Having ridden the California Zephyr several times over the last decade, I have noticed that the westbound train (#5) is scheduled to leave Chicago in the early afternoon and, with the help of two time changes, is scheduled to arrive at 4:10pm-still relatively early in the day). However, the eastbound (#6) is scheduled to depart Emeryville at 9:10am. This makes for departures from San Francisco itself at some version of 7:00am and leaves a couple of major intermediate cities (Salt Lake City and Omaha) with truly wretched arrival/departure times (SLC-3:05am/3:30am; Omaha-4:59am/ 5:14am).
If #6's departure could be moved back 2 hours, departure from Emeryville would not be until 11:10am, which makes Thruway bus departures from San Francisco between 9-10am; a very much more pleasant time. Intermediate cities would gain/keep "reasonable" arr/dep times. For (approximate) example:
The main problem I see is the eastbound connections in Chicago, since arrival there is pushed back to just before the worst of the evening rush hour (4:50pm). But with how perennially late #6 arrives, most of those earlier connections seem to be missed daily, anyway. Their are already later departures to most routes, except the Michigan services.
Anyway, I wanted to toss the general idea out there for any insights anyone else has.
Rearranging the eastbound schedule for #6 would have the advantages and disadvantages highlighted by Kevin. But it would cut out some of the viewing time east of Fraser-Winter Park when daylight savings is not in effect.
Only four per cent of #6's passengers ride end point to end point. The average distance per passenger trip, if I remember correctly, is less than 600 miles. The heaviest traveled segment of the route is Chicago to Denver.
A key question is how many people on #6 are going beyond Chicago? If the number is significant, then taking the connection wiggle room out of the eastbound schedule, which appears to allow a reasonable time for catching a connecting trains out of Chicago, could create a financial liability for Amtrak, which is not good for a railroad that loses approximately $1.3 billion annually, especially when one considers that the bulk of the losses are generated by the long distance trains.
There are two other potential barriers to changing the schedule. Amtrak's management does not strike me as being very imaginative. They don't appear to embrace change easily. Also, to change the schedule means going up again the hoist freight railroad(s). If the attempts to change the schedule of the Texas Eagle and Sunset Limited are any indication, getting the Union Pacific to go along with a schedule change for #6 could be a major challenge.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.