Results for this period are:
TOTAL TRAINS = 884
ON TIME = 367 (42%)
LATE = 517 (58%)
AVERAGE DELAY = 56"
Of the late trains:
47% were 29" or less late;
20% were 30" to 59" late;
19% were 1' to 2' late;
14% were more than 2' late; and
<1% had no arrival time shown.
BY ROUTE WITH ON-TIME % AND AVERAGE DELAY:
CAPITOL LIMITED
#29 - 7% - 58"
#30 - 7% - 39"
CARDINAL
#51 - 31% - 1' 26"
#50 - 8% - 1' 49"
PENNSYLVANIAN
#43 - 17% - 28"
#42 - 27% - 33"
LAKE SHORE LIMITED
#49 - 7% - 1' 26"
#48 - 53% - 1' 10"
LAKE SHORE LIMITED (BOSTON / ALBANY)
#449 - 40% - 33"
#448 - 20% - 1' 33"
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
#59 - 93% - 58"
#58 - 89% - 1' 43"
CRESCENT (WAS)
#19 - 27% - 1' 03"
#20 - 77% - 1' 03"
DETROIT CORRIDOR
(W) - 6% - 46"
(E) - 22% - 1' 13"
ST. LOUIS CORRIDOR
(W) - 58% - 29"
(E) - 53% - 55"
BUFFALO CORRIDOR
(W) - 23% - 43"
(E) - 61% - 37"
KANSAS CITY CORRIDOR
(W) - 68% - 33"
(E) - 21% - 23"
While it is good to see that Amtrak is restoring some of the services which had been suspended, the failure to improve the on-time performance and to reduce the average delay figure is symptomatic of the long-standing issues which show no signs of any aggressive management corrective action.
As to the reported causes of the delays:
Amtrak Eq. = 57
Host Carrier = 360
3rd Party = 25
Weather = 24
Amtrak Holds = 15
Crew Issue = 3
N.O.S. = 477
Considering that these delays are only for the services monitored and are only those which fall within the parameters of a 30" delay which fall within a 3' scheduled run, the total number of delays for the entire network is simply unimaginable.
Many of the "NOS" delays are from services which have been given additional schedule padding. The impression received is that since the train is expected to recover all of the lost time, then why bother to report the delays.
The current level of performance reminds me of when a proposal to provide real-time monitoring of operations through on-site observation in host-carrier dispatching offices and from the head-ends of trains was offered to the Warrington administration, and the response was that such was neither wanted nor needed. Suffice it to say tht the level of performance has remained at an unacceptable level.
For those who champion the advertised national expansion of Amtrak services without changing the senior Amtrak management, please let me know what your preferred intoxicant is.
TOTAL TRAINS = 884
ON TIME = 367 (42%)
LATE = 517 (58%)
AVERAGE DELAY = 56"
Of the late trains:
47% were 29" or less late;
20% were 30" to 59" late;
19% were 1' to 2' late;
14% were more than 2' late; and
<1% had no arrival time shown.
BY ROUTE WITH ON-TIME % AND AVERAGE DELAY:
CAPITOL LIMITED
#29 - 7% - 58"
#30 - 7% - 39"
CARDINAL
#51 - 31% - 1' 26"
#50 - 8% - 1' 49"
PENNSYLVANIAN
#43 - 17% - 28"
#42 - 27% - 33"
LAKE SHORE LIMITED
#49 - 7% - 1' 26"
#48 - 53% - 1' 10"
LAKE SHORE LIMITED (BOSTON / ALBANY)
#449 - 40% - 33"
#448 - 20% - 1' 33"
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
#59 - 93% - 58"
#58 - 89% - 1' 43"
CRESCENT (WAS)
#19 - 27% - 1' 03"
#20 - 77% - 1' 03"
DETROIT CORRIDOR
(W) - 6% - 46"
(E) - 22% - 1' 13"
ST. LOUIS CORRIDOR
(W) - 58% - 29"
(E) - 53% - 55"
BUFFALO CORRIDOR
(W) - 23% - 43"
(E) - 61% - 37"
KANSAS CITY CORRIDOR
(W) - 68% - 33"
(E) - 21% - 23"
While it is good to see that Amtrak is restoring some of the services which had been suspended, the failure to improve the on-time performance and to reduce the average delay figure is symptomatic of the long-standing issues which show no signs of any aggressive management corrective action.
As to the reported causes of the delays:
Amtrak Eq. = 57
Host Carrier = 360
3rd Party = 25
Weather = 24
Amtrak Holds = 15
Crew Issue = 3
N.O.S. = 477
Considering that these delays are only for the services monitored and are only those which fall within the parameters of a 30" delay which fall within a 3' scheduled run, the total number of delays for the entire network is simply unimaginable.
Many of the "NOS" delays are from services which have been given additional schedule padding. The impression received is that since the train is expected to recover all of the lost time, then why bother to report the delays.
The current level of performance reminds me of when a proposal to provide real-time monitoring of operations through on-site observation in host-carrier dispatching offices and from the head-ends of trains was offered to the Warrington administration, and the response was that such was neither wanted nor needed. Suffice it to say tht the level of performance has remained at an unacceptable level.
For those who champion the advertised national expansion of Amtrak services without changing the senior Amtrak management, please let me know what your preferred intoxicant is.
