Trip Report 6-24-04/7-5-04 (with video)

Unfortunately, my July 5 Amtrak experience was not so timely. We took train 64 from Niagara Falls, Ontario to NY Penn Station. The scheduled departure from Niagara Falls was 11:40 am, however, this was delayed for 1 hr. According to the station master, it was because a draw bridge over a canal west of the Falls was struck by lightning while in the upright position and time was needed to allow repair crews to arrive. Does anyone have any information on this?

This delay was compounded by our experience at US Customs in Niagara Falls, NY. 1 hr. is allotted for customs on the train schedule, in our case it took 2 1/2 hrs., while the customs agents marched many Arab looking people off the train for interrogations in the customs building.
It looked like most, if not all, returned to the train before we could proceed. During this time we were not permitted to leave our seats or use cellphones. Caution is great but additional agents may have minimized this lengthy delay.

As a result, we arrived at Penn Station at just about midnight, instead of the scheduled arrival of 9:45pm.

As for the cafe car, I asked the attendant if I could use the microwave to heat up a deli sandwhich I brought on board. I was rebuffed because of FDA regulations so I ate my sandwhich cold.

ggardei-

Great trip report! I'm glad that you had an enjoyable trip.

... although, for future reference, you might not want to include every little thing that you did on the trip. (Like eating half of the sandwich and saving the rest for later.)

Just an opinion.

Keep riding the rails and make sure you go on your November trip!

nice video!

Mr. Fels, I'm surprised you did not detect, or choose to address, ggardei's reference to "exploring" his train. I was under the impression that you felt exploring trains was a highly suspicious and condemnable behavior.

While true that the chosen trains did not leave much room for a connection - in this case, 30mins including a 10-15min subway trip across downtown - it's important to consider that timeliness was not the objective for his trip. I also dislike Back Bay station from a railfan's perspective, but it can be convenient to have a second option for a downtown station.

Also, the missed connection would not have been as much of an issue normally, since the MBTA train to Haverhill would have been a backup. It's just that the Sunday schedule caused a greater delay because fewer trains were running. Even then, he was not really inconvenienced by the delay, so the point is somewhat moot.

For a same-station transfer, 1 hr 10 min is enough dwell time to guarantee the connection.

An interesting point to raise is that this isn't always true. My belief is that the amount of dwell time should vary with the route being traveled upon. If I were to take the eastbound Lake Shore Limited and expect to make a connection at South Station, I'd want to leave a much greater buffer. From my observations over the years, that train is often delayed by as much as a few hours over the course of its trek through New York and backwoods Massachusetts. By comparison, trains running on the Northeast Corridor are typically much more timely - in this case, the train being delayed specifically by single-track routing. Reliability, then, is a factor to be considered when planning for dwell time.

ggardei, I enjoyed reading this report and I hope I eventually have a chance to download your video. Eventually I may make a trip like this myself, considering that I'm from Boston and go to school near Albany. If I'm not mistaken, didn't you once post Downeaster and commuter rail videos in the MBTA forum? Also, I hope all the picking-apart and analyzing of your trip report does not discourage you from posting more in the future.

Also, to RMadisonWI, the image of P42 #182 is one of many that I used to draw and post on my website, though those Amfleet cars are not by me. Since the numbers are so visible, I decided to post several different versions, and 182 was one of the numbers that I chose - and in fact, I chose it because of the "Tommy G. Thompson" name that it carries.

Yep, I'm the one that posted the the trip report with the downeaster and MBTA photos, and that little video. :D The video for this report was also made with the same Canon A310 Digital still camera.

You were right, timelyness was not a real issue on my trip. The only gripe I have about waiting for trains at North Statiion is that they do not have any benches to sit on. Everyone has to sit on the floor. And there were many normal commuters that were waiting for that 8:4something train because of the Sunday/Holiday schedule.

If my train happens to be running late... no biggy, thats just more time on the train form me!

Someone earlier mentioned how too detailed my report was... well I did leave out the part about loosing power and lights on the regional while I was in the bathroom and had to finish my buisness in the dark.....

astrosa wrote:Mr. Fels, I'm surprised you did not detect, or choose to address, ggardei's reference to "exploring" his train.

Why? All of ggardei's "exploring," according to his account, was in the public area of the train. That's not only allowed but encouraged.

I was under the impression that you felt exploring trains was a highly suspicious and condemnable behavior.

Make that a false impression. Let's review the specific behavior in question:

• Correspondent "Rhinecliff" boards the westbound Empire Builder in Chicago, for a trip to Saint Paul. His coach is toward the back of the train; the only cars behind it are a sleeper and another car on an apparent deadhead run.
• About 5 hours into the trip, around 7 p.m., "Rhinecliff" walks through the car with his 2-year-old son in tow. But this is no ordinary "exploring." No sir. "Rhinecliff" wants to find out exactly how many empty compartments there are in this private car. He goes to quite some effort to make a hard count.
• Then just before Saint Paul, "Rhinecliff" enters the sleeper a SECOND time and takes a SECOND count. Remember, from his prior walk, "Rhinecliff" knows that this sleeper isn't on the way to anything except an empty car--thus there is NO REASON for him to be there.
• At trip's end, safe at home, "Rhinecliff" writes up his trip, making sure to blast the conductor for his supposed lack of "integrity."
• What prompted all this skulking? "Rhinecliff" wanted a cheap deal on a "day sleeper." He didn't get the price he wanted at the ticket counter, so he declined it, figuring he could work the conductor once on board. The conductor didn't want to play, and "Rhinecliff" wouldn't accept that--determining to somehow get the goods on this guy.

Invading others' privacy in order to satisfy one's prurient interests, using a toddler as cover--yes, I call that "condemnable."

I'm sticking with LCJ's wise counsel.

astrosa wrote:Mr. Fels, I'm surprised you did not detect, or choose to address, ggardei's reference to "exploring" his train. I was under the impression that you felt exploring trains was a highly suspicious and condemnable behavior.

Methinks "astrosa" be guilty of a bit of fels baiting, here!

Good choice, Rhinecliff. Let sleeping dogs lie, I always say. I'm not sure if that's relevent in this context, but I say it a lot anyway.

Methinks "astrosa" be guilty of a bit of fels baiting, here!

I wouldn't quite call it baiting, since I wasn't trying to spark a heated argument. It was partly an experiment to see if Mr. Fels would stray off-topic to defend his views, since I noticed he is very particular about the relevance of the material being discussed in a given thread (e.g. the mention of METRA in the "Amtrak Incidents" thread). However, I was also curious as to why he had responded so vehemently in Rhinecliff's thread but didn't address the issue here. As I thought he might, he brought all the necessary evidence from the older thread and re-posted it here to clarify his specific views. Off-topic or not, I now understand those views slightly better - my "false impression" has been corrected. That's all I sought, case closed.

Mr. Rhinecliff, I apologize for being the cause of another salvo of denouncement against you. I did not intend to put you into the spotlight again - note that I did not specifically mention your older thread. In my opinion, Mr. Fels should have omitted your name to make his response less personal and more objective. As it stands, whether true or not, the tone and wording of his response creates the appearance of having a gross personal dislike of you, which is not what I wanted to see him express. Words such as "blast," "skulking," and "prurient" convey a negative opinion. Mr. Fels, I suggest you specifically avoid the use of "prurient" in your objective statements, unless you are familiar with a definition that does not carry an illicit connotation.

In any case, my curiosity has been satisfied, so I do not expect to enter more of these types of discussions in the near future.