5 ms·

While I don't share the cartoonists political views, I can't blame him for the frustration. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Starlight http://en.wikiped

While I don't share the cartoonists political views, I can't blame him for the frustration. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Starlight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Starlight > In recent years the train acquired the nickname "Coast Starlate" because of its abysmal on-time record. From October 2005 through August 2006 it arrived on time only 2% of the time, often running 5 to 11 hours behind schedule. I've taken that line... it is beautiful (and provides an amazing view of Vandenberg AFB) but you've got to be in no hurry. The staff were amazed when we were "only" 6 hours behind schedule. Unfortunately for Amtrak the North-East corridor trains that you've experienced are the exception, not the rule.

unreal37 13y ago
They should change the schedule. What's the point of having an impossible-to-meet schedule anyways? Sets unrealistic expectations and constantly disappoints passengers.
- bodyfour 13y ago
  The problem isn't that they don't have enough time to get from point A to point B. The delays happen all over the line. Since the route has dozens of stops, and a multi-hour delay could happen between any of them, where do you put the slack in the schedule? It also didn't help that it took until 2013 to get GPS tracking on their fleet: http://blog.amtrak.com/2013/09/google-helps-track-a-train/ http://blog.amtrak.com/2013/09/google-helps-track-a-train/ I would have linked to the status page itself but it is, fittingly, down for maintenance today. Just knowing whether your train was running behind before going to the station wasn't available until recently.
morsch 13y ago
That is a very long line, though -- 34 hours. 6 hours behind schedule is a lot in absolute terms, but it's only about 17%. I've often had 6 hour trips turn into 7 hour trips, in all modes of transportation. What it comes down to is that 34 hour trips are not something we are ready to put up with anymore, unless we somehow make the trip itself part of the goal, whether it's an "Amtrak Residency" or a long range road trip with the sights and the hotels. Having 3-5 shorts lines service the 34h/1400mi overall length makes more sense really. Maybe 5 7h lines during the day, and 3 11h overnighters. 7 to 8 hours is about as long as I'm willing to spend in a daytime train, and my previous experiences with 10 to 12 hour sleeper wagon trips have been pretty great, too. Any trips longer than that you can either spend a night in Sacramento or you have to take a plane or you just don't go and vote that the rail network gets improved beyond a pathetic 40 mph average.

unreal37 13y ago

They should change the schedule. What's the point of having an impossible-to-meet schedule anyways? Sets unrealistic expectations and constantly disappoints passengers.

bodyfour 13y ago
The problem isn't that they don't have enough time to get from point A to point B. The delays happen all over the line. Since the route has dozens of stops, and a multi-hour delay could happen between any of them, where do you put the slack in the schedule? It also didn't help that it took until 2013 to get GPS tracking on their fleet: http://blog.amtrak.com/2013/09/google-helps-track-a-train/ http://blog.amtrak.com/2013/09/google-helps-track-a-train/ I would have linked to the status page itself but it is, fittingly, down for maintenance today. Just knowing whether your train was running behind before going to the station wasn't available until recently.

morsch 13y ago

That is a very long line, though -- 34 hours. 6 hours behind schedule is a lot in absolute terms, but it's only about 17%. I've often had 6 hour trips turn into 7 hour trips, in all modes of transportation. What it comes down to is that 34 hour trips are not something we are ready to put up with anymore, unless we somehow make the trip itself part of the goal, whether it's an "Amtrak Residency" or a long range road trip with the sights and the hotels. Having 3-5 shorts lines service the 34h/1400mi overall length makes more sense really. Maybe 5 7h lines during the day, and 3 11h overnighters. 7 to 8 hours is about as long as I'm willing to spend in a daytime train, and my previous experiences with 10 to 12 hour sleeper wagon trips have been pretty great, too. Any trips longer than that you can either spend a night in Sacramento or you have to take a plane or you just don't go and vote that the rail network gets improved beyond a pathetic 40 mph average.