EB - Lateness Problems This Summer

[Texan Eagle]

I would never schedule something that you have to be at a certain time on the day of arrival on a long distance train!

Even on a plane it's a chance. I remember once flying from Chicago to Providence, RI - and the "flight" took 8 hours! It is normally a 3 hour flight - and it included 3-4 hours on the ground before takeoff due to heavy thunderstorms on the way!

And no, there is no other train you can take from there to Chicago!

If I have to schedule connections, I allow at least a day or two between them if possible. I'd definitely do this for my Amtrak " 'Round the Country" tour.

Wow folks here so casually say add a day or two. People seem to have a ton of free time at hand. No wonder most people think only retired and jobless people take Amtrak. Do you guys realize for students attending college and employees with a job a whole extra day is a big deal. I don't know fans of which other means of transport think this is reasonable. I fly internationally quite often and I don't schedule an extra day between connections. In twenty flights on two years, long international flights more than ten hours long, I have comfortably made every connection with only a two or three hour layover. I have takenGreyhound and Megabus and made one hour connections. So based on one example from several years ago don't say all means of transport need a padding of a whole day. We all like Amtrak but you gotta agree the LDs are way more unreliable when out comes to keeping time compared to others. Don't try to justify it to new comers with illogical analogies.

 

[AutoTrDvr]

Wow folks here so casually say add a day or two. People seem to have a ton of free time at hand. No wonder most people think only retired and jobless people take Amtrak. Do you guys realize for students attending college and employees with a job a whole extra day is a big deal. I don't know fans of which other means of transport think this is reasonable. I fly internationally quite often and I don't schedule an extra day between connections. In twenty flights on two years, long international flights more than ten hours long, I have comfortably made every connection with only a two or three hour layover. I have taken Greyhound and Megabus and made one hour connections. So based on one example from several years ago don't say all means of transport need a padding of a whole day. We all like Amtrak but you gotta agree the LDs are way more unreliable when out comes to keeping time compared to others. Don't try to justify it to new comers with illogical analogies.

I said, "if possible." If I have the time, I take it. If not, I try to take the alternative of "least risk." Usually, I can find the time. Why subject one's self to unnecessary risk?

I, too, have done my share of international travel to even longer distances in Asia and the South Pacific. Not only does the 1-2 day layovers help with unforeseen "lateness" issues, but even if everything is running on time, it's just good to take a break in between travel segments. Plus, I get to tour a little of the destination city.

 

[yarrow]

Wow folks here so casually say add a day or two. People seem to have a ton of free time at hand.

i have wondered at that too. until i retired last winter it was a real problem riding amtrak as we wanted to pack in as much trip as possible into limited time off without ever having great confidence that amtrak would uphold their end of the bargain. i can't recommend amtrak to friends as they are used to travel modalities that you don't have to build in an extra day or two

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I think the choice [at] the national level to invest in the highways and air transportation system over the passenger system is what's holding us back. The very policy choices that made those two things function so well is responsible for the state of the passenger system. It's a zero-sum game.

By that logic countries which have built far more modern passenger rail networks should be suffering seriously deficient passenger air markets and poorly maintained roadway systems. A few certainly do, but many do not. Some have even better roadway networks and air services than we do, though they are on a much smaller scale. Most passenger rail networks have had to fight off improving competition from planes, buses, and private vehicles just like Amtrak has. Some came out ahead and some did not, but there is no passenger rail network I'm aware of that improved their position relative to other methods simply by treading water decade after decade as everything else improved over time.

It's not an accident that the private sector passenger system fell apart as those two developed. It's not that we can't build a great passenger system. It's that we haven't, because we've done other things.

The earliest purpose-built high speed passenger rail systems began appearing a half century ago. What "other things" has America been doing during Amtrak's forty years of existence that would come close to explaining our ever growing performance discrepancy? Although I agree that this does play a role I do not believe that we've been building enough new roads and opening enough new airports to explain this away.

I can assure you I've been delayed on European trains as well, despite their billions in investment.

I cannot think of a single transportation method that is never late and requires no padding whatsoever. However, that's not the root of the issue here. The issue for me is the amount of padding and the routine nature of the delays. I would expect to see this improve over time instead of stagnate or worsen as seems to be the case today.

 

[AlanB]

If we can build the world's largest national highway system and the world's busiest airline market why can't we even come close to building the world's most robust passenger rail network? I know it will require lots of time, money, and effort, but I still look forward to the day when Americans can begin expecting more from our passenger rail network than they are capable of providing us today. I also wonder if our willingness to accept whatever we're given, and even blame the passengers in some cases, is inadvertently helping to hold us back.

