adding ambus to guest rewards tickets

[PaulM]

It's the "not a published route" thing that's a problem. You can book LAX-SF, but you you're trying to book it from Memphis the only published route is on the CZ. Just need to have the routing added to Arrow (easier said than done!).

Are you sure the "not" isn't a typo. This is the very definition of the "published route" bug. Even worse, it demonstrates the A-B and B-C but not A-B-C logical error.

The past Winter I had the same problem when I wanted to go from Fort Madison to Clearwater/St. Pete, the last segment being Tampa to STP bus. CHI to STP was published, as was FMD to TPA, but not FMD to STP. In this case, unlike George's, the AGR agent readily agreed to my request without resorting to higher authority.

So you could also call it an agent variation thing. But that would be unfair to the agents. Is really reasonable to expect a telephone agent to break the rules, even if they are illogical and unfair?

 

[crescent2]

Sometimes it works out and sometimes not.

I think Ryan is right about the reason. The problem was that the desired route to SF isn't published when starting from Memphis. I've looked into planning several AGR trips and have found that what is published or not published sometimes doesn't make much sense.

For instance, the only way I can go from Anniston (AL) to CHI is to go north on the Crescent to CVS or WAS. The Crescent also goes south to New Orleans, but that isn't published so it's not an option for me, although it would save me a zone each way. I didn't try to get an exception, because the Cardinal and/or Capitol Limited take me through new country. But it seems that both routes should be allowed--one's about as direct as the other, and the overnight in NOL has been allowed for some time.

CZ/CS, connection allowed in SAC but not DAV. ?

 

[PaulM]

For instance, the only way I can go from Anniston (AL) to CHI is to go north on the Crescent to CVS or WAS. The Crescent also goes south to New Orleans, but that isn't published so it's not an option for me, although it would save me a zone each way. .... But it seems that both routes should be allowed--one's about as direct as the other, and the overnight in NOL has been allowed for some time.

First of all, are you sure it wouldn't save you two zones each way?

Circle trips are not permitted using a single redemption.

So where are you going to break it up? Atlanta, Toledo? ATN to ATl = 1 zone; ATL to CHI = 2 zones, which means it would cost as many points, at least in a roomette, as Miami to Seattle.

The overnight from the Crescent is allowed to the SL, but not CoNO. As I said, very arbitrary and illogical.

 

[Ryan]

For instance, the only way I can go from Anniston (AL) to CHI is to go north on the Crescent to CVS or WAS. The Crescent also goes south to New Orleans, but that isn't published so it's not an option for me, although it would save me a zone each way. .... But it seems that both routes should be allowed--one's about as direct as the other, and the overnight in NOL has been allowed for some time.

First of all, are you sure it wouldn't save you two zones each way?

Yes, because she has the trip booked as a 2 zone today, without having to break it up. It seems the agents have some discretion in waiving that rule (surprise!). I'm sure that they can see she lives there, and see that she isn't trying to pull some loophole stunt.

 

[crescent2]

My trip is booked this way: ATN-WAS-CHI (first award) then CHI-CVS-ATN (return award), so layovers are in Washington DC (to Cap Ltd) and Charlottesville (from the Card). Both of those are published routes, but for some reason ATN-NOL-CHI (all in the same zone) is not published. And it's my understanding that the overnight in NOL is the one that has always been allowed! I see no rhyme or reason in allowing (demanding) the multi-zone routes and disallowing the single-zone route. But any argument on my part would have been purely academic, this time anyway.

When I phoned AGR to book it, there was no mention of a circle route nor any discussion of how many zones. They just said it would be two 2-zone redemptions. I did ask them, just so I wouldn't get any unwelcome surprises, "So starting in Anniston is OK?" They said yes.

All I can figure is that, because those routes are the ONLY semi-direct way (other than via the forbidden NOL) that one can get there from here using Amtrak, they can't very well say I'm "trying" to go in a circle--as Ryan pointed out.

Actually I don't live in Anniston, I live in western Georgia, but Anniston is my "home station" and the one we've used for many years, if they wanted to check that. ATL is closer, so I guess if they had wanted to give me a hard time, they could've, but they didn't at all. They did not ask me where I lived.

I believe (?) it was the traveler who had told me he thought they would only count the central zone once, and he was right. It was very easy and pleasant to book the trip. I'm glad, because I don't like trying to convince someone to break rules, even if they make no sense to me.

I don't understand the CZ/CS "no DAV connection" either, but that's for another time.

 

[PaulM]

Yes, because she has the trip booked as a 2 zone today, without having to break it up. It seems the agents have some discretion in waiving that rule (surprise!). I'm sure that they can see she lives there, and see that she isn't trying to pull some loophole stunt.

It looks like Crescent received the benefit of the little known double hockey stick exception to the circle rule. That's when the route satisfies AGR's, not the mathematical, definition of circle, but is shaped like a double hockey stick. However, only agents who aren't directionally disabled can apply the exception.

Seriously, what does where you live have to do with it? And what's the definition of a loophole stunt?

As I said, arbitrary and illogical.

 

[chakk]

I think your problem is one of timing.

The CS arrives in OAK at 9:24 pm. The Ambus departs for San Francisco at 9:35 pm. At best,that is a very doubtful connection.

Not at all a doubtful coonection. The Ambus ALWAYS waits for the nb CS, regardless of its arrival time.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[Ryan]

Seriously, what does where you live have to do with it?

Under the rules, strictly applied, if you live on the section of the Crescent in the Central Zone, you're not able to redeem a trip to anywhere in the Central or Western zone (except for the other stations on the Crescent). You can't go past NOL (the overnight connections aren't "published routings", and going through WAS of CVS and then heading west violates the no circle trips rule.

