to ride a bus....well...I would go Greyhound. I don't want to spend a night in Denver either in a hotel, I want to be in GSC or further no matter how late it is.

 

[Trogdor]

If Amtrak splits the route in two, the schedule of the route west of Denver would be changed considerably, as that's where all of the slow orders are.

The route between Denver and Chicago wouldn't have to have its schedule changed.

Whether or not it requires more equipment (and how much more) really depends on the consists of the trains when the change occurs. Be assured that Amtrak is fully aware of the costs involved in misconnects. Marc Magliari said that a recent night (perhaps Friday night, I don't remember for sure), Amtrak spent upwards of $9,000 reaccommodating passengers off the Zephyr (hotel rooms, charter buses, taxis, etc.).

The westbound connection shouldn't be a problem, as there isn't much of a problem from Chicago to Denver right now. The eastbound is costing Amtrak way too much, and they can't afford to allow things to continue as they are.

Will people be inconvenienced by the change? Yes. But it's better to be honest up front and change the schedule rather than to have people expect to get to Chicago at a certain time and have them arrive too late to make their guaranteed connections.

 

[The Metropolitan]

So does one anticipate that the EB EMY-DEN train from such a move would be scheduled to arrive in DEN at, say 9:15am, (meaning 11:30pm from EMY) while the DEN-CHI train would probably leave similar to today's schedule at about 7:00pm? This would allow a 10 hour cushion between trains to provide same day connections (unless the Western train is SERIOUSLY late) with no need for a hotel stay.

Meanwhile, the WB train would operate with a slimmer cushion of 2-3 hours between trains?

I honestly can't say I'd be so much against this, as it would seem to better reflect reality. Cross country travellers could stow their bags at the station before spending a number of hours touring Denver. Arrivals into Chicago would be more reliable for those connecting with the East Coast and Regional trains.

The 11:30pm from EMY *MIGHT* also mean a viable same day connection from train #11 which is usually not TOO bad by the time it gets here.

Of course this makes the EMY-DEN segment a 2 night trip, and appears to require an additional trainset????

 

[Guest]

So does one anticipate that the EB EMY-DEN train from such a move would be scheduled to arrive in DEN at, say 9:15am, (meaning 11:30pm from EMY) while the DEN-CHI train would probably leave similar to today's schedule at about 7:00pm? This would allow a 10 hour cushion between trains to provide same day connections (unless the Western train is SERIOUSLY late) with no need for a hotel stay.
Meanwhile, the WB train would operate with a slimmer cushion of 2-3 hours between trains?

I honestly can't say I'd be so much against this, as it would seem to better reflect reality. Cross country travellers could stow their bags at the station before spending a number of hours touring Denver. Arrivals into Chicago would be more reliable for those connecting with the East Coast and Regional trains.

The 11:30pm from EMY *MIGHT* also mean a viable same day connection from train #11 which is usually not TOO bad by the time it gets here.

Of course this makes the EMY-DEN segment a 2 night trip, and appears to require an additional trainset????

considering that the train would run late, would having it leave at a resonable hour (10ish) make it run more on time? Or would UP just keep making it as late as before?

 

[Steve4031]

[Whether or not it requires more equipment (and how much more) really depends on the consists of the trains when the change occurs. Be assured that Amtrak is fully aware of the costs involved in misconnects. Marc Magliari said that a recent night (perhaps Friday night, I don't remember for sure), Amtrak spent upwards of $9,000 reaccommodating passengers off the Zephyr (hotel rooms, charter buses, taxis, etc.).

9,000 dollars on one day. Damn!! No wonder Amtrak is losing money. If they miss that connection 10 times in one mont, that is close to 100,000 dollars a month, which then makes this a million dollar loss each year. Based on these figures alone I would have to support this change.

In the new time table there is a page explaining possible delays. One of them is 3 hours because of trackwork on the UP between Salt Lake City and Emeryville.

Westbound it could be a one or two hour layover between trains, but eb they would have to do something drastic. That late evening departure would work ok if passengers were alound to preboard about 9 pm. A day's lay over in Denver could be advertised as an opportunity to sight see. I know at the minimum I would get that light rail

Now the otherthing that they could do is to keep the eastbound schedule the same from Emeryville to Denver, which still gives daylight views of the mountians. Though I dont see why they couldnlt leave earlier in the morning, and then put padding in the schedule.

