I understand that Amtrak wants to curb delays to passengers at intermediate stations, and delays at those stations are significant to passengers. It seems to me, however, that the method of measurement is not as important as trying to determine the reason for the delays and taking appropriate action, if possible.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It kind of makes sense when long distance trains can be 3 hours late at its midpoint yet still arrive at its destination on time. That passenger that boards at 9pm and gets off at midnight has a late night - but nowhere near as bad as if the train is 3 hours late and he now boards at midnight and disembarks at 3am. Yet the train was "on time" because it subsequently arrived at its destination on time.
FWIW other countries only take endpoints into account too.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Absolutely OT performance should be measured at intermediate points - maybe crew change points. Any padding should be those points and not just the fat cushion at destination.
You can be sure the Super Chief was expected to be on time across each Division. If not, that Superintendent would feel the heat the next day (which of course he passed along to the hapless Trainmaster!
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Further to my earlier, I spoke to an Australian dispatcher who agrees with endpoint timing only, but adds that some long distance trains are timed at railway company boundaries - think of a handover between CSX and BNSF, for example - but mainly just for internal use.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