Actually, we did build the world's most robust rail passenger network.

Then in the era of cheap flights and cheap roads, we ripped out much of that network and only now are we realizing that was a mistake.

 

[EB_OBS]

Thanks for all the helpful information esp. on the flights. I have called and canceled our dinner and made arrangments with the play house for a future show next time in chi. I too understand late trains, but 5 hours or more consistently is pretty bad since they dont have flooding to blame. I dont think the guy that sat on the runway for 8 hours knows much about the EB or at least doesnt ride trains to much

Does anybody know why the train got so late? The EB is usually not so late. If your talking about Dave (the Traveller) I think he has taken the EB and many other Amtrak trains before. He does like to joke a lot, though, IMHO.

There have been several derailments on the highline, at least two, in the last few weeks. There was a derailment near Pasco, WA There is quite a bit of track work underway curreently, especially east of Minot, ND on the BNSF and further east on the CP.

There are heat restrictions on several routes. Heat restrictions reduce train speed significantly. On the highline, the Empire Builder is currently limited to 60MPH if under a heat restriction and freights are limited to 40MPH. If on single track and behind a freight, then the EB is moving at half it's optimal speed.

There was a trespasser fatality at Cashmere, WA which cost an already late Builder another 4 hours delay. This rolled into a pretty late #8 departing SEA and thus SPK.

On one occasion SEA held #8 to replace a broken bolster spring on a sleeper car as there was no other sleeper to replace it with and the train was sold-out. Twice in the last few weeks Chicago mechanical has replaced a diner car late, very near normal departure from the yard. A fully loaded and ready diner then has to be unloaded, stripped, and then once another diner is in place it now has to be reloaded. It's a time consuming process.

I agree Amtrak has it's problems. The recent performance of the Empire Builder though is much more the fault of BNSF problems, severe heat in the mid-west, CP and BNSF track work and people who just can't seem to stay off the tracks. The equipment problems are Amtrak's but they are compounded and made much more severe when the train is already arriving very late, shortening and/or even eliminating the normal amount of time that Amtrak has to fix the equipment.

What still baffles me though is how many people just don't understand at all the nature of rail travel. The route and rails are fixed. There are very few opportunities for a detour around a situation like a derailment. Even when there are detour options, those still can and do add several hours due to operating rules and crew qualifications and many times the tracks aren't suited to typical passenger train operation. Unfortunately, much of the highline is single track. When the track is blocked by a derailment or a broken down freight train, nothing else gets thru until it's fixed. This can take 10 or 12 hours for a derailment, or longer.

Amtrak needs equipment. It definitely needs some more sleeper cars to protect service. It is a real pain in the ass when a sleeper car is Bad Ordered on what is a sold-out train. It's a pain in the ass for me, it's generally a horrible experience for the passenger especially those first time riders whose now only Amtrak experience starts out so poorly. If the Empire Builder had one more trainset then even very late trains would not have to be terminated in Spokane, thus inconveniencing and irritating the passengers even more than they already are. This equipment would arrive in Seattle and Portland and have more than 24 hours to repair, clean and service. There would also generally be sufficient time for inbound trains to provide protect equipment for cars still in need of repair.

Another thing that gets me is seeing, hearing and reading so many demands for Amtrak to improve performance issues, yet it seems no one wants to pay for it. When congress and the republicans want the American people to think that Amtrak consumes huge amounts of the annual federal budget. When in reality it's pocket change in the big picture. Eliminating Amtrak entirely will do NOTHING to alleviate our debt woes. Doubling Amrak's funding could be accomplished by eliminating the study of the mating practices of the female bovine and/or other such stupid crap people manage to get federal tax dollars for. The average passenger is clueless to Amtrak's funding issues. The railfans generally understand and promote, advocate and write congress to increase Amtrak funding. It seems to me most of the general public at large is indifferent while most politicians stick to partisan lines but even they don't seem to have a clue most times. Many just don't get it.

 

[EB_OBS]

If we can build the world's largest national highway system and the world's busiest airline market why can't we even come close to building the world's most robust passenger rail network? I know it will require lots of time, money, and effort, but I still look forward to the day when Americans can begin expecting more from our passenger rail network than they are capable of providing us today. I also wonder if our willingness to accept whatever we're given, and even blame the passengers in some cases, is inadvertently helping to hold us back.

