"resolution" of my amtrak complaint

[AlanB]

The tracks belong to the dreaded Union Pacific, although I don't think much of this is their fault, other than, perhaps, pressuring Amtrak to limit the length of their truncated runs.

And Alex Kummant has already publicly stated that UP had nothing to do with the decision to truncate the run, it was done to save money.

From Alex's letter to Mr. Paul J Dyson President of RPAC:

In the end, the cost of running stub trains and a bus bridge far outweighed the revenue benefits of running the train during these firs two weeks of the track outage.

 

[daveyb99]

Burlington-Northern ceased to exist years ago. You might be refering to BNSF (which stands for Burlington Northern Santa Fe), but that would be the wrong person to level blame at. The tracks belong to the dreaded Union Pacific, although I don't think much of this is their fault, other than, perhaps, pressuring Amtrak to limit the length of their truncated runs.

Who cares who exists or does not.

Point is: AMTRAK neither owns, maintains, operates, polishes, mows the grass, picks up trash, changes wiring, or anything else.

And complaining to whomever DOES would be like yelling at the wall.

 

[the_traveler]

Look, this is truly sounds like one of those 'act of God' situations covered in every carriage contract. So why do we crash down on AMTRAK or airlines when this kind of stuff happens. True, AMTRAK could have helped a little more when you showed up at the station, but traveling has risks - and this is a situation where things went bad. Happens all the time (just ask anyone who spent the night on a cot at O'Hare.)
I would also be upset if I got back from a cruise and the airline had changed my travel plans.

So you would complain if your cruise got back to Miami and then you were told that Seattle or San Diego or Chicago (or wherever) is no longer served, and they can't get you home from Miami! They say here's your refund, but we can't (or won't) help you - you're on your own! :angry:

So why is that any different than the OP's situation where the family was 1/2 way through the trip and could not get home? :blink:

I for one do carry my cell phone with me - but most times it's turned off! (Even at home, most times it's turned off.) I use it mainly for emergencies. So even if Amtrak did try to contact me, they probably could not. I may not know until I got to the station.

OK, so AMTRAK should have paid for your way home (and I disagree in this case). But if they did, how many would have nit-picked that their fare AMTRAK kept was more than the alternate transportation, or complained it was inferior, or that it was inconvenient, or what ever else could be complained of.

And I'm sure you would say "I'd rather stay at this station", instead of "I'm going to complain because they routed me through ___ instead of getting me directly to ___"! You would complain that you (already) paid Amtrak $100 (which they will refund to you), but then you have to go to the airport and get a walkup fare for $1,000!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The tracks belong to the dreaded Union Pacific, although I don't think much of this is their fault, other than, perhaps, pressuring Amtrak to limit the length of their truncated runs.

And Alex Kummant has already publicly stated that UP had nothing to do with the decision to truncate the run, it was done to save money.

From Alex's letter to Mr. Paul J Dyson President of RPAC:

In the end, the cost of running stub trains and a bus bridge far outweighed the revenue benefits of running the train during these firs two weeks of the track outage.

Kummant may have said that, but that doesn't mean its true. You can't convince me otherwise, especially giving Kummant's background. I may be wrong, I'll admit that, but I still believe it to be so.

 

[AlanB]

The tracks belong to the dreaded Union Pacific, although I don't think much of this is their fault, other than, perhaps, pressuring Amtrak to limit the length of their truncated runs.

And Alex Kummant has already publicly stated that UP had nothing to do with the decision to truncate the run, it was done to save money.

From Alex's letter to Mr. Paul J Dyson President of RPAC:

In the end, the cost of running stub trains and a bus bridge far outweighed the revenue benefits of running the train during these firs two weeks of the track outage.

Kummant may have said that, but that doesn't mean its true. You can't convince me otherwise, especially giving Kummant's background. I may be wrong, I'll admit that, but I still believe it to be so.

Well I for one find it hard to believe that Mr. Kummant would have said something like that, which could come back to bite him in the ass big time, if he could have placed the blame on UP or anyone else. In political arenas it's always better to pass the buck if at all possible.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

So, cost of running the bus plus the stub trains is greater than the revenue. Is that somehow different than the cost of running the trains vs the fare revenue when the tracks happen to be intact? I thought the long distance trains generally lose money, period.

 

[PRR 60]

So, cost of running the bus plus the stub trains is greater than the revenue. Is that somehow different than the cost of running the trains vs the fare revenue when the tracks happen to be intact? I thought the long distance trains generally lose money, period.

The cost of running the trains and buses was much greater than the cost of the normal train operation. In addition to the buses, they would have required at least one additional train set with crew. That combined the projected low ridership drove the decision. They would have lost much more money than normal and carried fewer passengers.