Bad Trip Today

[Carol layton]

Very disappointed in Amtrak travel today. We were on the train for eleven hours and were allowed only three breaks to go outside and stretch our legs or smoke. They were running behind so they punished the passengers. If you are not going to give passengers breaks on a long trip then provide a smoking car. I doubt I will ever use your service again.

 

[zephyr17]

Very disappointed in Amtrak travel today. We were on the train for eleven hours and were allowed only three breaks to go outside and stretch our legs or smoke. They were running behind so they punished the passengers. If you are not going to give passengers breaks on a long trip then provide a smoking car. I doubt I will ever use your service again.

This is not an Amtrak website, it is a discussion group for people interested in Amtrak.

I suggest that you direct your complaint to Amtrak's Customer Service by calling 800-USA-RAIL and asking for Customer Service after getting connected to an agent. You should have the train number and date.

With that said, if a train is late all efforts are made to minimize further delay where possible, including shortening long station stops when operational conditions don't dictate that they be long. It is not to punish the passengers, but to get them to their destinations. Three smoking breaks sound a little light, but not overly so. Usually the smoke stops are about 2-3 hours apart anyway.

Further suggest for long journeys by any mode of transportation, you stock up on nicotine gum. All modes have delays and limited opportunities to light up (many if not most airports are entirely non-smoking now, for instance).

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

This website is not affiliated with Amtrak. Please direct your complaints elsewhere. I hope that you will come back and not just do post-and-run. Besides, three IMHO three smoke breaks in eleven hours is not bad at all.That's about one break every four hours, I've had less breaks than that even if the train was running behind.

 

[Henry Kisor]

It's hard to have sympathy for smokers who can't have a gasper on their personal schedules.

 

[fairviewroad]

We were on the train for eleven hours and were allowed only three breaks to go outside and stretch our legs or smoke.

How many smoking breaks do you get on an 11-hour flight? A bit less than 3, I'd wager, unless your flight is departing 35 years ago.

That said, I do wonder what you think is reasonable. I mean, the train does have to get to its destination eventually.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

We were on the train for eleven hours and were allowed only three breaks to go outside and stretch our legs or smoke.

How many smoking breaks do you get on an 11-hour flight? A bit less than 3, I'd wager, unless your flight is departing 35 years ago.

That said, I do wonder what you think is reasonable. I mean, the train does have to get to its destination eventually.

35 years ago? That'd be in 1977, when planes could already fly 11 hours nonstop and some had one stop. The ones with a lot of stops would make the endpoint passengers take a lot longer. To get three stops in a eleven hour flight regularly would be something like 50-60 years ago.

 

[Nathanael]

And you can always stretch your legs within the train, so this is definitely *only* a smoking addict's complaint. Agreed with zephyr's comment: stock up on nicotine gum or patches if you can't break the habit.

 

[fairviewroad]

We were on the train for eleven hours and were allowed only three breaks to go outside and stretch our legs or smoke.

How many smoking breaks do you get on an 11-hour flight? A bit less than 3, I'd wager, unless your flight is departing 35 years ago.

That said, I do wonder what you think is reasonable. I mean, the train does have to get to its destination eventually.

35 years ago? That'd be in 1977, when planes could already fly 11 hours nonstop and some had one stop. The ones with a lot of stops would make the endpoint passengers take a lot longer. To get three stops in a eleven hour flight regularly would be something like 50-60 years ago.

Perhaps my point was too subtle. What I meant is that 35 years ago planes had smoking sections.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Perhaps my point was too subtle. What I meant is that 35 years ago planes had smoking sections.

Oh, yes. Now I understand. I'm afraid the OP is really just a nicotine addict. If so, I guess it's actually good that Amtrak kept hm/her on board so that he/she would not smoke, as it is not good for health. Even if the OP did not want to smoke, at least there were probably other smokers on the train. I don't really know if nicotine gum or patches ork, but I think they do, though the smoker might just get addicted to that nicotine instead.

 

[MikefromCrete]

We were on the train for eleven hours and were allowed only three breaks to go outside and stretch our legs or smoke.

How many smoking breaks do you get on an 11-hour flight? A bit less than 3, I'd wager, unless your flight is departing 35 years ago.

That said, I do wonder what you think is reasonable. I mean, the train does have to get to its destination eventually.

35 years ago? That'd be in 1977, when planes could already fly 11 hours nonstop and some had one stop. The ones with a lot of stops would make the endpoint passengers take a lot longer. To get three stops in a eleven hour flight regularly would be something like 50-60 years ago.

