1004 Southwest Chief, March 13

[Cal]

On the eastbound Chief that departs LAX on March 13, I see it say train 1004. I've never seen this before, so can someone explain?

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Time change - which will cause two #4's to be at a station, don't know which one, on the same date, so they renumbered one 1004.

It can also happen when there's track work that will cause the same issue.

 

[John Bobinyec]

The problem to be solved is that time changes at 2.01 a.m. on Sunday, March 14. At that time in each respective timezone other than Mountain Standard Time (Arizona), time jumps forward exactly 1 hour. If the schedule of all the stations after that point were unchanged, the train would be instantly 1 hour late. In years gone by, that is exactly what happened. However, a few years ago, Amtrak decided to add 1 hour to each post time-change station so that the train would not be artificially late. That ran up against a different problem. Because a train stopping normally at just before 11.59 p.m. on that Sunday at a particular station would now be stopping an hour later at after 12.01 a.m. on Monday, it caused a conflict with the following day's train. You see ARROW, Amtrak's reservation system, cannot handle more than one instance of the same train at the same station on the same day. So, the solution was to renumber one of the conflicting trains. However, this year, since train number 4 does not have a train following it on the subsequent day, this conflict of train numbers can't happen for this train. So it appears that Amtrak either renumbered the train unnecessarily, or they wanted to denote that the train purposely has a different schedule on that day.

jb

 

[Cal]

The problem to be solved is that time changes at 2.01 a.m. on Sunday, March 14. At that time in each respective timezone other than Mountain Standard Time (Arizona), time jumps forward exactly 1 hour. If the schedule of all the stations after that point were unchanged, the train would be instantly 1 hour late. In years gone by, that is exactly what happened. However, a few years ago, Amtrak decided to add 1 hour to each post time-change station so that the train would not be artificially late. That ran up against a different problem. Because a train stopping normally at just before 11.59 p.m. on that Sunday at a particular station would now be stopping an hour later at after 12.01 a.m. on Monday, it caused a conflict with the following day's train. You see ARROW, Amtrak's reservation system, cannot handle more than one instance of the same train at the same station on the same day. So, the solution was to renumber one of the conflicting trains. However, this year, since train number 4 does not have a train following it on the subsequent day, this conflict of train numbers can't happen for this train. So it appears that Amtrak either renumbered the train unnecessarily, or they wanted to denote that the train purposely has a different schedule on that day.

jb

Made sense, thank you!!

I forgot about the time change completely. This should mean I get to see a little bit of San Bernardino (or more) when I go on the Chief late this month

Edit: Just reviewed the time change, I thought we gained an hour, not lost one. Which means it'll past dark by the time I even board in Fullerton. Quite annoyed, was hoping to see some of Socal from the train...

 

[Mike G]

The ol’ riddle
Spring. A head
Fall. Back

 

[Cal]

The ol’ riddle
Spring. A head
Fall. Back

Now let's see if I actually remember it..

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Made sense, thank you!!

I forgot about the time change completely. This should mean I get to see a little bit of San Bernardino (or more) when I go on the Chief late this month

Edit: Just reviewed the time change, I thought we gained an hour, not lost one. Which means it'll past dark by the time I even board in Fullerton. Quite annoyed, was hoping to see some of Socal from the train...

We gain an hour of sunlight in the evening so you should be fine. That website I shared should take DST into account.

 

[nendee]

We gain an hour of sunlight in the evening so you should be fine. That website I shared should take DST into account.

yes, which means it’s lighter later, so you actually have a better chance of daylight now.

 

[Cal]

I hate time changes

 

[Charles785]

Actually, I feel as Cal does. I don't care for these confounded twice a year time changes.

In a search for compromise, what about this idea?

Right now most of us spend 7 ½ months of the year in another time zone. And according to the surveys I’ve seen about half the people in the US prefer daylight saving time and about half don’t. But those same surveys show that approximately 70% of the population find the semi-annual time changes annoying and disruptive; they would prefer one or the other all the time.

So, could we compromise between those who like standard time, and those who like DST?

Maybe I’ve been over-thinking this, but perhaps there is a way to please more of the people and eliminate this ‘spring forward fall back’ thing. Starting on the second Sunday in March what about advancing the clocks by thirty minutes - instead of an hour - and leaving them there forever? This compromise between those who want more daylight at the end of the day, and those who don’t might appeal to many. And the main advantage of this would be to eliminate those bothersome twice a year time changes. (And yes, there is one example now of a 30-minute time zone offset from Greenwich Mean Time in North America, and that is Newfoundland.)

With this idea, summer sunsets would obviously be later than with standard time, and winter early morning darkness would not be as late as with DST.

If all of North America adopted this idea, would it work?

 

[Cal]

Actually, I feel as Cal does. I don't care for these confounded twice a year time changes.

In a search for compromise, what about this idea?

Right now most of us spend 7 ½ months of the year in another time zone. And according to the surveys I’ve seen about half the people in the US prefer daylight saving time and about half don’t. But those same surveys show that approximately 70% of the population find the semi-annual time changes annoying and disruptive; they would prefer one or the other all the time.

So, could we compromise between those who like standard time, and those who like DST?

Maybe I’ve been over-thinking this, but perhaps there is a way to please more of the people and eliminate this ‘spring forward fall back’ thing. Starting on the second Sunday in March what about advancing the clocks by thirty minutes - instead of an hour - and leaving them there forever? This compromise between those who want more daylight at the end of the day, and those who don’t might appeal to many. And the main advantage of this would be to eliminate those bothersome twice a year time changes. (And yes, there is one example now of a 30-minute time zone offset from Greenwich Mean Time in North America, and that is Newfoundland.)

With this idea, summer sunsets would obviously be later than with standard time, and winter early morning darkness would not be as late as with DST.

If all of North America adopted this idea, would it work?

I think this, deserves it's own thread.

And I mean, I don't hate the time change itself (I don't really love it either), it's just confusing.