RAILforum: Post A Reply

»	RAILforum » Passenger Trains » Amtrak » Train #3 CANCELLED » Post A Reply

T O P I C R E V I E W
Kendall Member # 7176	posted I just received a voicemail left at 11:22 pm EST by an Amtrak representative informing me that the train I am supposed to board tomorrow in Chicago has been cancelled and I will be bused to Kansas City MIssouri where I will transfer to a train to take the rest of the way to LAX. The trip from CHI to LAX was supposed to take 43 hours. Does anyone know how taking a bus from CHI to Missouri will affect that timeline? Namaste, Catherine (I tried to call Amtrak's service number but there's a 58 minute wait)
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541	posted Ms. Kendall, review train #3 at this site: www.amtrakdelays.com Since there is no direct Interstate highway from CHI to KC, time will be lost.
Mike Smith Member # 447	posted I'm sitting in the Amtrak lounge in Chicago and train 5 has been canceled for today, no alternative transportation. And I came in on the Empire last night on the SP tracks.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541	posted Likely, Mr Smith, you mean UP (ex C&NW) tracks vice SP. For a while it appears there will be a "Builder 400" operating over ex C&NW routes that have not seen a passenger train well...WELL before A-Day. BTW, the Twin Cities 400 got away from me, but the SOO Line Winnipeger did not.
Mike Smith Member # 447	posted I'm back in Houston and you are right Mr Norman. It was the UP line. BTW, if any of you were taking pictures of the re-route, I may have you on film as I was taking pictures of the rail fans as we passed by them. I'm posting my raw trip travel log under a separate heading.
PullmanCo Member # 1138	posted Amtrak continues, as it has for over two weeks, to report 5 and 6 running Denver - Emeryville, and busstitution Chicago - Denver. 3/4 are LA-KC, with busstitution KC-Chicago. It's been on the Amtrak website pretty consistently now.
mpaulshore Member # 3785	posted By the way, Kendall, when you said in your post that a voicemail was left for you at 11:22 p.m. EST, I think what you meant was that it was left at 11:22 p.m. EDT. The Eastern Time Zone in the United States switched from Standard Time to Daylight Time on March 9th. The only other possible explanation for your remark--an extremely unlikely explanation--would be that you're an anti-Daylight-Saving-Time zealot (which I am myself, by the way), and that you take your zealotry to the point of insisting on naming every time in Standard Time year-round (which I don't do, I suppose because I lack the necessary conviction and courage). In that case, your "11:22 pm EST" would mean 12:22 a.m. EDT.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541	posted Mr. Paulshore, I would suggest a careful review of the Uniform Time Act of 1966 for a definition of Standard Time After having completed such review, you may choose to modify or withdraw your immediate posting..
mpaulshore Member # 3785	posted I assume, Mr. Norman, that you're referring to the portion of the Uniform Time Act of 1966 that states that Daylight Time "shall [. . .] be the standard time of [the nonexempt portions of a given] zone during [the prescribed] period". The somewhat careless use of the word "standard" in this phrase of the legislation does not, however, change the fact that it is customary, and undeniably useful, to distinguish between Eastern Standard Time readings and Eastern Daylight Time readings by referring to the one as "(such-and-such a time) EST", and to the other as "(such-and-such a time) EDT". The same principle applies to other time zones in the United States as well. Note, by the way, that when we switch over to Eastern Daylight Time, it's not that genuine Eastern Standard Time ceases to exist: it's still there in the background, ticking away, the reality behind the fiction. And in fact Eastern Standard Time continues to exist in the foreground in some Caribbean countries that do not observe Daylight Saving Time, as was also the case in some parts of Indiana until just a few years ago. This visible coexistence of EDT and EST during the Daylight Saving Time portion of the year is one more reason that it's important to distinguish between the two times by using the two different appellations. It would make no sense to refer to both of them as "Eastern Standard Time" when in fact they're an hour apart. If someone wants to refer, in a generic way, to whatever the prevailing time is at a given place in the Eastern Time Zone on a given date, he or she can just say "Eastern Time" or "ET". That is an acceptable generic identification. Using "Eastern Standard Time" or "EST" as a generic identification is mainly the province of unperceptive individuals who for the most part, I think, simply like the dramatic and authoritative sound of the word "Standard" without really knowing what it means. Such a usage is confusing, contrary to custom, and frankly rather foolish.
mr williams Member # 1928	posted quote: Originally posted by mpaulshore: The somewhat careless use of the word "standard" in this phrase of the legislation does not, however, change the fact that it is customary, and undeniably useful, to distinguish between Eastern Standard Time readings and Eastern Daylight Time readings by referring to the one as "(such-and-such a time) EST", and to the other as "(such-and-such a time) EDT". The same principle applies to other time zones in the United States as well. Indeed it is, especially for those of us overseas. Since 2007 the US now puts its clocks on and back at a different time to most of the rest of the world and for those of us (like me!) who work for an international corporation it is a nightmare trying to arrange eg a conference call during DST months as we invariably have to go back to ask whether our US colleagues really mean "10.00 am EST" or EDT!!
RussM Member # 3627	posted Time is an interesting subject. Prior to 1883 (in the US), there was no system of standard time, and each locality used the local solar time. It was the railroads that created the need for standard time zones.
mpaulshore Member # 3785	posted Thanks, RussM, for that stunning new information.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776	posted Come on, let's play nice, or I'll clock you all with a big Breitling pilot watch set to Zulu time.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541	posted Even though GMT has now been superseded by the term UTC, apparently the term Zulu noted by Mr. Kisor remains active. http://www.dxing.com/utcgmt.htm Having grown up in Greenwich (CT that is), I can remember exploring Atlas pages and asking "Mommy, what happens when we go East or West of Greenwich?"