Actually, we did build the world's most robust rail passenger network.

Then in the era of cheap flights and cheap roads, we ripped out much of that network and only now are we realizing that was a mistake.

I've read that at the peak, the US had over 400,000 miles of rail. Today there is less than 250,000 miles. That's a lot of track ripped up.

 

[Eric S]

If we can build the world's largest national highway system and the world's busiest airline market why can't we even come close to building the world's most robust passenger rail network? I know it will require lots of time, money, and effort, but I still look forward to the day when Americans can begin expecting more from our passenger rail network than they are capable of providing us today. I also wonder if our willingness to accept whatever we're given, and even blame the passengers in some cases, is inadvertently helping to hold us back.

Actually, we did build the world's most robust rail passenger network.

Then in the era of cheap flights and cheap roads, we ripped out much of that network and only now are we realizing that was a mistake.

I've read that at the peak, the US had over 400,000 miles of rail. Today there is less than 250,000 miles. That's a lot of track ripped up.

I think your figures are for route-kilometers rather than route-miles, but your point still remains. If someone has definitive numbers, please correct me.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

If we can build the world's largest national highway system and the world's busiest airline market why can't we even come close to building the world's most robust passenger rail network?

The missing ingredient, without which so many things cannot be done, is political will. I've read the other posts in this thread that focus on this question, and for the most part they're quite good. But there's little in them about the real cause of passenger rail falling and remaining chronically behind other modes (air, highway). EB_OBS comes closest when he talks about unwillingness to pay, which is the direct effect of the lack of political will.

Air and road modes grew to their current proportions and achieved predominant status because of the political will behind them that caused massive expenditures, even as the lack of sufficient political will on the rail side of the ledger caused atrophy across the board. Until this situation is reversed - not balanced, but reversed - it will remain impossible to "even come close to building the world's most robust passenger rail network."

 

[Ispolkom]

This site gives the peak 1916 mileage at 254k miles.

The American Association of Railroads says that there are 139k miles of railroad presently, and I think they should know.

What's the definition of railroad mileage, though? Do sidings count? Yards? I don't know.

I do know that there used to be a third railroad that went between the Twin Cities and Washington state. It's a shame that went away.

 

[Eric S]

This site gives the peak 1916 mileage at 254k miles.

The American Association of Railroads says that there are 139k miles of railroad presently, and I think they should know.

What's the definition of railroad mileage, though? Do sidings count? Yards? I don't know.

I do know that there used to be a third railroad that went between the Twin Cities and Washington state. It's a shame that went away.

254,000 miles is about 400,000 kilometers, and 139,000 miles is about 225,000 kilometers, so it looks like our numbers are similar. I'm almost positive this is route-miles/route-kilometers, rather than track-miles/track-kilometers, so sidings, double/triple-track, yards, etc., would not be counted.

Yes, the old Milwaukee Road (CMStP&P), with its long stretches of electrified territory in ID, MT, and WA.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Thanks for all the helpful information esp. on the flights. I have called and canceled our dinner and made arrangments with the play house for a future show next time in chi. I too understand late trains, but 5 hours or more consistently is pretty bad since they dont have flooding to blame. I dont think the guy that sat on the runway for 8 hours knows much about the EB or at least doesnt ride trains to much

Does anybody know why the train got so late? The EB is usually not so late. If your talking about Dave (the Traveller) I think he has taken the EB and many other Amtrak trains before. He does like to joke a lot, though, IMHO.

There have been several derailments on the highline, at least two, in the last few weeks. There was a derailment near Pasco, WA There is quite a bit of track work underway curreently, especially east of Minot, ND on the BNSF and further east on the CP.

There are heat restrictions on several routes. Heat restrictions reduce train speed significantly. On the highline, the Empire Builder is currently limited to 60MPH if under a heat restriction and freights are limited to 40MPH. If on single track and behind a freight, then the EB is moving at half it's optimal speed.

There was a trespasser fatality at Cashmere, WA which cost an already late Builder another 4 hours delay. This rolled into a pretty late #8 departing SEA and thus SPK.

On one occasion SEA held #8 to replace a broken bolster spring on a sleeper car as there was no other sleeper to replace it with and the train was sold-out. Twice in the last few weeks Chicago mechanical has replaced a diner car late, very near normal departure from the yard. A fully loaded and ready diner then has to be unloaded, stripped, and then once another diner is in place it now has to be reloaded. It's a time consuming process.