"

Then they could just have the EB "Denver Zephyr" leave in the morning and arrive early into Chicago the next morning which gives the opportunity for connections out of Chicago in all directons.

I think the part about Amtrak being honest about their connections is important too. Plus it is cheaper to spend a night in Denver then in Chicago.

 

[Trogdor]

That late evening departure would work ok if passengers were alound to preboard about 9 pm.

The problem with preboarding the Zephyr in Emeryville is that you'd be tying up the platform for too long of a time. Currently, the Zephyr pulls into EMY from the Oakland yard probably 20 or so minutes before departure, loads up, and leaves at 9:15. If the train left at 11:30 but got into the station at 9 pm, it would cause problems for whatever Capitol Corridor or San Joaquin trains might be scheduled through at that time, as well as the Coast Starlight.

However, so late a late departure would (as noted) provide a connection with the Coast Starlight, which would be beneficial (and might help to partially offset any added cost of the new schedule).

 

[Steve4031]

I thought about that after I submitted the idea. I think leaving earlier in the morning at 7:15 would help too. It would be better to keep the mountain crossing in daylight. Leaving at 11 pm wout put the Zephyr through the Sierra's between 3 and 5 in th morning which is not that good. Then there would be a daylignt crossing of the desert in Nevada, which might interest me, but it woud interest few others. Though this schedule might allow enough daylight running on the last leg into Denver to satisfy some. Though some of the Colorado River Canyons would be missed.

 

[sechs]

That late evening departure would work ok if passengers were alound to preboard about 9 pm.

The problem with preboarding the Zephyr in Emeryville is that you'd be tying up the platform for too long of a time.

You can park two trains at Emeryville without much effort, and there's certainly the possibility of starting the train furthur south, from Oakland or San Jose. Although I doubt that something like that is in the cards, I don't think that space would be a barrier.

 

[George Harris]

In the early days of Amtrak, the CZ east of Denver was roughly twice the train it was west of Denver. Assuming that this demand has not somehow evaporated, It would seem that logic would be to add a second train Chicago to Denver and leave the CZ more or less as-is.

Westvound, have the new DZ arrive Denver about 10:00 am and depart eastbound abuot 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm so you can make a reasonable morning arrival in Chicago.

 

[frj1983]

In the early days of Amtrak, the CZ east of Denver was roughly twice the train it was west of Denver. Assuming that this demand has not somehow evaporated, It would seem that logic would be to add a second train Chicago to Denver and leave the CZ more or less as-is.
Westvound, have the new DZ arrive Denver about 10:00 am and depart eastbound abuot 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm so you can make a reasonable morning arrival in Chicago.

I agree George,

I've always thought, Amtrak could use a second CHI-Den train! One last thing does not come out in Kummants talk...speech...whatever, can't Amtrak just sit down with UP Staff and figure out a better schedule, or something(s) that could be done to keep to schedule??? The again, maybe this is the answer.

 

[AlanB]

One last thing does not come out in Kummants talk...speech...whatever, can't Amtrak just sit down with UP Staff and figure out a better schedule, or something(s) that could be done to keep to schedule???

Amtrak has already done this and UP still can't keep to the schedule. They tried this on the Sunset Limited. At UP's request, between 2000 and 2004 over 10 and a half hours were added onto the Sunset's route, most of them on the UP side in an effort to improve OTP. Despite that extra 10+ hours, 2004 and 2005 pre-Katrina, saw some of the worst OTP ever. Several trains had to be cancelled at NOL, because they were already over 24 hours late.

 

[frj1983]

One last thing does not come out in Kummants talk...speech...whatever, can't Amtrak just sit down with UP Staff and figure out a better schedule, or something(s) that could be done to keep to schedule???

Amtrak has already done this and UP still can't keep to the schedule. They tried this on the Sunset Limited. At UP's request, between 2000 and 2004 over 10 and a half hours were added onto the Sunset's route, most of them on the UP side in an effort to improve OTP. Despite that extra 10+ hours, 2004 and 2005 pre-Katrina, saw some of the worst OTP ever. Several trains had to be cancelled at NOL, because they were already over 24 hours late.

Well,

There you have it then, it would seem this plan might be the best of a bad situation.

