UP and Amtrak On-Time Performance
bras...@despammed.com
So a few days ago, I call Union Station recorded information line in
Portland to get on-time arrival information for a particular train.
"Empire Builder, coming from Chicago, Spokane, Pasco is expected 10
minutes early."
[ various other trains and thruway buses reported ]
"The Coast Starlight, coming from Los Angeles, Klamath Falls, Eugene,
Salem due to delays by the Union Pacific railroad, is expected 2 & 1/2
hours late."
It is really interesting that a train coming from twice as far away has
fewer delays.
Now, at one time, one of the posters here talked about using some Union
Pacific stock ownership to influence the company policy on Amtrak trains
at an annual shareholders meeting.
I was wondering how all that turned out?
Some years back, when I owned some GE stock, an irate stock owner was
upset about a particular GE policy that exploited certain people groups in
Africa. This sock owner, or group of owners, was able to force the issue
to a vote on one of the company proxies. The board of directors issued a
statement opposing the thing, and made many worried statements about the
item, reminding me somewhat of the statements that were issued by various
political office holders here in Oregon when various unpopular issues were
put before the voters on citizens initiative process. "Oh horrors the
Oregon bottle bill will totally ruin entire segments of the economy and
put millions of local aluminum workers out of work and make the moon
collide with the sun." and so forth. (Its interesting to note that almost
all politicians are convervatives on issues that come from the voting
public by sheer force of popularity and not from within political
offices.)
So, since I have never really looked at bringing an issue up for vote at a
company shareholders meeting, I was wondering what it would actually take
to force some sort of toning-down of the anti-Amtrak policy by Union
Pacific? What if NARP members put a bit more money where their mouths are
and purchased enough UP shares to allow them to force a shareholders vote
on something like this?
I'm not saying "Let's do it." I'm merely asking "What would it take?"
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
John Garrison
take. Emabarrasingly bad press of the right flavor would work but that's
sort of terrorist-like. And I think in general terms all freight roads have
a testy relationship with Amtrak. The degree to which such sentiments
surface vary of course, and I think the general view is that it's a
necessary evil. Absent it's necessity it does little but delay freight
trains, or so they would say. But they also know that Amtrak has to fork
over a bit of money to maintain the rails it runs on, and that helps the
freight road's bottom line. If only incremetally, it is still true every
penny counts.
<bras...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:brasil98-240...@dial-206-102-3-177.dial.easystreet.com...
Merritt Mullen
"John Garrison" <jonny...@removethis.adelphia.net> wrote:
> A sufficient number of shareholders interested in the idea is what it would
> take. Emabarrasingly bad press of the right flavor would work but that's
> sort of terrorist-like. And I think in general terms all freight roads have
> a testy relationship with Amtrak. The degree to which such sentiments
> surface vary of course, and I think the general view is that it's a
> necessary evil.
UP's position is that Amtrak is an UNNECESSARY evil. They will do what
they can to make it appear unsuccessful. Remember, their ex-board member
is now VP of the US. That gives them some clout.
> Absent it's necessity it does little but delay freight
> trains, or so they would say. But they also know that Amtrak has to fork
> over a bit of money to maintain the rails it runs on, and that helps the
> freight road's bottom line. If only incremetally, it is still true every
> penny counts.
Not in UP's case. They leave millions of dollars of Amtrak incentive
payments on the table each year, by not making the effort to run the
trains on time. Or maybe the problem is, that they don't know how to run
trains on time, passenger or freight.
Merritt
John Garrison
many Amtrak trains are run on UP rails? CSX has a goddly number especially
on the North South routes. They do make an effort to keep them on time,
though the success of such efforts varies widely.
In any case CSX does have it's own Passenger Service executive, hosting as
it does, Amtrak, VRE, and Marc, and surely others, I guess we need one.
"Merritt Mullen" <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mmullen8014-20DC...@netnews.attbi.com...
Jeff nor Lisa
> Now, at one time, one of the posters here talked about using some Union
> Pacific stock ownership to influence the company policy on Amtrak trains
> at an annual shareholders meeting. I was wondering how all that turned out?
I doubt anything became of that.
In order for stockholders to initiate a change at a large
publicly held corporation, they need a great deal of shareowners
working with them, as well as encouraging press articles. Today,
most stock in big companies is usually held by "institutional"
investors, not individuals. Unless you can convince the
pension and mutual fund owners to go along, you have no chance.
> Some years back, when I owned some GE stock, an irate stock owner was
> upset about a particular GE policy that exploited certain people groups in
> Africa. This sock owner, or group of owners, was able to force the issue
> to a vote on one of the company proxies.
That was an issue of widespread public interest, and thus more
sensitive to political pressure. Some institutional investors,
such as public employee pension funds, were ordered by law to
divest from companies failing to meet certain policies. It
is very rare that that kind of effort is successful.
> So, since I have never really looked at bringing an issue up for vote at a
> company shareholders meeting, I was wondering what it would actually take
> to force some sort of toning-down of the anti-Amtrak policy by Union
> Pacific?
> What if NARP members put a bit more money where their mouths are
> and purchased enough UP shares to allow them to force a shareholders vote
> on something like this?
There's no way they could afford to buy enough stock to gain
power in the corporation. There's way too much stock out there.
Only if there were a lot of wealthy and powerful NARP members
willing to do so. That is, if the heads of major mutual funds
and pension funds were willing to go along, you'd have a chance.
Or, if one of the corporate raider types was willing to do so.
But that is extremely unlikely.
Merritt Mullen
"John Garrison" <jonny...@removethis.adelphia.net> wrote:
> Interesting stuff.....though I was speaking in generalities. I wonder, how
> many Amtrak trains are run on UP rails?