The poster is making a joke about smoking breaks. Of course there are no smoking breaks on an airplane trip, no matter what the length. Before 2000 smoking was allowed on planes, believe it or not.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

The poster is making a joke about smoking breaks. Of course there are no smoking breaks on an airplane trip, no matter what the length. Before 2000 smoking was allowed on planes, believe it or not.

I know that it used to be allowed on planes, but I interpreted the poster to be talking about stopovers in the middle of the flight, possible to refuel.

 

[Texan Eagle]

Very disappointed in Amtrak travel today. We were on the train for eleven hours and were allowed only three breaks to go outside and stretch our legs or smoke. They were running behind so they punished the passengers. If you are not going to give passengers breaks on a long trip then provide a smoking car. I doubt I will ever use your service again.

I am not sure if this guest poster is ever gonna come back to read the replies, since many such disgruntled guests think this is Amtrak site, leave a complaint and disappear.

That being said, dear guest if you say you are never gonna use Amtrak again because they did not give you enough smoke breaks, good luck finding a flight that gives you 3 or more smoke breaks in 11 hours, or a smoking compartment.

I am not among the Amtrak apologists but in this case I'd say what Amtrak did is absolutely correct. No need to delay a train for smokers.

On a train, the only one giving out smoke should be the engine

 

[the_traveler]

First off - this site is not owned by or affiliated at all with Amtrak.

Second - not to be insensitive, but there are many airline flights of over 11 hours where they do not let you let you get out, climb on the wing and smoke! By your own words, 11 hours and 3 breaks is less than an average of 4 hours. Most flight cross country in the US are well over 4 hours long! In fact most flights I've been on (even "short" flights) from getting to the airport, getting on the plane, flying, getting baggage, and then going outside (where you could smoke) have been over 4 hours!

 

[TimePeace]

Perhaps my point was too subtle. What I meant is that 35 years ago planes had smoking sections.

Oh, yes. Now I understand. I'm afraid the OP is really just a nicotine addict. If so, I guess it's actually good that Amtrak kept hm/her on board so that he/she would not smoke, as it is not good for health. Even if the OP did not want to smoke, at least there were probably other smokers on the train. I don't really know if nicotine gum or patches ork, but I think they do, though the smoker might just get addicted to that nicotine instead.

Not to be judgmental or anything....

 

[Bob Dylan]

Very disappointed in Amtrak travel today. We were on the train for eleven hours and were allowed only three breaks to go outside and stretch our legs or smoke. They were running behind so they punished the passengers. If you are not going to give passengers breaks on a long trip then provide a smoking car. I doubt I will ever use your service again.

If you bother to come back (doubtful as has been said!), Id like to point out that Smoking is rapidly being banned EVERYWHERE including Outside most Public Areas including Airports, Train and Bus Stations and even on the Streets in some Cities! I smoked for 35 years, including on Planes, Trains and Busses and in All Public Places that didnt ban it! Quitting wasnt easy but with the Costs and the Risk to your Health and others, it is a very worthwhile objective, I suggest you make up your mind to quit and as Nike says: "Just do it!" Three breaks in 11 Hours isnt bad as has been said, Ive ridden Planes for over 12 Hours with No Breaks including having to be told when I could get up from my Seat, go to the bathroome etc. Amtrak still has the most Freedom of any way to Travel except for Private Planes and if you qualify for that forget what I said about Costs! <_<

 

[Nathanael]

Oh, yes. Now I understand. I'm afraid the OP is really just a nicotine addict. If so, I guess it's actually good that Amtrak kept hm/her on board so that he/she would not smoke, as it is not good for health. Even if the OP did not want to smoke, at least there were probably other smokers on the train. I don't really know if nicotine gum or patches ork, but I think they do, though the smoker might just get addicted to that nicotine instead.

While nicotine is bad for health (causes heart attacks, macular degeneration, and various other blood vessel problems), the other toxic garbage in cigarettes is far worse (causes lung cancer, emphysema, etc.) -- so having a nicotine addict switch to pure nicotine rather than tobacco smoke (plus god knows what else -- the big cigarette companies add even more toxic garbage such as asbestos, fiberglass, and ammonia) is actually a significant health improvement.

 

[AnthonyM]

I'm sorry but which century does the OP live in. Where does any public transport allow or provide a smoking area? I'm amazed the AT still has it. I think that Amtrak tries to provide such stops is very generous, a bonus not a necessity . There is no problem or true complaint here.