What in the world? So many problems on the EB? Looks like my favourite train is going through some very bad luck.

 

[Mackensen]

If we can build the world's largest national highway system and the world's busiest airline market why can't we even come close to building the world's most robust passenger rail network?

The missing ingredient, without which so many things cannot be done, is political will. I've read the other posts in this thread that focus on this question, and for the most part they're quite good. But there's little in them about the real cause of passenger rail falling and remaining chronically behind other modes (air, highway). EB_OBS comes closest when he talks about unwillingness to pay, which is the direct effect of the lack of political will.

Air and road modes grew to their current proportions and achieved predominant status because of the political will behind them that caused massive expenditures, even as the lack of sufficient political will on the rail side of the ledger caused atrophy across the board. Until this situation is reversed - not balanced, but reversed - it will remain impossible to "even come close to building the world's most robust passenger rail network."

I suspect an important cause, not mentioned yet, is that when other countries were building out these systems the railroad infrastructure in this country remained in private hands. We didn't nationalize on the European model (still haven't). It's a different development path but it matters, because a direct subsidy (Amtrak) is more obvious and more controversial than an indirect subsidy (airports for airlines, roads for bus companies).

 

[Ispolkom]

Wow folks here so casually say add a day or two. People seem to have a ton of free time at hand. No wonder most people think only retired and jobless people take Amtrak. Do you guys realize for students attending college and employees with a job a whole extra day is a big deal. I don't know fans of which other means of transport think this is reasonable.

It really doesn't matter what I think is reasonable. What matters is what I think is prudent. I was in the OP's position a couple of years ago and had to turn back opera tickets a couple of years ago because #8 was too late into Chicago to allow me to attend. After that I'll never book #8 from St. Paul to Chicago and plan on attending the theater the night of arrival.

I don't like the fact that western long-distance trains can be very late. Here's the thing, though: it doesn't matter what I like. It really doesn't matter whether it's Amtrak's fault, or the host railroad's, or it's the fault of some idiot at a grade crossing, I can whine and complain about a late train until I'm blue in the face, but that isn't going to change the train's on-time performance, or the fact that (in my case) I'm going to miss "Porgy and Bess."

I find it much more efficient to conform my expectations to the reality I face. If that means I get to Toronto two days early to make sure I connect to The Canadian, I do that, and enjoy a couple of days in a wonderful, cosmopolitan city when my train is on time. If that means I arrive in Chicago earlier, I get to visit Sue at the Field Museum, or see old favorites at the Art Institute when my train is on time. If I don't have the time, I fly, but as others have written, that's not always perfect, either.

 

[RRUserious]

Wow folks here so casually say add a day or two. People seem to have a ton of free time at hand. No wonder most people think only retired and jobless people take Amtrak. Do you guys realize for students attending college and employees with a job a whole extra day is a big deal. I don't know fans of which other means of transport think this is reasonable.

It really doesn't matter what I think is reasonable. What matters is what I think is prudent. I was in the OP's position a couple of years ago and had to turn back opera tickets a couple of years ago because #8 was too late into Chicago to allow me to attend. After that I'll never book #8 from St. Paul to Chicago and plan on attending the theater the night of arrival.

I don't like the fact that western long-distance trains can be very late. Here's the thing, though: it doesn't matter what I like. It really doesn't matter whether it's Amtrak's fault, or the host railroad's, or it's the fault of some idiot at a grade crossing, I can whine and complain about a late train until I'm blue in the face, but that isn't going to change the train's on-time performance, or the fact that (in my case) I'm going to miss "Porgy and Bess."

I find it much more efficient to conform my expectations to the reality I face. If that means I get to Toronto two days early to make sure I connect to The Canadian, I do that, and enjoy a couple of days in a wonderful, cosmopolitan city when my train is on time. If that means I arrive in Chicago earlier, I get to visit Sue at the Field Museum, or see old favorites at the Art Institute when my train is on time. If I don't have the time, I fly, but as others have written, that's not always perfect, either.

Agree with this guy. Either make realistic plans or don't book on the Empire Builder. Either one is a good solution.

 

[Hawkeye]

Yeah, I would love to ride the EB someday, but I just switched my trip to the CZ on the Chicago leg of my trip back east in less than 2 weeks.

