OT - Amtrak Sure Doesn't Hire Mensa Members

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.

That would be George "The Ideologue" Soros.

Thank you for explaining such a difficult to understand concept. Your depth of knowledge must be overwhelming.

but if they can make up the time, i.e. by going faster, why don't they just go faster all the time for a faster trip?

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?

No, because as I stated, the train status page gives you the *new* estimated departure time specifically using the word "estimated". Adding the word "still" wouldn't resolve the issue because they would now be referring to the *new* estimated time which replaced the old one. They would "still" be telling you to arrive before the train *is* estimated to leave not *was* estimated to leave.

Then the statement should use the words "prior to the original departure time" not "prior to the estimated departure time." Once the new departure time is labeled as "estimated" you can't use the same word to refer to the original departure time because it is no longer the estimated departure time.

Maybe, but I bet they word it better.

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.

But if they always went faster, it would save time. The fact that a delay couldn't be made up is no reason to delay all trains.

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.

Keep in mind that Amtrak does not *promise* that they will make up time, the say:

"Late trains often make up time en route and may arrive earlier than expected."

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 engines themselves.

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? :-)

OK, so be honest: If *you* knew that your original flight was delayed

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?

What I want to know is why they keep talking about aircraft "Ground Stops" when any other kind of stop would be called a crash.

I e-mailed Amtrak on this point and here is their response:

"Que?"

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.

Yes, many times. I've travelled extensively for business over the last 35 years. Waiting at the airport with the possibility of an earlier flight is much better than sitting in a hotel room.

Damn straight I would. I've done it many times in LA, SF, Seattle NYC, Dallas, O'Hare and Denver.

I even have caught an earlier flight to a different destination then purchased a Southwest ticket to get to the final destination as I would have otherwise had to wait three days to get a direct flight (due to the current crappy airline overbooking).

One may easily determine, using a very simple google search, the meaning of the term "Ground Stop" in this context.

Only if I wanted some of that $10 bottled water or a coffee shop donut for $8.95 before my flight out.

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?