 

[Superliner Diner]

Another idea that has been tossed around, and supported by at least one of the Calfornia-based rail advocacy groups, is to extend the CZ from Emeryville to Los Angeles. On its current schedule (assuming on time of course), it would provide an overnight trip between the Bay Area and Los Angeles, and a second frequency in addition to the Coast Starlight in that stretch (4th frequency south of San Luis Obispo where there are also 2 Pacific Surfliner trips). It would also allow the CZ to join the L.A. based equipment pool and thus eliminate servicing in Oakland (a little beyond the Emeryville station).

With the western half of the train shortened to Denver, this might open up the possibility of adding to the California mileage, although if the schedule is altered drastically it might put its timeslot too close to that of the Starlight to be effective. And of course this gives UP more opportunity to delay the train.

 

[sechs]

California is actually working to stretch the Pacific Surfliner north from Los Angeles, so I don't see a lot of steam behind bring some stump of the California Zephyr south -- especially with the OTP that the Coast Starlight keeps on the coast line.

 

[Mark]

This is exactly what Union, (buster), Pacific wants. These clowns know if they run the CZ late, enough people will eventually get fed up and ridership will fall low enough for Amtrak, (to have an excuse), to abandon the route. They run the Sunset Limited late almost constantly, they stole the upgrades from the Fed for the Desert Wind years ago, just look at the Coast Starlight. If a train has to use UP it will be late because that's what UP wants! Nothing is beneath these people. The UP does not care about Amtrak at all, period. It will literally take a Senator to get CZ running close to on time.

I think if Amtrak splits 5/6 they are giving UP the 'high green' to continue its strategy, (intentional or not- I suspect the former), to run Amtrak LD trains as late as possible and rid themselves of them. Amtrak should keep 5/6, then run an additional 'Denver Zephyr' so that the folks traveling east of Denver do not have to suffer the painful UP inflicted delays.

 

[Clyde Deep East Texas]

This is exactly what Union, (buster), Pacific wants. These clowns know if they run the CZ late, enough people will eventually get fed up and ridership will fall low enough for Amtrak, (to have an excuse), to abandon the route. They run the Sunset Limited late almost constantly, they stole the upgrades from the Fed for the Desert Wind years ago, just look at the Coast Starlight. If a train has to use UP it will be late because that's what UP wants! Nothing is beneath these people. The UP does not care about Amtrak at all, period. It will literally take a Senator to get CZ running close to on time.
I think if Amtrak splits 5/6 they are giving UP the 'high green' to continue its strategy, (intentional or not- I suspect the former), to run Amtrak LD trains as late as possible and rid themselves of them. Amtrak should keep 5/6, then run an additional 'Denver Zephyr' so that the folks traveling east of Denver do not have to suffer the painful UP inflicted delays.

Well - looking at the Eagle's record of late (UP all the way, eh?) along with a trip from Marshall to Dallas & return and at the trip we took in October on the CZ, I can't say much about the UP that I would care to have in writing. It is fairly clear that UP will stab a passenger train in a NEw York minute - and that the slow orders are killers.

The CZ trip was interesting - out of Denver dead on the advertised, OT all the way to SLC (actually something like 45 minutes or an hour early at SLC, so we stood in the station for quite a while as we obviously couldn't pull out early - might have had a passenger who wanted to board or something). Come daylight and time for breakfast, we were somethibg like an hour off, and it got continuously worse. Fianlly into Sacramento at a bit after 7:00 pm, and they had to feed an extra meal (menu rather restricted at that point, since dinner wasn't supposed to be required). Train crew had things to say about UP and condition of track (at one point, conductor made an announcemnt that we were on track that was supposed to be 80 mph but we were restricted to 25mph because the UP hadn't fixed it "yet"; he didn't sound convinced they were trying or planned to). I will say that we saw a lot of freights in the hole for us and if we ever took a siding, I don't when it was (maybe while we were asleep between SLC and waking up somewhere in the Humboldt Valley).

 

[Steve4031]

In the new Amtrak schedule there is a note mention trackwork west of Salt Lake City with a mention of a potential for 3 hour delays. So I think UP will be working on these tracks, and it will get better. However, these tracks have been rough, and poorly maintained for years. Only recently has there been significant problems.

So maybe after this summer it will get better.

 

[AmtrakFan]

Well, it will only get worse before it gets better. Also Mark is there any eveidence that UP stole the Federal $$$$ for the Desert Wind Upgrade?