I think the OP should drive where she can smoke all she likes, stop to stretch all they like. Then there would be no complaints.

 

[Ispolkom]

What on-time long-distance Amtrak train offers three smoke breaks in 11 hours? Most of the trains I've been on offer them only at crew change points, every 6-8 hours.

 

[pennyk]

If I were on a train that was running late and became later to accommodate smokers, I would be very unhappy. I, too, am surprised that smoking is still allowed on the Auto Train.

I am old enough to remember smoking sections on planes, which was a joke since the smoke (or smell) NEVER crossed the line between the smoking and non-smoking sections. :lol:

 

[Peter KG6LSE]

smoking section in a darn near sealed tube . :help:

ERROR 404 . does not compute

 

[the_traveler]

1343179164[/url]' post='382493']I am old enough to remember smoking sections on planes, which was a joke since the smoke (or smell) NEVER crossed the line between the smoking and non-smoking sections. :lol:

Not to mention that if you had to use the bathroom, you HAD to walk thru the smoking section, and if they were occupied, you HAD TO STAND in the smoking section!

Yeah, how was the smoke smart enough not to cross from row 23 to row 22?

 

[me_little_me]

I am old enough to remember smoking sections on planes, which was a joke since the smoke (or smell) NEVER crossed the line between the smoking and non-smoking sections. :lol:

Not to mention that if you had to use the bathroom, you HAD to walk thru the smoking section, and if they were occupied, you HAD TO STAND in the smoking section!

Yeah, how was the smoke smart enough not to cross from row 23 to row 22?

Young 'uns!

I remember when there were no restrictions on smoking.

Then they established smoking sections. However, if you got a seat in smoking because that was all that was left, then "too bad!"

Then they said that anyone in a smoking section that wanted to move to non-smoking could do so and if necessary, they would make more of the plane non-smoking. However, if you had a nice window or aisle seat but had gotten stuck in smoking area and all that was left in non-smoking was a middle seat between Mr. Superfat and a screaming kid, well they gave you the choice of staying where you were or moving to that seat. Once while sitting in a middle seat a few rows into non-smoking, the guy next to me lit up and, realizing what he had done, said "Shh!" but instead, I called the flight attendant and told her he wanted to be moved to smoking. She found him a middle seat in smoking I and took his window seat so there was an empty seat next to me. Ha!

Only later was smoking finally banned everywhere on the plane but for the longest time they still tried it (and still try it in the toilets to this day).

Sad something can be so addicting. What do coke and heroin addicts do? I guess they take pills. I think nicotine addicts who can't quit should get a small prescription for Oxycondin and put themselves out for the duration but I guess you can't control the duration on a trip in a plane or a train.

 

[winterskigirl]

At this point I'd say that Guest CL has "left the station" for a smoke.... :giggle:

 

[jmbgeg]

If I were on a train that was running late and became later to accommodate smokers, I would be very unhappy. I, too, am surprised that smoking is still allowed on the Auto Train.

I am old enough to remember smoking sections on planes, which was a joke since the smoke (or smell) NEVER crossed the line between the smoking and non-smoking sections. :lol:

I absolutely agree with Penny, though I have seen times that some conductors appear to allow stops for horribly late trains to last way too long at smoke breaks, when by all appearances, train related business (detraining, boarding and servicing) has been done for a few minutes. That does not make me happy.

Take a scenario where a plane is delayed for hours on the tarmack. They don't have smoke breaks. Other times planes are delayed hours and hours for mechanical problems or weather delays. If you are in the flight concourse, you would usually have to go all the way out past security and get rescreened to get back to your gate; just to smoke. I have never smoked, but imagine that if I was traveling on a long trip, I would have either gum or patches to get through the long stretches.

 

[lteak]

Perhaps my point was too subtle. What I meant is that 35 years ago planes had smoking sections.

Oh, yes. Now I understand. I'm afraid the OP is really just a nicotine addict. If so, I guess it's actually good that Amtrak kept hm/her on board so that he/she would not smoke, as it is not good for health. Even if the OP did not want to smoke, at least there were probably other smokers on the train. I don't really know if nicotine gum or patches ork, but I think they do, though the smoker might just get addicted to that nicotine instead.

All nicotine is the same and the complainer is already addicted. Gum is much safer than smoking....no lung cancer.

That said, I'd be really disgusted if the train was delayed JUST so the addicts could smoke!! Sheesh!