Passenger Trains > Another 7-Hour Late Capitol Limited

Amtrak's eastbound Capitol Limited made another daylight appearance in Northeast Ohio today. No. 30's woes began last night when it departed Chicago 2 hours late. It was 3 hours, 35 minutes down out of Sandusky, Ohio, but then sat for an extended period of time in Elyria. By the time it got away from there it was 7 hours, 16 minutes late. Don't know if that was due to congestion on NS in the Cleveland area -- which hamstrung No. 30 two days ago -- or mechanical failure or what.

At this writing in early afternoon, No. 30 left Pittsburgh 7 hours, 39 minutes late and is projected to arrive into Washington, D.C., at 7:58 p.m. tonight, about 6.5 hours late.

It's westbound counterpart isn't doing a whole lot better. It arrived in South Bend, Ind., today 5.3 hours late.

No. 30 is shown earlier today at Brady Lake, Ohio, on Norfolk Southern's Cleveland Line.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/14 10:54 by SDP40F600.

---

---

SDP40F600 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amtrak's eastbound Capitol Limited made another
> daylight appearance in Northeast Ohio today. No.
> 30's woes began last night when it departed
> Chicago 2 hours late. It was 3 hours, 35 minutes
> down out of Sandusky, Ohio, but then sat for an
> extended period of time in Elyria. By the time it
> got away from there it was 7 hours, 16 minutes
> late. Don't know if that was due to congestion on
> NS in the Cleveland area -- which hamstrung No. 30
> two days ago -- or mechanical failure or what.
>
> At this writing in early afternoon, No. 30 left
> Pittsburgh 7 hours, 39 minutes late and is
> projected to arrive into Washington, D.C., at 7:58
> p.m. tonight, about 6.5 hours late.
>
> It's westbound counterpart isn't doing a whole lot
> better. It arrived in South Bend, Ind., today 5.3
> hours late.
>
> No. 30 is shown earlier today at Brady Lake, Ohio,
> on Norfolk Southern's Cleveland Line.
When was the last time that either 29 or 30 operated on time? This is so sad.

I've ridden 29/30 1-3 times a year for 7 or so years now. The delays in the last couple months seem worse than it ever has been. As an average of my 7 years of trips, it was one of the more reliable trains. Maybe an hour late into Chicago, but that was about it.

Lake Shore Limited (#48 of the 29th) left Chicago 1.5 hours late and was out of Buffalo this afternoon 5 hours late.

nm2320 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lake Shore Limited (#48 of the 29th) left Chicago
> 1.5 hours late and was out of Buffalo this
> afternoon 5 hours late.

Correction: #48 of the 28th.

It's a wonder that anyone, other than railfans, rides Amtrak.

Cole42 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a wonder that anyone, other than railfans,
> rides Amtrak.


You're suggesting that being squeezed into an airline seat or stuck in an airport for hours if not days is any better?

I know 8 was very late, are they holding these east trains again for connections.

Bob

The delays in Ohio interest me because in spending three hours at Berea today, the NS was VERY quiet: five westbounds and one eastbound. Apparently they are not so busy?

Seems like Amtrak will need to do some refunding if customers apply to customer relations.

They need to take back that superliner equipment they stole from the Sunset and other western routes and make the Sunset Ltd a daily train. Forget the Capitol if they can't run it on time. Just use some old left over single level junk for it.

Engine swap @ Elyria for 30.

Posted from Android

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The delays in Ohio interest me because in spending
> three hours at Berea today, the NS was VERY quiet:
> five westbounds and one eastbound. Apparently
> they are not so busy?

Three hours is not telling you anything about average traffic patterns.

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cole42 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's a wonder that anyone, other than railfans,
> > rides Amtrak.
>
>
> You're suggesting that being squeezed into an
> airline seat or stuck in an airport for hours if
> not days is any better?

I'm a large guy. I'm sure people hate it when they have to sit by me on a plane. Planes are tight and uncomfortable (except when I end up in first class). Stories of airline nightmares abound on this board in some sort of attempt to defend poor timekeeping of Amtrak's trains, regardless of who may be at fault.
My question to those who give first hand, or even second/third/fourth hand accounts of being squeezed into an airline seat, or being stuck in airport for days - how often do you fly? How often do you travel in general, and by what modes? Not being a smart-aleck, I'm really curious.