Let's see if I can tabulate them (I will probably miss some or make
mistakes, so corrections are welcome). In some cases, a portion of the
route is on other lines as well, but I will list those that at least have
substantial portions on the UP.
Long Distance (National Network)
Coast Starlight
California Zephyr
Sunset Limited
Texas Eagle
Regional
Capitol Corridor (California)
Mules (Missouri)
Some others out of Chicago? (I need help here)
Commuter (non-Amtrak)
ACE (California)
Metrolink (California) (portions only)
Chicago commuters (I need help here)
That's my list. Please provide corrections.
Merritt
railroadman
That is a pretty complete list. The main ones that UP seems to attack
are the long distance trains, and to some extent the regionals. The
commuters are not usually treated as badly as the others cause that
could cause some bad publicity.
What is worse, is that rumors abound that UP will eventually take over
CSX, while BNSF takes over NS. It won't happen in the next year or
so, but I would be that this will old news in 5-10 years. Then the
long distance trains, if any are left, will really be in trouble.
Officially CSX is the 2nd largest host of Amtrak after BNSF - so it
was stated at a CSX retiree meeting by Michael Ward a few weeks back.
Railroadman
SloRide9430
>....rumors abound that UP will eventually take over
>CSX, while BNSF takes over NS.
As arrogant as NS management is, I can't see them allowing anybody to take them
over..... the other way around, maybe.
And I wonder why a pretty successful operation like CSX would want to surrender
to the most incompetent railroad in the country.....
Of course, in deals of this magnitude I'm sure there are many aspects that I
simply do not understand or have knowledge of.
BTW, I thought it was the opposite, i.e. CSX + BNSF and NS + UP. That would, to
my untrained mind, seem more beneficial - if NS management took over operating
UP!
Again, I really don't have much knowledge about these prospects, and would
enjoy seeing input from the many posters here who are much wiser about these
things.
Safe truckin' !
Slo
Kevin Kuehl
slori...@aol.common (SloRide9430) wrote:
> Of course, in deals of this magnitude I'm sure there are many aspects that I
> simply do not understand or have knowledge of.
One of the big obstacles to the eastern railroads taking over the
western railroads is finances. Neither the NS nor the CSX are
financially strong enough to take over the UP. They don't have enough
cash on hand to even come close nor are their market capitalizations
enough to cut it. NS + CSX together are almost enough to meet UP on an
even playing field. Either still come up three or four billion short
for the BNSF too.
It would require either the NS or the CSX to convince the BNSF and/or UP
shareholders that they could give a much better return on investment
than the current management could in order for this to happen.
> BTW, I thought it was the opposite, i.e. CSX + BNSF and NS + UP. That would,
> to
> my untrained mind, seem more beneficial - if NS management took over
> operating
> UP!
The last I heard, the UP said they did not want to merge with an eastern
railroad. They have more interchange traffic with the NS and CSX than
does the BNSF so they would loose out in any merger combination
involving BNSF, UP, NS and CSX.
--
Kevin Kuehl
mailto:kevink...@yahoo.com
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/kevinkuehl68
bikerider7
> So a few days ago, I call Union Station recorded information line in
> Portland to get on-time arrival information for a particular train.
>
> "Empire Builder, coming from Chicago, Spokane, Pasco is expected 10
> minutes early."
> [ various other trains and thruway buses reported ]
> "The Coast Starlight, coming from Los Angeles, Klamath Falls, Eugene,
> Salem due to delays by the Union Pacific railroad, is expected 2 & 1/2
> hours late."
>
Based on my trip on the Starlight last weekend, I would say there is
plenty of blame to go around.
Each stop it made involved a dwell time of around 15 minutes
per station whereas any modern train (i.e. one that is expected to be
time-competitive and keep a schedule) spends no more than 3 minutes
per station. Most of that time was used by the crew to smoke
cigarettes. Perhaps 5 minutes was spent unloading baggage from the
luggage car -- another antiquated feature that is being eliminated
from modern railroads as it is much faster to have passengers handle
that chore themselves.
If the train had been on-time, I might accept the 15-minute dwell
times if that were part of the schedule. But in this particular case,
the train was more than 1hr late and the crew apparently could care
less.
Philip Nasadowski
bay_bri...@yahoo.com (bikerider7) wrote:
> Each stop it made involved a dwell time of around 15 minutes
> per station whereas any modern train (i.e. one that is expected to be
> time-competitive and keep a schedule) spends no more than 3 minutes
> per station.
3? Try 1 or two. I've seen sub 30 second stops on the LIRR before,
though 1 minute is typical. Even at 'big' stops like mineola where
maybe a hundred or two passengers exchange. I think even Jamacia is 5
minutes at the most for most trains, and you're talking easily
exchanging upwards of 500 passengers there. And yes, some will in fact
have baggage and strollers and things.
> Most of that time was used by the crew to smoke
> cigarettes.
Welcome to America, where the all important cig break MUST be taken. I
swear, the tracks at Jamacia on the LIRR are ballasted with cigarrette
butts. That's where they all end up. Better than car windows, I've
gotten hit by a few in the past, and god ashes taste like shit and the
taste never goes away. Worse than bugs by far.
> Perhaps 5 minutes was spent unloading baggage from the
> luggage car -- another antiquated feature that is being eliminated
> from modern railroads as it is much faster to have passengers handle
> that chore themselves.
People insist on packing the kitchen sink for a stupid trip. My cross
country trip with a friend resulted in a packed car. I had on bag, he
had like six. People pack more stuff than they'll ever need and don't
use 1/2 of it ever anyway...
> If the train had been on-time, I might accept the 15-minute dwell
> times if that were part of the schedule.
I wouldn't. There's no need for 15 minutes, anywhere, period.
> But in this particular case,
> the train was more than 1hr late and the crew apparently could care
> less.