 

[Texan Eagle]

Wow folks here so casually say add a day or two. People seem to have a ton of free time at hand. No wonder most people think only retired and jobless people take Amtrak. Do you guys realize for students attending college and employees with a job a whole extra day is a big deal. I don't know fans of which other means of transport think this is reasonable.

It really doesn't matter what I think is reasonable. What matters is what I think is prudent. I was in the OP's position a couple of years ago and had to turn back opera tickets a couple of years ago because #8 was too late into Chicago to allow me to attend. After that I'll never book #8 from St. Paul to Chicago and plan on attending the theater the night of arrival.

I don't like the fact that western long-distance trains can be very late. Here's the thing, though: it doesn't matter what I like. It really doesn't matter whether it's Amtrak's fault, or the host railroad's, or it's the fault of some idiot at a grade crossing, I can whine and complain about a late train until I'm blue in the face, but that isn't going to change the train's on-time performance, or the fact that (in my case) I'm going to miss "Porgy and Bess."

I find it much more efficient to conform my expectations to the reality I face. If that means I get to Toronto two days early to make sure I connect to The Canadian, I do that, and enjoy a couple of days in a wonderful, cosmopolitan city when my train is on time. If that means I arrive in Chicago earlier, I get to visit Sue at the Field Museum, or see old favorites at the Art Institute when my train is on time. If I don't have the time, I fly, but as others have written, that's not always perfect, either.

Agree with this guy. Either make realistic plans or don't book on the Empire Builder. Either one is a good solution.

Fair enough, in which case, Amtrak should inform their travelers before they pay for their tickets that this is the case. "Hey potential passenger, this train runs on BNSF tracks who have the habit of putting freight trains down and/or bad scheduling. Moreover we have old rickety equipment that might be bad ordered anytime further delaying the train. Please make sure you have an extra day off available before booking this trip" This would give realistic idea to first-time travelers who are unfortunately not as intelligent as members of this forum and generally book a trip under the assumption that this is 2012, not 1860s, so the thing they are booking will fairly reliably reach when it is supposed to reach, barring some rare event once in a blue moon.

 

[hoosier st]

I'm on the 8 and we're about 4hrs late. Assuming I miss my connection to crawfordsville, IN on the 851, anybody know the chances that they will just rent a car for me instead of putting me overnight in CHI?

 

[MrFSS]

This would give realistic idea to first-time travelers who are unfortunately not as intelligent as members of this forum and generally book a trip under the assumption that this is 2012, not 1860s, so the thing they are booking will fairly reliably reach when it is supposed to reach, barring some rare event once in a blue moon.

Ha - passenger trains were probably more on time in the 1860's than they are today.

 

[guest]

Wow folks here so casually say add a day or two. People seem to have a ton of free time at hand. No wonder most people think only retired and jobless people take Amtrak. Do you guys realize for students attending college and employees with a job a whole extra day is a big deal. I don't know fans of which other means of transport think this is reasonable.

It really doesn't matter what I think is reasonable. What matters is what I think is prudent. I was in the OP's position a couple of years ago and had to turn back opera tickets a couple of years ago because #8 was too late into Chicago to allow me to attend. After that I'll never book #8 from St. Paul to Chicago and plan on attending the theater the night of arrival.

I don't like the fact that western long-distance trains can be very late. Here's the thing, though: it doesn't matter what I like. It really doesn't matter whether it's Amtrak's fault, or the host railroad's, or it's the fault of some idiot at a grade crossing, I can whine and complain about a late train until I'm blue in the face, but that isn't going to change the train's on-time performance, or the fact that (in my case) I'm going to miss "Porgy and Bess."

I find it much more efficient to conform my expectations to the reality I face. If that means I get to Toronto two days early to make sure I connect to The Canadian, I do that, and enjoy a couple of days in a wonderful, cosmopolitan city when my train is on time. If that means I arrive in Chicago earlier, I get to visit Sue at the Field Museum, or see old favorites at the Art Institute when my train is on time. If I don't have the time, I fly, but as others have written, that's not always perfect, either.

Agree with this guy. Either make realistic plans or don't book on the Empire Builder. Either one is a good solution.

Fair enough, in which case, Amtrak should inform their travelers before they pay for their tickets that this is the case. "Hey potential passenger, this train runs on BNSF tracks who have the habit of putting freight trains down and/or bad scheduling. Moreover we have old rickety equipment that might be bad ordered anytime further delaying the train. Please make sure you have an extra day off available before booking this trip" This would give realistic idea to first-time travelers who are unfortunately not as intelligent as members of this forum and generally book a trip under the assumption that this is 2012, not 1860s, so the thing they are booking will fairly reliably reach when it is supposed to reach, barring some rare event once in a blue moon.