When I travel for vacation, once or twice a year, unless we're going to the left coast, it's often by car. With a wife who packs everything but this kitchen sink and a 7 year old (who LIKES to ride in the car), driving is easiest, even if it's a two day drive. Besides, it gives me the chance to explore branch lines, etc off the beaten track. Unfortunately, Amtrak hasn't really been an option BUT an AutoTrain trip MIGHT be in the cards next spring.

But the bulk of travel I do, as is the case with many people, is for business, And when I travel for business, if it's more than a 5 hour drive, it's all airline. I travel just enough to be Silver Medallion on Delta. Maybe I'm lucky, but I have never experienced a horror story at TSA, never been stuck in an airport for days, etc. Yes I've missed connections, Yes I've been delayed, yes the seats are uncomfortable. But it is short duration. It's a necessary evil and inconvenience to get the job done. So far I have 2 business trips books for Sept. CVG to YUL total travel time 5 hour 19 minutes including layover. IND to LAS total travel 7 hours 41 minutes including layover. How's Amtrak compare? So yes, I AM suggesting that for the bulk of the traveling public (business travelers) being squeezed into an airline seat IS better. Unless there is a major weather event or other catastrophe, it's unlikely your New York-Chicago flight is going to be 7 hours late. And even if it was, that particular flight or airline MIGHT become a "Never Again", how many other flights do you have to choose from that have a better track record? "It's a wonder that anyone, other than rail fans, rides Amtrak" is a bit of an extreme. But to defend it by saying a 7 hour late train is better than flying is admitting defeat and says long distance trains are nothing but "novelty" transportation.

Ptolemy Wrote:

> You're suggesting that being squeezed into an
> airline seat or stuck in an airport for hours if
> not days is any better?

=============================================================

While being squeezed into an airline seat is the norm, it's only for
a few hours. Comments about being stuck in an airport for hours
if not days are overblown and suggest transport mode prejudice. The
author is acting as though this happens as often as Amtrak makes its
passengers suffer through multi-hour delays, especially self-inflicted
ones.


milkcow Wrote:

> Engine swap @ Elyria for 30.

Self-inflicted again?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/14 20:30 by GenePoon.

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cole42 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's a wonder that anyone, other than railfans,
> > rides Amtrak.
>
>
> You're suggesting that being squeezed into an
> airline seat or stuck in an airport for hours if
> not days is any better?

Airlines have a much better on-time record than Amtrak's LD trains.

Dave

I could not see any frontal accident damage as 30 pulled into Alliance. But I understood there was some engine malfunction. We seemed to move along fine eastbound from Pittsburgh, however. I meant to but forgot to check the fuel gauges on the engines as we deboarded at Washington, to see if both were running all day, but I assume both would have to be on line to make it to Cumberland.

We parked on the lower level through tracks to facilitate connecting with 66 so I don't think I could have walked by the engines anyway.

David

Using the airlines as a benchmark for travel experience is faulty logic. Yes, airlines can be very bad at times. Amtrak should be better, much better.
I was waiting for the 2 hour late Eagle one time in Dallas. A person standing on the platform said to me, "What is the problem here? The train only has to go down the tracks."
Honestly, that is a very good question!

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cole42 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's a wonder that anyone, other than railfans,
> > rides Amtrak.
>
>
> You're suggesting that being squeezed into an
> airline seat or stuck in an airport for hours if
> not days is any better?

If you actually want to get where you're going, yes. You don't get stuck for hours/days in an airport unless there is a big snowstorm, and then Amtrak will likely cancel their trains too. I'll take a few hours in a tight seat over being more hours late on the train than the entire flight would be.

This year, I have flown 4 times, been early 3 times and 30 min late once. I have also taken an Amtrak LDT 4 times. Was close to on time once, about 30 min late another, and around 90 mins late the other two trips.

So my rule of thumb is, if I have to be somewhere by a certain time I fly. If I'm in no real hurry and can take the train, I do. I'm sorry but Amtrak is just not dependable if you have to be somewhere.