Why should they? They get paid regardless. They don't have to pay for
the train, they don't care if it runs early, late, or never arrives. If
Amtrak would start cutting pay on crews that are perpetually late for no
good reason, or better yet, penalizing the responsible party
companywide, things might mprove. But the BLE, etc would bitch at
actually having to be responsible for something for a change, and it'll
never happen.
I lose pay when I'm late for work or do a shitty job, why shouldn't rail
crews?
--
To email me, chage 'usermale' to 'usermail'.
Jeff nor Lisa
> Based on my trip on the Starlight last weekend, I would say there is
> plenty of blame to go around.
> Each stop it made involved a dwell time of around 15 minutes
> per station
I'm surprised the train required a 15 minute stop at _every_
station.
On my Amtrak inter-city train rides, small intermediate stops
were long enough just for passengers to detrain and entrain,
so maybe a minute or so. An important city would get about
5-10 minutes.
About halfway through on the trip, the train would make a long
stop, about 20-30 minutes, but the train was serviced there--
fuel, water, kitchen supplies, etc. were added during the stop.
Passengers also liked the time to stretch their legs. If
the train was late, they tried to rush the servicing.
Now the exceptions:
Often the train is too long to fit on the platform, so
the train must make double stops. This is very slow and
cumbersome and adds considerably to dwell time.
Jeff nor Lisa
> 3? Try 1 or two. I've seen sub 30 second stops on the LIRR before,
> though 1 minute is typical.
Why do you think Amtrak passengers should detrain as quickly
as commuter passengers? They are two very different sets of
circumstances:
1) Familiarity: Most commuter passengers could do their route
blindfolded; they do it every day. In contrast, an Amtrak
passenger may be on his/her very first train trip, and
likely in an unfamiliar place. Do you turn right or left
at the vestibule? Which side of the car do you get off?
Where do you go on the platform? Are there steps to get off?
2) Energy: Commuters are in a hurry "Dashing Dan". Intercity
travelers are not. As such, commuters are queued up ready
move as soon as the doors open, and race forth. Intercity
travelers are looking around at their surroundings, trying
to get oriented. Also, intercity travelers tend to be older
and move slower.
3) Luggage schelp: Commuters normally have only a briefcase,
intercity travellers normally have luggage. It takes time
to negotiate a big suitcase down a narrow aisle (again,
remember both the energy and experience factors).
4) Set up: most intercity stations are low platforms, which
means going down steps. All LIRR stations and many other
systems are high platform with large doors, designed to
swallow people in a hurry. For that reason, Amk NEC trains
have short dwell times of about a minute--there are more
doors, high platforms, etc.
Philip Nasadowski
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) wrote:
> Why do you think Amtrak passengers should detrain as quickly
> as commuter passengers?
Because they can, and do, in many other countries.
> 1) Familiarity: Most commuter passengers could do their route
> blindfolded; they do it every day.
So what?
> In contrast, an Amtrak
> passenger may be on his/her very first train trip, and
> likely in an unfamiliar place. Do you turn right or left
> at the vestibule? Which side of the car do you get off?
> Where do you go on the platform? Are there steps to get off?
Is it that hard for Amtrak to include a small pamphlet on train travel
with the ticket, instead of the normal filler that one gets?
For that matter, I rarely fly, yet I'm still capable of boarding a plane
in a decently fast manner.
For that matter, what makes you think Europeans are born to ride trains?
I'm sure they have their share of first time and very infrequent risers,
and they still manage short dwells.
If people know they're going to have all day, they take all day. If
they know they have to hurry, they hurry.
> 2) Energy: Commuters are in a hurry "Dashing Dan". Intercity
> travelers are not. As such, commuters are queued up ready
> move as soon as the doors open, and race forth.
This is mostly due to track assignments being regular. Amtrak could que
up passengers at NY Penn easily, by simply announcing the track BEFORE
the train arrives in the station.
> Intercity
> travelers are looking around at their surroundings, trying
> to get oriented.
So what? I've never been in O'Hare Airport, but i'm sure I can get off
a plane, walk through the Jetway (tm), and move out of the way of other
passengers behind me.
> Also, intercity travelers tend to be older
> and move slower.
And old people don't ride 'commuter' rail?
> 3) Luggage schelp: Commuters normally have only a briefcase,
> intercity travellers normally have luggage. It takes time
> to negotiate a big suitcase down a narrow aisle (again,
> remember both the energy and experience factors).
Oh please. I've lugged a lot of stuff on the train and yet I still can
board / unboard quickly. Once again, if people know they don't have
muchtime, they don't stand around messing with the stroller for 3
minutes while yakking on a cellphone.
> For that reason, Amk NEC trains
> have short dwell times of about a minute--there are more
> doors, high platforms, etc.
You don't travel on the NEC much, I gather. Few stops are that short -
3 to 30 is more like it. Even the quick stop at New Rochelle was a few
minutes, as was Stamford and Bridgeport. New Haven, pre electrification
was often a 30 - 45 minute ordeal. Even today, the Acela sits for a
long time at stops. It doesn't take 10 minutes to exchange 300
passengers on a train. It just doesn't.
John Mara
"Jeff nor Lisa" <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote
> Often the train is too long to fit on the platform, so
> the train must make double stops. This is very slow and
> cumbersome and adds considerably to dwell time.
It's also unnecessary. Metro North and LIRR have short platform stations.
They just announce that only the first five cars or whatever will platform
at that station.
John Mara
bras...@despammed.com
> Often the train is too long to fit on the platform, so
> the train must make double stops. This is very slow and
> cumbersome and adds considerably to dwell time.
Last time I rode the Coast Starlight, they asked what station you were
getting off at, and guided you to a particular car based on that. At
stations such as Chemult, only the car that had the passenger (yes,
singular - remember, this is Chemult we are talking about) was positioned
near the station and opened, though the car attendant in each car went
downtstairs just in case the passenger happened to be in another car.
One item that may have led to the long station stops was interferance.
Remember, they are stuck between two UP freight trains going some speed
somewhat slower than allowed by passenger trains. It could very well be
they were told to wait.
One of the complaints by a certain person working on the Cascades Amtrak
project ( not TAW ) is that they can not realistically do any sort of
local stop in Portland (Portland airport, Oregon City, etc.) because it
takes some 1/2 hour between the time BNSF hands the train off to UP and
the time UP decides to allow it to come into their system. Doing this at
Union Station allows at least one major station stop before the delay.
Merritt Mullen
"John Mara" <john...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Yes, but we are talking about overnight trains with coaches and sleepers
separated by a diner and lounge. Sometimes to accomodate both sleeper and
coach passengers double stops must be made at short-platform stations.
It is just not practical for long-distance passengers with lots of luggage
to haul that luggage from the racks on the lower level to the upper level,
walk through several cars with the luggage, and then carry it downstairs
again to where the open door is. Have you ever seen how narrow those
stairs are on the Superliners?
Merritt
railroadman
As a general rule, the SouthWest Chief makes two stops at Williams
Jct., AZ. The "Station" is just a concrete pad with a sign on it, and
the Grand Canyon railway bus meets all stops of the SWC for which they
are expecting passengers.
However, it is done, very efficiently. In Oct. 2001, my wife and I
got off (and on) at that stop. The coaches are on the head-end,
sleepers on the rear. The first stop was made for the coach
passengers, and the conductor stayed on the platform to advise the
engineer of the move to make. Whole process took less than 5 minutes,
and they were very friendly and helpful, both the Amtrak and GCR
personnel.
Railroadman (J.H.Sullivan, Jacksonville)
John Albert
<< Why do you think Amtrak passengers should detrain as quickly as commuter
passengers? >>
And Phil Nasadowski replied:
<< Because they can, and do, in many other countries. >>
John speaking:
Regardless of what intercity passengers may do "in other countries", it
simply doesn't work that way here, Phil. Ever been to Stamford station on
"au pair" day for train 55?
There's an agency in Stamford that brings in au pairs from Europe, and then
"ships them out" to their assignments. For quite some time, this was done
once a week on train #55. These young ladies tote suitcases that are
literally as large as they are, their entire possessions. When you get 30
or 40 or more of them trying to siphon themselves and their luggage through
the doors and into the aisles of a few Amfleet cars, it's just going to
take quite a bit of time. More than once, the Metro-North dispatcher would
get upset that 55 wasn't moving, taking 10 minutes for the stop. There was
simply no way to get them "in" any faster.
Commutation coaches are designed for quick entry and exit. Amtrak equipment
is not. Add to that disoriented travellers with lots of luggage, and it
just takes more time. It took more time 20 years ago, and it still takes
more time today. I suspect 20 years _from now_, it's _still_ going to take
time. Fact of railroading life.
- John
bikerider7
> In article <FgTBa.5117$eX3....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
> "John Mara" <john...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, but we are talking about overnight trains with coaches and sleepers
> separated by a diner and lounge. Sometimes to accomodate both sleeper and
> coach passengers double stops must be made at short-platform stations.
Don't be absurd. Just announce what cars they need to be at in order to get
off the train.
>
> It is just not practical for long-distance passengers with lots of luggage
> to haul that luggage from the racks on the lower level to the upper level,
> walk through several cars with the luggage, and then carry it downstairs
> again to where the open door is.
Clearly you have never been in a duplex TGV. Or a bi-level train in
Switzerland during the height of ski season.
Merritt Mullen
bay_bri...@yahoo.com (bikerider7) wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:<mmullen8014-D39A...@netnews.attbi.com>...
> > In article <FgTBa.5117$eX3....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
> > "John Mara" <john...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes, but we are talking about overnight trains with coaches and sleepers
> > separated by a diner and lounge. Sometimes to accomodate both sleeper and
> > coach passengers double stops must be made at short-platform stations.
>
> Don't be absurd. Just announce what cars they need to be at in order to get
> off the train.
And if the passengers don't like tell them to take their business
elsewhere.
> > It is just not practical for long-distance passengers with lots of luggage
> > to haul that luggage from the racks on the lower level to the upper level,
> > walk through several cars with the luggage, and then carry it downstairs
> > again to where the open door is.
> Clearly you have never been in a duplex TGV. Or a bi-level train in
> Switzerland during the height of ski season.
I haven't, but why is that so clear to you? And how does it invalidate my
statement? Do Europeans get some kind of perverse pleasure of walking
through several cars carrying skis and luggage, up and down stairs?
And with all the rail travel in Europe, why do they still have platforms
that are too short for the trains? And, when I tried to point out that
Europe has more overnight sleeper trains than in the USA, I was told that
mode of travel is no longer used in Europe.
So tell me again about bi-level European sleeper trains that have to stop
at short platforms.
Merritt
Silas Warner
>
> What is worse, is that rumors abound that UP will eventually take over
> CSX, while BNSF takes over NS. It won't happen in the next year or
> so, but I would be that this will old news in 5-10 years.
What has been interesting about this is that CSX's attitude toward
passenger rail in general, and Amtrak along with it, has improved
greatly since the Conrail takeover. There seems to be two reasons:
1) Before the Conrail breakup, CSX had a very bad attitude toward train
speeds and on-time delivery in general. Taking over lines such as the
former New York Central from NYC to Cleveland, where fast time freights
used to be the norm, seems to have improved CSX's opinion of freight
speed, leading to tighter scheduling of CSX's own freights. This, of
course, also improved passenger timing to some extent.
2) CSX operates most of the commuter service into Washington, DC.
Several delay incidents on this service have highly inconvenienced
passengers -- which include lots of Congressional staffers. So
CSX has been called on the carpet by Congress a couple of times,
in local hearings in Washington.
I'd like to hear more info on this from CSX staffers.
Silas Warner
bikerider7
> In article <d35d6005.03053...@posting.google.com>,
> bay_bri...@yahoo.com (bikerider7) wrote:
>
> > > It is just not practical for long-distance passengers with lots of luggage
> > > to haul that luggage from the racks on the lower level to the upper level,
> > > walk through several cars with the luggage, and then carry it downstairs
> > > again to where the open door is.
>
> > Clearly you have never been in a duplex TGV. Or a bi-level train in
> > Switzerland during the height of ski season.
>
> I haven't, but why is that so clear to you? And how does it invalidate my
> statement?
What statement? That it is infeasible to have passengers schlep their
own luggage up and down stairs? Note:
SBB IC2000 luggage area (note the elevator for those unable to use
stairs):
http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/pix/ch/SBB_CFF_FFS/car/ic_double_deck/interior/IC2000luggage.jpg
stairway in the TGV duplex:
http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/pix/fr/electric/emu/TGV/Duplex/cab%2Binterior/2N_13.jpg
rack for oversized luggage, TGV duplex lower deck:
http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/pix/fr/electric/emu/TGV/Duplex/cab%2Binterior/2N_14.jpg
>
> And with all the rail travel in Europe, why do they still have platforms
> that are too short for the trains? And, when I tried to point out that
> Europe has more overnight sleeper trains than in the USA, I was told that
> mode of travel is no longer used in Europe.
No, it was pointed out to you that (unless you count the former
Soviet republics) nobody in Europe runs 48+hr routes.
Merritt Mullen
> What statement? That it is infeasible to have passengers schlep their
> own luggage up and down stairs?
I didn't say "infeasible" (not capable of being done), I said "not
practical". Perhaps a better description would be difficult or
unpleasant. I don't know how you could object to that characterization.
I should remind you that the discussion concerned excessive dwell times at
Amtrak stops. Having people move through a long train to get to an exit
would probably increase the dwell time over using the expedient of double
stopping the train.
And I don't think the first-class passengers would think it was much of a
first-class experience to have to schlepp their luggage through 5-8 cars
to get to an exit in the coach section. On the other hand, it wouldn't be
fair to those in the first-class sleepers to have the coach passengers
traipsing though the first-class cars. In either case, one would have to
pass through the dining car, which would be very undesirable during meal
times.
> Note:
>
> SBB IC2000 luggage area (note the elevator for those unable to use
> stairs)
There are no elevators in Amtrak's Superliners (or other double-decked
cars, such as the Surfliners). Those who are unable to use the stairs
must stay on the lower level and are unable to move from car to car (the
attendant is supposed to bring them food).
> stairway in the TGV duplex:
> http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/pix/fr/electric/emu/TGV/Duplex/cab%2Binterior/2N_
> 13.jpg
Much wider than the Superliner stairs, and the Superliner stairs are in a
spiral and are steep. The stairs shown in the picture are more like those
of an Amtrak California Car or Surfliner Car, which are easy to use.
> No, it was pointed out to you that (unless you count the former
> Soviet republics) nobody in Europe runs 48+hr routes.
And I never claimed they do. When someone made the statement that Europe
long ago figured out it did not make sense to operated sleeper trains, I
just pointed out that Europe has MORE overnight sleeper trains than the
US. Although the US has four (that's all) 48+ hour routes, the average
trip length on those routes is about 12 hours. Not many people want to
spend two days on a train.
Merritt
bikerider7
>
> I should remind you that the discussion concerned excessive dwell times at
> Amtrak stops. Having people move through a long train to get to an exit
> would probably increase the dwell time over using the expedient of double
> stopping the train.
None of the 15-minute stops in the example I gave involved short
platforms or double-stops. Don't try to confuse the issue.
>
> And I don't think the first-class passengers would think it was much of a
> first-class experience to [blah blah blah]
The best train experience is the one where you get there fast and on-time.
Merritt Mullen
bay_bri...@yahoo.com (bikerider7) wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:<mmullen8014-85C0...@netnews.attbi.com>...
> >
> > I should remind you that the discussion concerned excessive dwell times at
> > Amtrak stops. Having people move through a long train to get to an exit
> > would probably increase the dwell time over using the expedient of double
> > stopping the train.
>
> None of the 15-minute stops in the example I gave involved short
> platforms or double-stops. Don't try to confuse the issue.
And even so, you advocate opening only one door? I don't get it. The
idea is to minimize dwell time at stations, not sacrifice dwell time so as
to minimize crew.
Merritt
randee
with fast or on-time, but whether or not she is finding that the book is
getting boring.
bikerider7 wrote:
>
> The best train experience is the one where you get there fast and on-time.
--
wf.
Wayne Flowers
Randee Greenwald
ran...@zianet.com
bikerider7
> In article <d35d6005.0306...@posting.google.com>,
> bay_bri...@yahoo.com (bikerider7) wrote:
> >
> > None of the 15-minute stops in the example I gave involved short
> > platforms or double-stops. Don't try to confuse the issue.
>
> And even so, you advocate opening only one door?
Huh? Nobody is suggesting that.
Merritt Mullen
bay_bri...@yahoo.com (bikerider7) wrote:
I guess we are arguing at cross-purposes. If you are simply arguing that
Amtrak in general wastes too much time at station stops, I agree and we
have no arguement.
Merritt
Hank Tiffany
> Good heavens, not at all; the best train experience has nothing to do
> with fast or on-time, but whether or not she is finding that the book is
> getting boring.
>
> bikerider7 wrote:
> >
>
> > The best train experience is the one where you get there fast and on-time.
Personally, I don't care about fast that much, but I do get annoyed
when it's not on the advertised. Not that that has been much of a
problem with Amtrak in my experience, aside from the Starlate, that
is.
Hank
--
Hitler, he only had one ball/Goering, had two but they were small
Himmler, was very simmlar/But poor old Goebbels had no balls at all
John Garrison
increased freight rates only with good consisitent service. When "good"
includes speed, you have to make speed to keep the account. That some
commuter trains were badly delayed and the ire that such situations draw
serve to fan the flames of course. It has also come to mind that faster
trains arrive more quickly and cost less in crew usage. Less overtime and
the like.
"Silas Warner" <si...@value.net> wrote in message
news:3ED92838...@value.net...
Jeff nor Lisa
> > Often the train is too long to fit on the platform, so
> > the train must make double stops. This is very slow and
> > cumbersome and adds considerably to dwell time.
>
> It's also unnecessary. Metro North and LIRR have short platform stations.
> They just announce that only the first five cars or whatever will platform
> at that station.
NJTransit does that too. Here's how it actually works:
1) Conductor announces upcoming station and to move forward to get off.
2) Train makes station stop.
3) [two buzzes] Train starts up.
4) [girls screaming banging on vestibule door] STOP THE TRAIN!
OHMYGAWD STOP THE TRAIN!
5) Emergency cord pulled. Air dumped, train comes to jerky stop.
Passengers in fear--did someone fall under the wheels?
6) Conductor comes running back "What happend?"
Girls say they missed their stop.
Since NJT started running long trains on weekends beyond
platform length, this has happened from time to time.
The point is that just because "it is done in Europe"
or done in commuter service doesn't mean it is a workable
solution for an American inter-city railroad.
Jeff nor Lisa
> > Why do you think Amtrak passengers should detrain as quickly
> > as commuter passengers?
> Because they can, and do, in many other countries.
Two different worlds. For one thing, people in Europe travel
by intercity train more often and know what to do. For Americans,
Amtrak travel is a novelty. In addition, more younger people
in Europe use the train than in the U.S. and the problems of
seniors isn't as significant.
> > 1) Familiarity: Most commuter passengers could do their route
> > blindfolded; they do it every day.
> So what?
A train buff can find the proper platform and station concourse
blindfolded at a brand new station. The average person needs some
practice. It's similar to roadways--when a road changes, there are
traffic delays, but they go away when people get used to the changed
layout. Commuters repeat the same pattern day after day, they
even sit in the same seats.
Just watch Amtrak riders get off a train and compare it to commuters
getting off their train. Commuters are IN A HURRY and MOVE.
> Is it that hard for Amtrak to include a small pamphlet on train travel
> with the ticket, instead of the normal filler that one gets?
Platforms and the like could vary by trip, and it wouldn't be
practical to explain that in advance. Further, not many people
read such leaflets, let alone follow them.
> For that matter, I rarely fly, yet I'm still capable of boarding a plane
> in a decently fast manner.
A plane is easy by comparison in that sense--one jetway, one door.
Watch airline passengers look around bewildered after they exit
the jetway into the concourse. Or watch the confusion of passengers
coming into a terminal from the street.
> For that matter, what makes you think Europeans are born to ride trains?
> I'm sure they have their share of first time and very infrequent risers,
> and they still manage short dwells.
Because they and their families grew up riding them. In the
U.S., most people don't.
Example: my mother grew up in the city and never had a car until
she was married. She used the streetcar and bus. One time my
father took her along to Los Angeles. After my father went to
his meeting, my mother decided to go downtown. She went to the
hotel desk and asked where the bus stop was. They had no idea.
She asked around, and nobody had any idea where a bus stop was,
let alone how to use a bus to go downtown. My mother was
shocked. But she didn't realize LA was a car oriented town--
she just assumed everyone took a bus to go downtown in any city.
> If people know they're going to have all day, they take all day. If
> they know they have to hurry, they hurry.
I don't see people hurrying on and off airplanes. The jetway has
enough room, but once on the plane, people with luggage slow things
down. Of course, airlines strictly limit onboard carryons.
> So what? I've never been in O'Hare Airport, but i'm sure I can get off
> a plane, walk through the Jetway (tm), and move out of the way of other
> passengers behind me.
You're a young person, an experienced traveller, and alert.
Trust me, in 25 years you'll have slowed down a bit. And
your spouse, if not experienced, will need you to guide
her. Your kids will need help too. While you don't make
it a habit to play with the toggle on the fire alarm, your
3 year old might find it fascinating and you'll be busy
recfocusing your child's attention at the same time you
struggle to not let your family's luggage fall.
> And old people don't ride 'commuter' rail?
Very few ride during peak hours.
> > 3) Luggage schelp: Commuters normally have only a briefcase,
> > intercity travellers normally have luggage. It takes time
> > to negotiate a big suitcase down a narrow aisle (again,
> > remember both the energy and experience factors).
> Oh please. I've lugged a lot of stuff on the train and yet I still can
> board / unboard quickly.
You're young and experienced.
> Once again, if people know they don't have
> muchtime, they don't stand around messing with the stroller for 3
> minutes while yakking on a cellphone.
Wait until you have that stroller and you'll see it isn't as
easy as it looks.
> > For that reason, Amk NEC trains
> > have short dwell times of about a minute--there are more
> > doors, high platforms, etc.
> You don't travel on the NEC much, I gather. Few stops are that short -
> 3 to 30 is more like it.
Amtrak NEC is faster than inter city trains. Smaller NEC stops
are pretty quick.
The NEC is about half commuter, half traveller. So half the
people walk briskly like commuters and without luggage, but
half still need assistance and more time. See the other
post about au pairs. (Better still, brush up on your
French and go to that station and mingle.)
Jeff nor Lisa
> > Don't be absurd. Just announce what cars they need to be at in order to get
> > off the train.
> And if the passengers don't like tell them to take their business
> elsewhere.
<grin>
This is a great example of how Amtrak is damned if it does and
damned if it doesn't.
On the one hand, we have a thread complaining about poor customer
service. But on this thread, we have people complaining Amtrak
is making it too easy for their passengers and ought to expect
them to do step lively and be in the right place NOW!
If I am on a commuter train and all I'm carrying is my backpack,
I don't mind walking up two or three cars to get off.
But if I'm on an intercity train and carrying two suitcases
in addition to my backpack, yes I most certainly will mind to
walk through five intercity cars to an exit point. The aisles
and hallways are narrow on intercity trains. Carrying
luggage is heavy. And I'm not so thrilled about carrying on
a long platform either. Double stopping is very inefficient
and time consuming, but I don't see an alternative.
Philip Nasadowski
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) wrote:
> Two different worlds. For one thing, people in Europe travel
> by intercity train more often and know what to do. For Americans,
> Amtrak travel is a novelty.
Really? I have quite a few friends from Europe, and I've asked them
about this. None of them traveled much by train in .eu, they drove.
> Platforms and the like could vary by trip, and it wouldn't be
> practical to explain that in advance. Further, not many people
> read such leaflets, let alone follow them.
Platforms are generally where the train will stop in the station, and
what will be there when you step off.
Why is it not practical to ecplain to people to please board as quickly
as possible and move into the train when they board so others can board?
> Because they and their families grew up riding them. In the
> U.S., most people don't.
Actually, of my numerous friends from Europe, none were regular
intercity rail riders, at most they used local transit or commuter
lines. None felt they were anmy different from any other Europeans in
this respect.
> Amtrak NEC is faster than inter city trains. Smaller NEC stops
> are pretty quick.
You consider 2 or 3 minutes to exchange a dozzen passengers quick? or
the 30 minutes at Penn in NY to exhange maybe 300? Watch any other rail
system in action some day....
If Amtrak would simply not wait all day at stations, people would move
faster. When people know they have all day, they take all day. When
they know they need to move, they move.
Jeff nor Lisa
> If Amtrak would simply not wait all day at stations, people would move
> faster. When people know they have all day, they take all day. When
> they know they need to move, they move.
I personally would rather have Amtrak riders move quicker. But
this is one of those issues in which Amtrak has to tread carefully
in the interests of customer appeal and service.
Senior citizens don't like to be rushed.
Bart Van de Walle
"Philip Nasadowski" <nasa...@usermale.com> schreef in bericht
news:nasadowsk-F3B1A...@241.in-addr.mrf.va.news.rcn.net...
A European is indeed not that much a train traveller, as some people in the
US like to think. However, were much less against train travelling, and are
less dependent on having a car. In Belgium, you can still get most places by
public transport. I, as a student, go weekly to Leuven, and back home, with
a travel time of about 1,5 hour, which is quite long, to Belgian standards.
Real IC travel, with means for you a trip Brussels-Paris, probably, is very
popular by train. Air France rents Thalys trains, because its quicker by
rail...
Most stops are short, only to wait a correspondance.
Jason McHuff
> project ( not TAW ) is that they can not realistically do any sort of
> local stop in Portland (Portland airport, Oregon City, etc.) because it
> takes some 1/2 hour between the time BNSF hands the train off to UP and
> the time UP decides to allow it to come into their system. Doing this at
> Union Station allows at least one major station stop before the delay.
Huh? Could you explain that to me? I ride the Cascades frequently
and know that they are working on stopping in Oregon City (on the
route). The airport, however, is a ways from the tracks.
I do know that (luckully) BNSF tracks are used north of Portland. As
for the UP part, they spent ~$12M and it still gets delayed around
Broklyn Yard (SE Portland). However, I must admit that the delays are
less and the speeds were improved. At least it only starts in
Eugene...
I had a class with a view of the tracks 50 ft away when the Srarlate
was supposed to go by, and I NEVER saw it. Also, the 2 times I have
taken it north from Sacramento, it has been hours late. Going to CA
wasn't that bad, other than that it started out hours late (pretty
sure it was because it got there late). Supuising to hear about the
Capitol delays, seeing that it's almost all double track.
As for dwell time, the Cascades does a 1-2 minutes stop here.
However, I do think that, in general, stops are used for more than
just (un)loading passengers.
--Jason McHuff, 1/2 block from the route thru Salem, OR
bras...@despammed.com
jmc...@att.net (Jason McHuff) wrote:
> > One of the complaints by a certain person working on the Cascades Amtrak
> > project ( not TAW ) is that they can not realistically do any sort of
> > local stop in Portland (Portland airport, Oregon City, etc.) because it
> > takes some 1/2 hour between the time BNSF hands the train off to UP and
> > the time UP decides to allow it to come into their system. Doing this at
> > Union Station allows at least one major station stop before the delay.
>
> Huh? Could you explain that to me? I ride the Cascades frequently
> and know that they are working on stopping in Oregon City (on the
> route). The airport, however, is a ways from the tracks.
The plan was, at one time, and as far as I know still is, for
Portland-Seattle trains to be far more frequent than Portland-Eugene
trains. One article in the Oregonian said something like once every 1/2
hour is what the WashDOT would really like to see sometime real soon, if
the money and capacity were there. They have apparently had a fair number
of people contact the Oregon Rail Division about extending the route to
the airport, because if you mention that to them ( or at least a few years
ago) they have a standard form letter response they send to those who make
this suggestion. Even if you ask for a clarification about a point in the
form letter, you might wind up with another copy of the same form letter
(that's how I wound up with my two copies!).
Physically, extending a few trains over to the Portland Airport should not
be that difficult, if they are trains that are not going to Eugene. The
UP's line along Columbia Blvd. goes reasonably close. On a map it looks
far, but on the other hand the farthest economy parking lot is farther
from the terminal than this UP line.
The form letter that ODOT sends out for those who suggest an airport stop
does not mention much in the way of difficulty of getting the trains a
reasonable distance to the airport. They focus primarily on the purchase
price of Union Station and the land around it, and not wanting to waste
the city of Portland's money, and on the time it takes for the UP to
accept a train from the BNSF, and that the half-hour delay for this is
best done at Union Station in downtown Portland.
Neither of these are really an issue if the train stops first at Union
Station, passes over to UP control, and then goes to the airport via
Albina and Columbia Blvd. Also, the City of Portland may not want people
to waste its money, but on the other hand the city of Portland has made it
very difficult to use the station it owns. They are going to cut back
parking at the station even more, so I think eventually the total number
of parking places near the station is going to be around 30, plus there
are no car rental facilities at the station, plus the snack bar closes at
6, plus the entire waiting room closes at 9:15. This is what I sent ODOT
in my request for a clarification, and what I got back as a response was
the same form letter.
Therefore, considering that and some verbal arm waving done in the text of
their form letter, I gather that they had never really considered the
possibility of a stop at the airport, and probably never will.
After I sent a response basically saying "You've already sent me this and
it doesn't answer any of what I just sent you," they basically changed
their response a little. They said there are "pleanty" of places to eat
near the station if you just walk 5 or 6 blocks (The two closest to the
station, by the way, I have never been in but they have the windows
plastered over and don't accept minors, so I'm not sure you would consider
them the type of place you would want the normal traveling public to have
to eat in. And do you really want to haul a bunch of baggage around inner
northwest Portland looking for a place to eat?), plus downtown car rental
agencies are willing to pick you up at the station if you call them
(great, but it isn't a selection like the airport has), and Wilf's
Restaurant in the station is open until midnight (which is fine, but
Wilf's is a plush piano bar lounge and restaurant, and not something that
is really designed to have the average Amtrak passenger tromping around
in). The idea that integrating ground transport and air transport was
completely lost. Today, the form letter probably says something about
taking a "quick bus ride south to Pioneer Square will deliver you to the
MAX red line to the airport, so it isn't a big deal" or some such. Now,
don't get me wrong, the MAX red line is OK, but someone who wants to go
from Kelso or Centralia, WA to the Portland airport to catch a flight
isn't going to want to deal with that whole mess, particularly since many
of the bus lines that connect Union Station to the MAX line do not
regularly have low floor buses. If the goal of the WashDOT is to reduce
I-5 traffic by having train service, the Portland Airport is just as valid
a destination for many southwest Washington residents as downtown
Portland, and the MAX line does not serve that market - it is designed to
serve inside-Portland traffic only.
Jason McHuff
Looks like my response didn't get posted... :-(
Thank you for that long explanination.
It is only logical to have more trains north of Portland than south.
I think the #1 trip pair is Portland-Seattle. I thought you were
talking about having thru (Eugune) trains stop at the airport.
I must agree that the airport is a valid destination. Didya notice
the big "Amtrak stations at airports" thread? Overall, I think that
trains could make great airline feeders. Among other things, it has
been noted that smaller airports are well subsidized. If only the
airlines would agree...
However, the good news is that MAX is coming near Union Station soon,
so going to the airport that way won't require a bus.
As for Union Station itself, I think the 6 PM snack bar closure is
reasonable, since there's supposed to be only one train after
that--the 9 PM Seattle-Eugune. The only problem with the 9:15 station
closure could be people wating for a ride after that train gets in.
BTW, it's only there for 8 minutes. No 1/2 hour hand-off delay?
I must agree that the real restruants (besides Greyhound's) are a ways
away, especially for inter city travelers.
--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
bras...@despammed.com
jmc...@att.net (Jason McHuff) wrote:
> BTW, it's only there for 8 minutes. No 1/2 hour hand-off delay?
Yeah, I know. Just because that's what they say in their form letter
doesn't mean that it has to happen that way.
In fact, what I said in one message to them was that it made no sense at
all to have this half-hour delay, since the line north of Portland is a
joint use BNSF and UP line. Therefore, it isn't as if the UP has to be
suddenly surprised by a daily passenger train appearing out of "nowhere".
It could be in their system much earlier than Portland, allowing for a
much faster pass through in Portland.
This thought was simply ignored by ODOT's people in their next response to me.
Jason McHuff
Actually, NO non-terminating train is there for a half hour. Closest
is the Coast Starlight, at 20 minutes. The other Cascades train makes
a 15 minute stop.
Maybe I'll try to talk to them...in person. (ODOT's just across the
street from me).
Also, I think the line north of Portland MAY be BNSF with UP just
having rights to use it. Overall, tho, a railroad should be able to
plain for a daily train, especially if it's usually on-time. Do they
do this? Well, the tracks south of Union Station aren't always clear
at 5:30 (even with the upgrades).
Not that UP really plans anyways. Just look at this thread...
Thank you for the info.
--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
bras...@despammed.com
> Also, I think the line north of Portland MAY be BNSF with UP just
> having rights to use it. Overall, tho, a railroad should be able to
> plain for a daily train, especially if it's usually on-time.
It is BNSF with UP trackage rights, at least up until UP re-gaines its own
tracks in the Seattle area.
On the other hand, if they stopped their trains in the middle of the
Columbia River bridge, and obstructed the BNSF main line as well as the
river traffic, while their dispatchers tried to figure out what to do with
this new train entering their system, there would be considerable strife.
Therefore, the UP must have some sort of approximate location of where
their trains are in the BNSF system.