You're absolutely right but you are never going to persuade the extreme Amtrak apologists on this forum. They will never concede that long-distance western trains are either for largely for economically poor people--who sit up in seats for 2-3 days--or for the wealthy and/or retired with time on their hands (or those with time on their hands who spend oodles of times accumulating AGR points so they can pretend they can afford to travel expensively.)

 

[Ispolkom]

Fair enough, in which case, Amtrak should inform their travelers before they pay for their tickets that this is the case. "Hey potential passenger, this train runs on BNSF tracks who have the habit of putting freight trains down and/or bad scheduling. Moreover we have old rickety equipment that might be bad ordered anytime further delaying the train. Please make sure you have an extra day off available before booking this trip" This would give realistic idea to first-time travelers who are unfortunately not as intelligent as members of this forum and generally book a trip under the assumption that this is 2012, not 1860s, so the thing they are booking will fairly reliably reach when it is supposed to reach, barring some rare event once in a blue moon.

I'll let you get Amtrak to do that. I'm sure that would happen soon after every food-styled advertisement carries the warning label "our food doesn't look this good in real life," and every photo-shopped fashion ad lets us know "people don't look this good in our clothes in real life." Me, I stick to worrying about things that I can actually change. Like the guy behind me last Saturday who talked during the first act of "Don Giovanni."

Ha - passenger trains were probably more on time in the 1860's than they are today.

I certainly hope so, if they were traveling on one-track lines protected only by timetables.

 

[OBS]

I'm on the 8 and we're about 4hrs late. Assuming I miss my connection to crawfordsville, IN on the 851, anybody know the chances that they will just rent a car for me instead of putting me overnight in CHI?

If they don't hold the train, highly unlikely, I would say 95% chance you will get taxi/van ride to CRF.

 

[Texan Eagle]

Fair enough, in which case, Amtrak should inform their travelers before they pay for their tickets that this is the case. "Hey potential passenger, this train runs on BNSF tracks who have the habit of putting freight trains down and/or bad scheduling. Moreover we have old rickety equipment that might be bad ordered anytime further delaying the train. Please make sure you have an extra day off available before booking this trip" This would give realistic idea to first-time travelers who are unfortunately not as intelligent as members of this forum and generally book a trip under the assumption that this is 2012, not 1860s, so the thing they are booking will fairly reliably reach when it is supposed to reach, barring some rare event once in a blue moon.

I'll let you get Amtrak to do that. I'm sure that would happen soon after every food-styled advertisement carries the warning label "our food doesn't look this good in real life," and every photo-shopped fashion ad lets us know "people don't look this good in our clothes in real life." Me, I stick to worrying about things that I can actually change. Like the guy behind me last Saturday who talked during the first act of "Don Giovanni."

I don't know how fair is it to compare FMCG adverts with transportation, but I can give you a closer example- if you go to Southwest Airlines website, on the page where it shows which flights are available for your route, it includes a feature that if you hover your mouse over the flight number it shows On time performance record- what % of times the flight reached on time, what % of times it was delayed from 0-30 minutes and when how many times was it delayed more than that. Amtrak should provide this information upfront to let the passenger make an informed choice. In spite of doing this if the passenger "hates Amtrak" for the delay and vows "never to take the train again", it is his/her own fault, I won't blame Amtrak for it. Yes, currently Amtrak does show in one corner of the site the on-time performance of all trains, but still it does not say when a train is delayed, how much it gets delayed. It only shows the on-time performance percentage. Any time the train did not reach on time it goes under "late" category, may it be half hour or eight hours. For example, if at the time of booking it showed "This train runs late by 4-6 hours" a potential passenger would know what he/she is signing up for.

 

[RRUserious]

4 hours 2 minutes late today. Some people missed connections. Incredible. Ontime performance for train 8 in June is 0%. 12 month is 38.7.

 

[guest]

4 hours 2 minutes late today. Some people missed connections. Incredible. Ontime performance for train 8 in June is 0%. 12 month is 38.7.

Here's a solution! Amtrak should pad the schedule by 4 hours! Then the train will actually comes in "on time" a large percentage of the time, and the normal public i.e. not anyone on this forum will think that Amtrak can make the trains run to schedule!! It's not earthshaking; it's just making the already substantial amount of padding more realistic!! :lol: