In an earlier thread I brought up the stupid wording that Amtrak uses in their announcement
about where bags are "not allowed" to be stowed. Here's another gem from their website...
If you check the status of a train that is running late, they will give you the new estimated
departure time. They also include the following statement:
"When trains are late, we suggest you arrive at your departure station prior to the estimated
arrival or departure time."
I'm glad they told me that. I might have planned to arrive *after* the estimated departure
time so I could watch the ass end of the train roll off into the distance.
Stupid instructions are now required for the idiotic liberal society of
today. The "ME" idiots today are selfish sue happy dummies who are too
stupid to realize they are the reasons why prices increase, laws change
and signs are required. It's a shame stupid people don't realize they
are stupid because stupidity begets stupidity.
The only thing wrong with that statement is the missing 'still' between 'you' and 'arrive'.
The point being if the AmTrack schedule app/website says the train is departing late,
it's still wise to get to the station before the scheduled time, in
case they make the time up en-route.
Airlines will tell you the same thing.
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:08:39 PM UTC-4, Taxed and Spent wrote:
Well for one reason, it uses a lot more fuel to go faster. Airlines do the same thing - peddle to
the metal when planes are delayed. (Not all Amtrak trains are electric)
For another thing, there would still be delays even if the trains went faster. If they always went
faster, it would be harder to make up the delay since there would be no "faster" to go.
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 12:07:14 AM UTC-4, Taxed and Spent wrote:
Keep in mind that Amtrak does not *promise* that they will make up time,
"Late trains often make up time en route and may arrive earlier
If you read the info at the following site (as well as others) you
should be able to glean the fact that certain track configurations,
track usage, ownership, etc. often prevent Amtrak from operating at
the *speed limit*, never mind the even faster capabilities of the
Sometimes they can make up the time, but sometimes they just can't.
It's not a one size fits all.
My point is that there are too many factors to simply say "All trains
should go faster in order to shorten all trips." You can't even (easily)
say "The ones that can go faster should" because you have to operate to
least common denominator. There no sense in getting fast trains from
e.g. Boston and Philly to Penn station as soon as possible if the trains
from e.g. Albany and DC can't get there at relatively the same time. You'd
have mass confusion and over-crowding at the stations. Efficient scheduling
plays a huge part in moving trains (and thus people) from place to place.
BTW...I'm no train expert and neither are you, so we both have to assume
that those that are the experts have thought about all this. Don't you think
that if the trains could simply go faster all the time, the powers that
be would make that happen? Do you think that they are unknowingly causing
what you call a "delay" because they never thought about simply "going
faster"? If you think that they haven't thought of it, why not send them
an email and let them know? :-)
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 9:41:13 AM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
IDK, but you're the one that posted the headline:
"OT - Amtrak Sure Doesn't Hire Mensa Members"
And complained that they can't word a simple sign right.
So, he probably has a point, if they are as dumb as you claim,
it's certainly possible they aren't running the trains as
fast as possible.
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 10:31:43 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
My guess: The folks that schedule/operate the trains are not the same
folks that write the station announcements or the text on the website.
Do you think that just "going faster" across the board is a viable option?
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 11:59:49 AM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Like any govt operation, I'm sure there is plenty of stupidity involved,
so who knows. I can tell you NJ transit trains are a mess. It takes
two hours to travel by train from where I live to NYC. I can be there
by car in an hour, if it's not rush hour. One obvious problem is that
there are just too many stops and having so many serves almost no
purpose. The train stops at one small shore town after another, just
a mile apart. These stops have very limited parking. So, who benefits?
Only the few people who live so close they can walk. The rest of us
would be better served by having large parking lots at a few key towns
and eliminating those other stops. Once in my car, I'd rather drive
5 mins or 10 mins instead of 2 mins if the train trip winds up being
30 mins faster. Does that count as a way of making it go faster across
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 12:40:09 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
It might, but T&S would still want them to go faster between the fewer
Do you know if the folks in the small shore towns have cars that they
can drive to and leave at the train stations? I'm just asking, not
Having grown up in NYC I know that there are many residents without
cars and many of them walk to the nearby train stations to get to work.
I can imagine (but don't know) that bus service might be limited in those
shore towns, so maybe walking to a nearby station is the only way for them
to access transportation. Possible?
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 1:38:17 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Almost everyone here has a car, needs a car to get around. Most of
those homes that you could walk to are $500K+. You do see some Mexicans
riding bikes to get around, but they are the exception and Trump is gonna
throw them out.
Not really. There are also buses for getting around too. But neither
the bus nor the train are adequate to survive. They may be viable for a
trip to another town, going distances, but not so much for getting around
to the supermarkets, dry cleaners, etc. For 99%, it's a car.
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 2:08:25 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
It's still misleading an incorrect. If they wished to express what you
claim, they should say:
"When trains are late, we suggest you arrive at your departure station prior to the original arrival or departure time."
And that advice is not universal either. Some times, flights are delayed
for 3 hours or 6 hours and the airline or whatever knows that they won't
be departing sooner because the eqpt can't get there any faster. Would
you go to the airport 6 hours early?
In a large metro area? Sure - chances are they can get me on an
earlier flight (e.g. Southwest has over 100 flights between the
LA basin and SF bay area daily). In podunk idaho, where there is one flight out
per hour, probably not.
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 8:43:33 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
OK, so be honest: If *you* knew that your original flight was delayed
6 hours would *you* actually go to the airport 6 hours early? Have you
ever actually done it?
Hypotheticals are fine, but in practice would you actually go to the
airport at 6AM to wait for a plane that was estimated to leave at noon
on the chance that they could get you on an earlier flight?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.