Henry Kisor Member # 4776	posted "Zulu" is much easier to say than "UTC" and that is the chief reason for its survival. Raw aviation weather forecasts use Zulu ("0800Z") but translated forecasts will say "0800 UTC."A telephone weather briefer will always say "Zulu" and so will the military before it embarks on another international misadventure. As for the Zulus, they can say "Zebra" if they like. (Some professionals think "Zebra" eventually will become the norm.)
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541	posted Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliett Kilo Lima Metro November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra Tango Uniform Victory Whiskey Xray Yankee Zulu "been out (of service) forty years'; still remember 'em all.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776	posted And that alphabet's precursor: Able Baker Charlie Dog Easy Fox George How Item Jig King Love Mike Nan Oboe Peter Queen Roger Sugar Tare Uncle Victor William X-ray Yoke Zebra It was, I understand, changed because some of the words were difficult for non-English speakers to pronounce properly. Too bad. I memorized this alphabet in 1944, at age four. No idea why, except there was a war on and my dad was at sea.
smitty195 Member # 5102	posted Well, there's the law enforcement version also.... Adam Boy Charles David etc, etc...(although some PD's use the military version)
yukon11 Member # 2997	posted Before 1883, there were at least 300 different time zones in the US, based on local solar time. If the time, in Chicago, was 12 noon, it would be 11:50 in St Louis and 12:31 in Pittsburg. As an amateur radio operator, I still use the term "Greenwich Time" or GMT. I have wondered if it would be good if RR's adopted GMT or UTC time. However, to say a train arrives at "1600" would force a person to figure out the local time and adjust if it is standard or daylight time. Then there is the problem, such as in Ariz and Indiana, where there are areas which do not observe daylight savings time. In all, probably not worth it. Here is an interesting article on the railroad watch. Apparently, a difference of a watch being off 4 minutes resulted in a severe train accident involving fatalities. Thus, a new standard for the railroad watch: http://people.timezone.com/msandler/Articles/ClitheroeRailroad/Railroad.html With regard to the phonetic alphabet, I always use the list posted by Mr. Norman..however, I thought "m" was mike and "v" was victor. Richard
ellenorigby Member # 9414	posted I have to write those down, I work in another area of transportation and have small occasions to speak on a police radio and I get tongue tied trying to think of alpha, bravo etc to tell a trooper someone's license plate.....yikes.
PullmanCo Member # 1138	posted Then there's the Army version Alfa Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliett Kilo Lima Mike November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra Tango Uniform Whiskey X-Ray Yankee Zulu My favorite is how people doing simulations want local=exercise="simulation zulu" time. Fortunately, some real world command and control systems demand operation on a single time standard and that is: Zulu. Looks like all the Western LDs are operating by Sunday
smitty195 Member # 5102	posted quote: Originally posted by ellenorigby: I have to write those down, I work in another area of transportation and have small occasions to speak on a police radio and I get tongue tied trying to think of alpha, bravo etc to tell a trooper someone's license plate.....yikes. Here's the full list: Adam Boy Charles David Edward Frank George Henry Ida John King Lincoln Mary Nora Ocean Paul Queen Robert Sam Tom Union Victor Xray Yellow Zebra Just don't try to make stuff up as you go, because it sounds pretty stupid. When I was a 911 supervisor, citizens would try to sound official and they would try to spell things phonetically, saying things like, "That's S as in Super Glue, M as in My next door neighbor, I as in It's a beautiful day, T as in Tomato, and H as in Howdy Doody". It made for some free entertainment occasionally.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776	posted Now that we all know what time it is and how to say it, maybe we had better return to the subject of Alpha Mike Tango Romeo Alpha Kilo . . . Ain't thread creep entertaining?
smitty195 Member # 5102	posted quote: Originally posted by Henry Kisor: Ain't thread creep entertaining? I think so (and apparently you do, too).
train lady Member # 3920	posted Henry, thanks for stating the old list. In High school I was in the Civil Air patrol cadets and we were trained by an air force Captain. Your list is the one we used. I could only remember up to George. So it brought back memories to me.And now back to trains
Henry Kisor Member # 4776	posted Smitty195, oh, you bet! We're lucky to have a moderator who's laid back about thread creep, unlike the rigid and anal gauleiters of certain other rail boards.
royaltrain Member # 622	posted How would someone in the U.S. pronounce Quebec for Q. In Canada it is usually pronounced Kebec which is perhaps why in Canada Q is usually Queen.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776	posted Kwebec, like Kween? We Yanks tend to pronounce things the way they look. For instance, a certain cut of steak is often pronounced "fillet migg-non," causing the French to wince. The Brits do pronounce and spell things their own way, too. The Danish "Helsingor" is "Elsinore" and "Kobenhavn" is "Copenhagen." And we also say "Am-TRAK." (Just keeping this thread on the straight and narrow, you understand. :-)
Mike Smith Member # 447	posted Qwa beck. In Texan.
smitty195 Member # 5102	posted quote: Originally posted by royaltrain: How would someone in the U.S. pronounce Quebec for Q. In Canada it is usually pronounced Kebec which is perhaps why in Canada Q is usually Queen. Yes, it's "Kebec" if following the US Military method of pronunciation (with emphasis on the first syllable).
royaltrain Member # 622	posted Perhaps it should be K as in knife and P as in pneumonia (from and old Nichols and May radio skit).

Top of Page|TrainWeb|About Us|Advertise With Us|Contact Us