Obviously, this is illogical and untenable, so folks that live along that stretch of the line are given a little bit of leeway from the published rules.

As far as loophole stunts, you and I both know darn well what I'm talking about.

 

[crescent2]

Seriously, what does where you live have to do with it?

Under the rules, strictly applied, if you live on the section of the Crescent in the Central Zone, you're not able to redeem a trip to anywhere in the Central or Western zone (except for the other stations on the Crescent). You can't go past NOL (the overnight connections aren't "published routings", and going through WAS of CVS and then heading west violates the no circle trips rule.

Obviously, this is illogical and untenable, so folks that live along that stretch of the line are given a little bit of leeway from the published rules.

As far as loophole stunts, you and I both know darn well what I'm talking about.

I think everyone who frequents the forum understands what a loophole stunt is. One definition might be "trying to milk the system by attempting to take a route that's intentionally longer or less direct than it has to be." I think the "has to be" is the key here.

If the route is the only one available (published by Arrow), I don't see how AGR or anyone else could argue that it shouldn't be allowed. It's the ONLY way according to Amtrak. That certainly should, and apparently does, make a difference.

As to why it's the only routing (ie, disallowing the seemingly sensible NOL single-zone route), that's another question. But as it stands, the central-eastern-central- again routing is the only one that exists on Arrow.

Re your other question, I think that beginning in Alabama doesn't necessarily depend on living there or nearby, but obviously people do live there. Someone who had flown into Alabama but wanted to take a train instead of flying out or found themselves there for whatever reason would also be in the same situation. It would still be the only way to get there (CHI) from here (Alabama), at least according to Arrow. But, actually living there removes even the suggestion that someone is trying to milk the system by placing themselves in Anniston for the sole purpose of beating the system and obtaining a circle route. So, from that perspective, mentioning living there wasn't totally irrelevant.

Watch for it: New thread "ANNISTON LOOPHOLE FOR GETTING CIRCLE ROUTE!" :giggle: Not.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Excellent Post Crescent! And my condolences for living in Alabama! (Cue Lynard Skynard! LOL)

 

[crescent2]

Excellent Post Crescent! And my condolences for living in Alabama! (Cue Lynard Skynard! LOL)

Sorry, Jim, the last laugh's on you this time! I don't live in Alabama!! bahwahha! Although I've been accused of it before. :giggle: Western Georgia, which is close enough...

Disclaimer: No offense meant to the true Alabamians, just messing with you! My son and his family live in AL and love it.

 

[PaulM]

Seriously, what does where you live have to do with it?

Under the rules, strictly applied, if you live on the section of the Crescent in the Central Zone, you're not able to redeem a trip to anywhere in the Central or Western zone (except for the other stations on the Crescent). You can't go past NOL (the overnight connections aren't "published routings", and going through WAS of CVS and then heading west violates the no circle trips rule.

Obviously, this is illogical and untenable, so folks that live along that stretch of the line are given a little bit of leeway from the published rules.

As far as loophole stunts, you and I both know darn well what I'm talking about.

If you substitute "board" or "detrain" for "live", I agree with you. I've never had an AGR agent ask me where I live.

Regarding the "leeway" given those wanting to board or detrain from the southern regions of the Crescent, I'm sure I could find other examples just as illogical and untenable. Once upon a time, AGR supposedly codified and published the rules. It was obvious to me at that time, that "leeway" would still be required to make rulings logical and tenable.

I honestly don't know what a loophole stunt is. Would you say Galesburg, IL to San Diego via CHI, PDX, and LAX is one?

 

[the_traveler]

If it is published as GBB-CHI-PDX-LAX-SAN, then no. However, me thinks the only published route between GBB and SAN is via the SWC and Surfliner.

 

[PaulM]

If it is published as GBB-CHI-PDX-LAX-SAN, then no. However, me thinks the only published route between GBB and SAN is via the SWC and Surfliner.

It was a trick question Back when I did it in Jan 2013, actually starting in QCY, IZ -> EB -> CS -> PSL was a published route. I'll bet it was one of the last times 27 got into PDX early. IZ ->TE is also published. Also, I'm almost certain CZ -> SJ -> Bakersfield bus was published at that time.

So, your are saying

Published ==> not loophole stunt

But Ryan says the proposition

Not published ==> loophole stunt

is not necessarily true; at least for the Cresacent -> CL itinerary in question.

These two examples point out the difficulty defining a loophole. In my example you had 2 round-about routes (TE and CZ, SJ, bus) and one extremely round about route (EB) being published, despite there being a very direct route (SWC) available. Conversely, in the case at hand the only published route (CR, CL) is round about, AGR calls it a circle, despite there being a more direct (CR, CoNO) available but not published.

 

[guest]

It doesn't seem strange that the northern routes are allowed. They may be roundabout but a more direct route doesn't exist within Amtrak. What is strange is that the CONO routing is not published. It's also roundabout due to the skeletal network but no more so than the other available routing.

AGR should think about using some criteria other than published-unpublished if Amtrak can't get it's computer system to include more routes.

 

[Ryan]

But Ryan says the proposition

Not published ==> loophole stunt

is not necessarily true; at least for the Cresacent -> CL itinerary in question.

a) I never said that. There exist logical, non loophole routes that remain unpublished unpublished.

b) I also wouldn't define GBB-SAN via PDX as a loophole, since it's not a "circle trip".

c) The Crescent -> CL itinerary is published.

The confusing summary:

1) If it's published, it isn't a loophole stunt. However, being an unpublished trip does not necessarily make a loophole stunt (some unpublished trips make perfect sense).

2) If isn't a circle trip, it isn't a loophole stunt. However, being a circle trip does not necessarily make a loophole stunt (some circle trips make perfect sense).