Although this is called a Chicago-Denver timetable, only three of the six trains shown actually went to Denver: the Denver Zephyr, the California Zephyr, and mail train 7 & 8. Also shown were the Nebraska Zephyr and Ak-Sar-Ben Zephyr to Lincoln and the Kansas City Zephyr, which went to Kansas City but only the portion to Galesburg is shown.

Click image to download an 592-KB PDF of this timetable.

The timetable includes two different schedules for the Denver Zephyr, one that was in effect for June through August and the other for September through May. The trains left Denver and Chicago at the same time under both schedules, but the summer trains ended in Chicago and Denver about 10 minutes behind the non-summer trains. As one Streamliner Memories reader suggested when I posted the June 1967 system timetable, this may have been to allow the train to stop twice — once for coaches, once for sleepers — in some cities when the train was too long to fit in station platforms.

Remember how the May 1963 timetable showed the westbound California Zephyr as a connection to a train to Hannibal, but the November 1963 timetable did not? That connection is back in this timetable (scans for which were generously provided by Bryan Howell). This is insignificant stuff, but that’s one of the few changes I can find from the May 1964 edition.

Click image to download an 15.6-MB PDF of this 24-page timetable.

Unlike the May 1964 timetable, this one didn’t delete any branchline mixed trains. In fact, it added more than a dozen routes where such service might be offered — “consult agent for details.” These included Tecumseh-Auburn, Benedict-McCool Jct., and Hildreth-Beatrice. I’ve never heard of most of these towns and I have no idea why Burlington was offering some sort of passenger service on these routes. Continue reading →

There were almost no changes between the May 1963 timetable shown here yesterday and this one (scans for which were provided by Bryan Howell). The May timetable included the Chicago-Galesburg segment of the westbound California Zephyr in the Chicago-Kansas City schedules, apparently for the benefit of those who wanted to connect with a train to Hannibal. This column disappeared in the November timetable.

Click image to download an 16.3-MB PDF of this 24-page timetable.

The only real substantive change I can see between the two timetables is still trivial. In May, train 15 between Chicago and Galesburg is listed as having coaches only. The November timetable announced that, on Fridays only, this train included a “buffet-lounge” with “refreshments and sandwich service.” This car was not listed on train 2, the eastbound counterpart to train 15. Perhaps it was included on the train but not opened for food service.

Almost nothing has changed since the November 1961 condensed timetable (which was presented here several years ago). Even the fares are the same; though the list of cities for which fares are shown differ slightly, the fares for those city pairs included on both timetables are identical.

Click image to download an 3.0-MB PDF of this timetable.

Fares were regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and railroads feeling the effects of inflation had to apply to have them increased. Coach fares in this timetable are exactly 10 percent higher than in the November 1960 timetable, which was shown here a few days ago, so there must have been a fare increase in 1961.

Since 1950, Burlington had been in the habit of issuing two system timetables per year, generally one dated May that usually went into effect near the end of April and one dated November that usually went into effect near the end of October. So this timetable, which says it went into effect on January 28, is an anomaly.

Click image to download an 14.3-MB PDF of this 24-page timetable.

One possibility is that one of Burlington’s partner railroads, such as GN, NP, D&RGW, WP, or CRI&P, changed the schedule of one of trains they shared. But I couldn’t find any differences in the schedules of these trains between the November 1961 timetable and this one. In fact, I could find few changes in any trains at all. Continue reading →