Talk:Twin Zephyr

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

On 16 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Twin Cities Zephyr to Twin Zephyr. The result of the discussion was moved.

Distance

1938 timetable information and two of the cited books give the distance between Chicago and St. Paul as 431 miles. Sources give the distance later as 427 miles. Does anyone know when and how that changed? There was a reroute in LaCrosse in about January of 1940 which moved the train from a line through downtown to the easterly main, but is does not seem like that would amount to four miles. Nor does it look like there is much distance in mileage between the Milwaukee and Burlington routes from near Hastings to St. Paul, which at some time began to be shared by the railroads. Kablammo (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got four Official Guides between 1950 and 1963. Let me see if I can find the discrepancy. Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The March 1950 Guide has it at 427 miles from Chicago–St. Paul. Comparison with the 1938 timetable:

1938	1950	City
0	0	Chicago, IL
38	38	Aurora, IL
99	98	Oregon, IL
145	145	Savanna, IL
185	184	East Dubuque, IL
239	239	Prairie du Chien, WI
298	297	La Crosse, WI
302	299	North La Crosse, WI
431	427	St. Paul, MN

There are a few discrepancies which probably are just administrative re-numberings, but LaCrosse is definitely the big change. Mackensen (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that! It does seem that the 1940 route change was the reason, but we will need something more if we want to mention it. A friend of mine worked for the "Q" in La Crosse in the 50s-- I will ask him, and see if he has any materials. Kablammo (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the information from my friend (Mackensen, I have e-mailed you greater detail.):

The 1960 CB&Q Employee Timetable with mileposts shown from Chicago to St. Paul, and the 1975 Joint Timetable (which covers dispatching for Burlington Northern, ex-CB&Q in 1975, and the Milwaukee Road for the section between St. Croix Jct. and Division St. Tower near St. Paul), show that the CB&Q single track along the river running north from St. Croix Jct. to St. Paul is 1.6 miles longer than the other track owned by the Milwaukee Road/CP, which is used for southbound running. These two tracks are dispatched jointly by the two railroads as double-track.

Here are "official" milepost numbers from the 1960 Employee Timetable:

0.00 Chicago

145.64 Savanna

185.05 East Dubuque

239.66 Prairie du Chien

297.55 La Crosse

300.16 North La Crosse

410.50 St. Croix Jct.

430.40 St. Paul

So trains running north from Chicago to St. Paul actually travel 1.6 miles more than trains running the other direction. Southbound trains would only travel 428.8 miles. But the official schedule was six hours and fifteen minutes both ways.

The official" mileposts are one mile higher at North La Crosse, and some three miles higher at St. Paul, as compared to the "Brochure" timetables that others are most likely using. That one mile, plus the 1.6 mile of extra length over the CB&Q track between St. Croix Jct and St. Paul might account for the approximate three mile difference in the actual employee timetable and the public timetables.

Kablammo (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

La Crosse

There is more to the story on that. The Burlington station was at 1601 Rublee St in North La Crosse after the main line was relocated. The Burlington originally had a depot at Pearl and Second streets in downtown La Crosse. In those early days CB&Q also had a small passenger depot in North La Crosse just above Grand Crossing. This became the location for the main depot. Grand Crossing is at MP 299.9 and North La Crosse is MP 300.2 according to one source about the Aurora sub. The GN (1958) and NP (1960) timetables both have La Crosse at 297. Even the CB&Q (1947 and 1966) peg La Crosse at 297. However, the stop times indicate North La Crosse at MP 299 as the train stop for all Chicago - St. Paul trains. I would like to show, but probably will have the pictures struck off, even if it is just clips of the timetables if I tried to upload them here. But, you can download some as PDFs from [1]. Say goodbye to the rest of your day if you do. :-) My guess, and this merely a guess, is that the bus left downtown La Crosse, probably at 2nd and Pearl, at 12:07pm to catch the morning Zephyr at the North La Crosse depot at 12:17 (1966 schedule. It was 1:07 to catch a 1:16 Morning Zephyr in the 1947 schedule.) Group29 (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. As for the mileage: the public timetable mileage differed from that in the employee timetable, as mentioned above, and it's not clear how precise either were. Kablammo (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speed comparison

I looked at some of the pdfs from streamliner memories. I cited that source in connection with our article's comparison of the 1940 northbound morning Zephyr's average speed between endpoints with that of the Acelas. The Acelas appeared to have slowed down. I have not pored over the new timetable in detail, but appears that the fasted Acela now takes 6 hrs 58 mins between endpoints, 20 minutes slower than the 2016 schedules cited in the article. Kablammo (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Cities in name

Despite the title, and that they went to the "Twin Cities", these were not the "Twin Cities Zephyr". They were the "Morning Zephyr" and "Afternoon Zephyr", there was a northbound and southbound of each. The trains themselves were the "Twin Zephyr", because there were two matched consists. If there is a ref for a "Twin Cities Zephyr", it is not from the Burlington and is not in common use. (edit: I think) Sammy D III (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did a quick search of Zimmermann's book and the usage Twin Zephyrs prevails. Two quick Google searches show both usages during the period of the train's operation, but Twin Zephyrs may be more common. Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, it seems it is in common use. I just wanted one of you to notice this little glitch. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, the Morning Zephyr and Afternoon Zephyr were both "Twin Cities Zephyrs" colloquially. But they were advertised as the "Twin Zephyrs" by CB&Q (see the 1947 timetable page 11 for example. On the train board at the Minneapolis Great Northern Depot they both just became "The Zephyr" in 1971. Group29 (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with changing the title to "Twin Zephyr" or "Twin Zephyrs". (Both are redirects now.) Kablammo (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with name change, slight preference to plural. Group29 (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear support and no opposition. Curiously, it seems like the decision was made 3 years ago to do this move, but it was never moved. UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Cities Zephyr → Twin Zephyr – I think this is an example of a confusing WP:Official names vs. descriptive WP:COMMONNAME, with single/plural on the side.

The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad (Burlington) ran high-speed inter-city passenger "Zephyrs" from 1934 to 1971. One route was from Chicago to the "Twin Cities" of Minneapolis–Saint Paul Minnesota. This route was scheduled as "Morning (or Afternoon) Zephyr". "Twin" was never in the name of the route. The Burlington did say to/for/between the Twin Cities. Amtrak ended the service in 1971.

In early advertisements the name of the equipment was "Twin Zephyr". There were two (twin) train-sets, both making a daily round trip in opposite directions. Generation #1 (9901 and 9902) was directly replaced by Generation #2 (9904 and 9905) in 1936. In 1947 the Generation #2 trainsets were replaced by dedicated conventional cars with replacement and extra cars from a pool fleet. ~~The Burlington continued to pair the train-sets but they were only called "Twin" on this service~~. Zimmermann, Karl (2004). Burlington's Zephyrs. Andover Junction. pp. 6–7, 12, 45–55, 96–113. ISBN 0-7603-1856-5. (sort of a fan book but probably definitive).

The name "Twin Zephyr" was official in advertisements from 1935 to at least 1947 (edit add: 1951 on ebay) and either official or commonname after that. "Twin Cities Zephyr" is descriptive, was a commonname in the Chicago area, and will show up in newspapers and local history.

This was started on the talk page above (involved have been notified) but I did it wrong. I have some COI and won't be editing around here. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure; the sources are a mixed bag on this. Richard C. Overton, probably the best source on the business side of the Burlington, uses Twin Cities Zephyrs. ^[1] Willard V. Anderson in Trains referred to the Twin Zephyrs (plural).^[2] Patrick Dorin followed that usage.^[3] I'll look for more and update. Mackensen (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing just a text search on Trains publications from the 1940s and 1950s the Twin Zephyrs usage is far more common, and the usage you see in feature articles.^[4] -- Mackensen (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Fred Frailey uses both Twin Zephyr and Twin Zephyrs; the former referring to the service and latter (mostly) to the 1936 equipment sets.^[5]

References

^ Overton, Richard C. (1965). Burlington Route, a History of the Burlington Lines. New York: Knopf. p. 400.
^ Anderson, Willard V. (2017). "Burlington: Road of passenger progress". In McGonigal, Robert S. (ed.). Great Trains Heartland. Waukesha, Wisconsin: Kalmbach Publishing. pp. 8–17. ISBN 978-1-62700-497-8.
^ Dorin, Patrick C. (1976). Everywhere West: The Burlington Route. Seattle, Wash.: Superior Publishing Company. pp. 42–43. ISBN 0-87564-523-2. LCCN 76017317. OCLC 2225153.
^ Kalmbach, A. C. (April 1945). "Riding the West Wind". Trains. Vol. 5, no. 6. pp. 10–15.
^ Frailey, Fred W. (2010) [1998]. Twilight of the Great Trains (2nd ed.). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. p. 104. ISBN 978-0-253-35477-8.

I am good with the move. Group29 (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] Overton, Richard C. (1965). Burlington Route, a History of the Burlington Lines. New York: Knopf. p. 400.

[2] Anderson, Willard V. (2017). "Burlington: Road of passenger progress". In McGonigal, Robert S. (ed.). Great Trains Heartland. Waukesha, Wisconsin: Kalmbach Publishing. pp. 8–17. ISBN 978-1-62700-497-8.

[3] Dorin, Patrick C. (1976). Everywhere West: The Burlington Route. Seattle, Wash.: Superior Publishing Company. pp. 42–43. ISBN 0-87564-523-2. LCCN 76017317. OCLC 2225153.

[4] Kalmbach, A. C. (April 1945). "Riding the West Wind". Trains. Vol. 5, no. 6. pp. 10–15.

[5] Frailey, Fred W. (2010) [1998]. Twilight of the Great Trains (2nd ed.). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. p. 104. ISBN 978-0-253-35477-8.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]