# "All doors will not open"



## Tracktwentynine (Jul 28, 2011)

I've taken Amtrak quite a bit this year, and one phrase I've heard a lot is quite irritating. Conductors often say, "At the next stop, *all doors will not open*. Exit where you see a uniformed member of the crew."

What the conductor means is that the platform at the next station is not long enough to accommodate the entire train, and therefore, only some cars will have doors opening. If you don't see a crewmember, you should move to a different car to exit. Since I hear this exact phrase frequently, I think Amtrak must train conductors to say it this way.

But what the conductor is_ actually _saying is "At the next station, NONE of the doors will open."

The correct phrasing would be "Not all doors will open."

I've always found this frustrating. I wonder how this phrase got started, and why it persists.


----------



## jdcnosse (Jul 28, 2011)

Someone didn't go through English class when making this rule?


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 28, 2011)

I've heard that a number of times, and pointed it out to at least one conductor (who, to his credit, did announce it correctly at the next stop).


----------



## Acela150 (Jul 28, 2011)

A few stations as an example are KIN, WLY, MYS, NLC, and OSB. They don't open all doors at those stations but I believe that's how the conductors are trained to make the announcement. Talk to Wilmington. :lol:


----------



## AlanB (Jul 28, 2011)

Tracktwentynine said:


> What the conductor means is that the platform at the next station is not long enough to accommodate the entire train, and therefore, only some cars will have doors opening.


Actually it can also mean that they don't have automatic doors and that therefore a crew member must open the door and that there isn't enough crew members around to open every door.


----------



## JayPea (Jul 28, 2011)

I've heard them make this same kind of announcement on the _Cascades_, but in these cases, they specify which cars will have open doors. That makes more sense to me.


----------



## Rafi (Jul 28, 2011)

Speaking as an english major, this particular phrase has vexed me to no end for as long as I can remember. I've always tended to refrain from saying something, and I inevitably regret it after alighting. Now that someone else has called it out, though, I think that I may speak up next time. 

Rafi


----------



## TVRM610 (Jul 28, 2011)

I think this is something that you learn in the North East Conductor Academy, AKA area 52-90210. 

Seriously though, whenever I travel on any train in the NE Corridor area I usually hear this, including NJ Transit, even the MTA for certain subway stops.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 28, 2011)

Rafi said:


> Speaking as an english major, this particular phrase has vexed me to no end for as long as I can remember. I've always tended to refrain from saying something, and I inevitably regret it after alighting. Now that someone else has called it out, though, I think that I may speak up next time.
> 
> Rafi


The funny thing is, that that the MARC conductors seem to get it right more often than not.


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 28, 2011)

Ryan said:


> The funny thing is, that that the MARC conductors seem to get it right more often than not.


Yes, but are they still announcing "Odington" or "Oh-denton" and "Bow-ee"? I always enjoyed those mispronunciations when I rode MARC in the '70s.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Jul 28, 2011)

CHamilton said:


> <br />
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> ...


<br /><br /><br />
Bowie is named after Oden Bowie. Mr. Bowie, who was president of the Baltimore & Potomac RR and a governor of Maryland, pronounced his name like those floating things along navigation channels: buoy. So, if the conductors are announcing "Buoy State", they're saying it right.

Odenton, which also gets its name from Mr. Bowie, is typically pronounced with what I call the Maryland "O". It's just a unique way that Marylanders treat the 15th letter.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 28, 2011)

Having grown up in Bowie and currently living in Odenton, Mr. Bowie is a minor hero of mine. There is one exit sign when you're headed south on I-97 for 32/3 that lists the two destinations as "Odenton / Bowie". How awesome is that?

I enjoy the long drawn out OOOOOO-DING-TON from a few of the conductors - mostly because when I'm 95% asleep on the train, it's distinctive enough to rouse me and make sure that I don't wake up in Perryville. I can't say that I've ever heard Buoy State mispronounced. 

Edit: That reminds me that it's time to rotate my avatar.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jul 28, 2011)

Tracktwentynine said:


> Bowie is named after Oden Bowie. Mr. Bowie, who was president of the Baltimore & Potomac RR and a governor of Maryland, pronounced his name like those floating things along navigation channels: buoy. So, if the conductors are announcing "Buoy State", they're saying it right.


Except that there are two pronunciations of "buoy." I have always pronounced it like "boy" (though I admit I grew up near the geographic center of North America).


----------



## Ryan (Jul 28, 2011)

'round these parts we use the 2 syllable pronunciation (boo-we).


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 28, 2011)

Rafi said:


> Speaking as an english major, this particular phrase has vexed me to no end for as long as I can remember. I've always tended to refrain from saying something, and I inevitably regret it after alighting. Now that someone else has called it out, though, I think that I may speak up next time.
> 
> Rafi



Rafi,

Glad to hear you were an english major, the only thing I made was an American PFC!!!

:help: :blush: :help:


----------



## Rafi (Jul 29, 2011)

oldtimer2 said:


> Rafi said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking as an english major, this particular phrase has vexed me to no end for as long as I can remember. I've always tended to refrain from saying something, and I inevitably regret it after alighting. Now that someone else has called it out, though, I think that I may speak up next time.
> ...


That's hardly an "only!" That's a cut above.


----------



## Shanghai (Jul 29, 2011)

Is Bowie, MD the place where the Bowie Knife was invented?


----------



## Ryan (Jul 29, 2011)

That was a different guy named Bowie. Don't think that they were related...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bowie


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jul 29, 2011)

Tracktwentynine said:


> I've taken Amtrak quite a bit this year, and one phrase I've heard a lot is quite irritating. Conductors often say, "At the next stop, *all doors will not open*. Exit where you see a uniformed member of the crew."
> 
> ...
> 
> But what the conductor is_ actually _saying is "At the next station, NONE of the doors will open."


While I agree that is clumsy phrasing, I have to disagree that the opposite of "all" is "none". The opposite of "all" is "not all" which can be "some" or even "most".

Kind of like the way that "not guilty" does not mean "innocent"


----------



## City of Miami (Jul 29, 2011)

On the Texas Eagle the OBC uses that excuse to insist that people sit in a certain car, i.e., certain doors open only at certain stops. This is not always true. Just yesterday I heard an attendant say that to a person bound for Fort Worth where the entire train pulls into the station and dwells at the platform for half an hour. Why don't they tell us the truth? I'm sure there is a reason but that is not it.


----------



## jmbgeg (Jul 29, 2011)

Tracktwentynine said:


> I've taken Amtrak quite a bit this year, and one phrase I've heard a lot is quite irritating. Conductors often say, "At the next stop, *all doors will not open*. Exit where you see a uniformed member of the crew."
> 
> What the conductor means is that the platform at the next station is not long enough to accommodate the entire train, and therefore, only some cars will have doors opening. If you don't see a crewmember, you should move to a different car to exit. Since I hear this exact phrase frequently, I think Amtrak must train conductors to say it this way.
> 
> ...


I have never heard that phrase used without the conductor telling us which doors will open, so it has not been confusing in the least.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 29, 2011)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Tracktwentynine said:
> 
> 
> > I've taken Amtrak quite a bit this year, and one phrase I've heard a lot is quite irritating. Conductors often say, "At the next stop, *all doors will not open*. Exit where you see a uniformed member of the crew."
> ...


Sorry, but you're wrong. The subject of the sentence is "all doors", so the statement applies to "all doors". If I were to state that "All windows are closed", that means that there are no windows open.


----------



## railiner (Jul 29, 2011)

City of Miami said:


> On the Texas Eagle the OBC uses that excuse to insist that people sit in a certain car, i.e., certain doors open only at certain stops. This is not always true. Just yesterday I heard an attendant say that to a person bound for Fort Worth where the entire train pulls into the station and dwells at the platform for half an hour. Why don't they tell us the truth? I'm sure there is a reason but that is not it.


In the case you cited, it may be more to do with arranging seating for the convenience of the crews. Grouping long, medium, or short haul passengers in specific cars may make loading/unloading easier at downline stations. And perhaps to insure that there is a train attendant on duty (not on rest break), to detrain passengers at stops during late night hours, etc.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 29, 2011)

As a regular rider of the Texas Eagles over the years I've noticed that at most stops you pretty much are on your own as to which doors will open at stops, especially out in the boonies @ places like Taylor, McGregor, Mineola etc.(most times there seems to be one Attendant covering 2-3 coaches, sometimes the AC will help out??) The Train is spotted twice in Marshall and Taylor(if there are sleeper pax boarding/deboarding), but other than that Ive found it best to ask the Conductor or Coach Attendant which door will open at stops, several times Ive seen people left on the Train when no-one showed up to let them off at their stop which is poor management by the Attendant/Conductors but its better to ask IMO!

At long stops like @ FTW, not all doors open, but you have enough time to walk to where there is an open door if they dont make an announcement or the Attendant doesnt show up to open the door on your car! Whatever you do Don't open the door yourself, next Train is tomorrow!! :lol:


----------



## TLC (Jul 29, 2011)

jimhudson said:


> As a regular rider of the Texas Eagles over the years I've noticed that at most stops you pretty much are on your own as to which doors will open at stops, especially out in the boonies @ places like Taylor, McGregor, Mineola etc.(most times there seems to be one Attendant covering 2-3 coaches, sometimes the AC will help out??) The Train is spotted twice in Marshall, but other than that Ive found it best to ask the Conductor or Coach Attendant which door will open at stops, several times Ive seen people left on the Train when no-one showed up to let them off at their stop which is poor management by the Attendant/Conductors but its better to ask IMO!
> 
> At long stops like @ FTW, not all doors open, but you have enough time to walk to where there is an open door if they dont make an announcement or the Attendant doesnt show up to open the door on your car! Whatever you do Don't open the door yourself, next Train is tomorrow!! :lol:


If I were in a car where there was no to open the door, I would certinaly open the door myself. What are they going to do, kick me off?


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jul 29, 2011)

Ryan said:


> Sorry, but you're wrong. The subject of the sentence is "all doors", so the statement applies to "all doors". If I were to state that "All windows are closed", that means that there are no windows open.


Nope, you're still wrong.

If someone said "*all windows* are not closed yet" does not mean that every single window is open. It just means some number less than all, are still not closed.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 29, 2011)

TLC said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > As a regular rider of the Texas Eagles over the years I've noticed that at most stops you pretty much are on your own as to which doors will open at stops, especially out in the boonies @ places like Taylor, McGregor, Mineola etc.(most times there seems to be one Attendant covering 2-3 coaches, sometimes the AC will help out??) The Train is spotted twice in Marshall, but other than that Ive found it best to ask the Conductor or Coach Attendant which door will open at stops, several times Ive seen people left on the Train when no-one showed up to let them off at their stop which is poor management by the Attendant/Conductors but its better to ask IMO!
> ...


Send you to jail.

You should no more be opening an outside door on a train than you would open a door on an airplane. Unless of course there is an emergency situation. And missing your stop does not constitute an emergency.


----------



## TLC (Jul 29, 2011)

AlanB said:


> TLC said:
> 
> 
> > jimhudson said:
> ...


If there was no one there to open the door after the train had stopped, then where are the Amtrak personel that are going to send me to jail? There would always be someone at the door on an airplane, so that statement does not fly.


----------



## TVRM610 (Jul 29, 2011)

It is the truth, different crews operate trains differently. The conductors have reasons they assign you to certain cars, it's not that difficult to sit where you are asked to sit.

Usually they assign all of the people going to certain destinations a certain car.



City of Miami said:


> On the Texas Eagle the OBC uses that excuse to insist that people sit in a certain car, i.e., certain doors open only at certain stops. This is not always true. Just yesterday I heard an attendant say that to a person bound for Fort Worth where the entire train pulls into the station and dwells at the platform for half an hour. Why don't they tell us the truth? I'm sure there is a reason but that is not it.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Jul 29, 2011)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Tracktwentynine said:
> 
> 
> > I've taken Amtrak quite a bit this year, and one phrase I've heard a lot is quite irritating. Conductors often say, "At the next stop, *all doors will not open*. Exit where you see a uniformed member of the crew."
> ...


Actually, the phrase is indeed wrong, not just clumsy. In this case, the error is a "misplaced modifier". The modifier modifies the word it is closest to, so its placement in the sentence is essential.

You argue that the negation of "all" is not "none". *That's true*. But in the Amtrak sentence, because of the misplaced modifier, "not" is modifying the verb, not the subject. The negation is to "open" not to "all".

So, what's the opposite of "open"? I'm going to suggest that the opposite of "open" is "remain closed". Because of the misplaced modifier, the Amtrak conductor is actually saying:



> "At the next stop, [all] doors will [remain closed]."


To correct the phrase, the modifier needs to be placed correctly. That means it needs to do what you're suggesting, and negate "all".

###

Let's look at some examples:

_I __almost__ missed every flight I ever booked._

_I missed __almost__ every flight I ever booked._

These sentences mean two different things. The first means that while it was close each time, I've never missed a flight. The second sentence means that of all the flights I've booked, I've only made a few of them.

We could move the modifier to other places and create other meanings, too. For example:

_I missed every flight I __almost__ booked_. - Doesn't really make sense, because in this case, the speaker never actually booked those flights.

Or, to use your example:


"The jury found the defendant [not guilty]." -- The jury acquitted the defendant.
"The jury did [not find] the defendant guilty." -- The jury did not acquit the defendant, nor did they find him guilty. They did not come to a consensus.
"The jury found the defendant innocent." -- The jury acquitted the defendant.
As you can see, sentences 1 & 3 have the same meaning. As far as grammar is concerned, "not guilty" is the same as "innocent". Legally, however, there is a distinction. "Not guilty" means a court has acquitted someone. "Innocent" means they actually did not commit the crime. But juries _never_ find someone innocent. They only find "guilty" or "not guilty".

Regardless, in the case of Amtrak, the problem is not with determining the opposite of all, (the difference in this example between 1 & 3), it's with determining where to place the modifier (the difference between 1 & 2).

###

So, let's take a closer look at the incorrect Amtrak phrasing:



> "At the next stop, all doors will not open."


We can discard the prepositional phrase at the beginning (At the next stop), as it's not germane to this discussion.

The remaining phrase has a subject: "_all doors_" and a verb: "_open_". The modifier "not" is closest to the verb open, which means that's what it modifies. That reverses the meaning of "open".

Let's think about rephrasing the sentence slightly:



> "At the next stop, all of the doors will not open."


This means the same as the Amtrak phrasing. I've just added "of the" to the sentence. Is it now clear that [all of the doors] are doing the [not opening]?

But if we move the modifier, we get this sentence:



> "At the next stop, not all of the doors will open."


Now it's perfectly clear that [some] (the opposite of "not all") of [the doors] will be doing the [opening].

You are perfectly correct that the opposite of "all" is not "none". However, the problem with the Amtrak sentence is that "not" is *NOT* modifying "all". It's modifying "open". And the opposite of "open" is "not open". Let's substitute "remain closed" for "not open".

For example:



> "At the next stop, all doors will [remain closed]"


You could fix this sentence two ways:


"At the next stop, some doors will [remain closed]." --OR-- "At the next stop, some doors will not open."
"At the next stop, [not all] doors will open."


----------



## Ryan (Jul 29, 2011)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but you're wrong. The subject of the sentence is "all doors", so the statement applies to "all doors". If I were to state that "All windows are closed", that means that there are no windows open.
> ...


Irrelevant example. That implies that the windows are in the process of closing and that at some time in the future all of the windows will be closed. 
You're actually making my point for me, since "All windows" is the subject of the sentence, it applies to all of the windows.


----------



## fairviewroad (Jul 29, 2011)

Tracktwentynine said:


> Now it's perfectly clear that [some] (the opposite of "not all") of [the doors] will be doing the [opening].


Ah, but it's been perfectly clear all along what the conductor means. No one actually thinks the conductor is saying, in effect:

"Kingston is our next station stop. When we get to Kingston, none of the doors will open and it will be impossible to

exit the train. Thank you for riding Amtrak."

I mean, is the OP every actually confused about what the conductor means? Has the OP ever witnessed anyone who

missed getting off the train because they thought that *none* of the doors were opening at their station?

This is certainly a debatable (and interesting) grammar question but if the ultimate goal is to effectively communicate,

I don't fault Amtrak on this. I'd much rather have them operate reliable PA systems on their trains and in their stations

before I'm going to nitpick about grammar. I can't understand about 85% of what's said over the PA system at PHL,

for instance, and for all I know they're speaking the King's English.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 29, 2011)

TLC said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > TLC said:
> ...


The first person off the train will be the conductor. Meaning that they'll be standing on the platform before you even think of opening the door, assuming that it's not locked with a key which it can be. If the conductor spots you opening the door and stepping off on your own, they could detain you and call the police.

Not saying that it will happen, but it could.

And there is never someone at every door on an airplane. They typically only man the one door that is connected to the jetway. So while one would be committing a Federal offense, one could conceivably open the rear door of the airplane.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 29, 2011)

fairviewroad said:


> Tracktwentynine said:
> 
> 
> > Now it's perfectly clear that [some] (the opposite of "not all") of [the doors] will be doing the [opening].
> ...


That isn't the point. Of course it is perfectly clear. The point is that it's grammatically incorrect and that it doesn't mean what the conductor (and at least some of the posters here) think that it means.

Is it a big deal? Of course not. I wasn't aware of some threshold that a problem had to eclipse before a thread could be started about it.


----------



## fairviewroad (Jul 29, 2011)

Ryan said:


> That isn't the point. Of course it is perfectly clear. The point is that it's grammatically incorrect and that it doesn't mean what the conductor (and at least some of the posters here) think that it means.
> 
> Is it a big deal? Of course not. I wasn't aware of some threshold that a problem had to eclipse before a thread could be started about it.


I never said anyone was making a big deal out of it and I never questioned the validity of starting a thread about it. In fact I sad that I found

it to be an interesting discussion, and I offered my opinion. I'm sorry my contribution to the debate did not live up to your standards.


----------



## jis (Jul 29, 2011)

It is just a case of a common ambiguity caused by the mind using an alternative binding of the universal quantifier (all) to the entire phrase (doors will not open) (as in "all doors will not open but some doors will open") instead of to the single word (door) as in (all doors) (will not open) => "no doors will open". Of course the latter is the more conventional binding, and the former would typically be unambiguously stated as (not) (all) (doors will open).

Not really that big a deal as long as the context makes the meaning quite clear, unless one wants to be a latter day Henry Higgins. Of course there is considerable evidence at hand that there are several who aspire to that role.


----------



## Shanghai (Jul 29, 2011)

"Ah, but it's been perfectly clear all along what the conductor means. No one actually thinks the conductor is saying, in effect: "Kingston is our next station stop. When we get to Kingston, none of the doors will open and it will be impossible to

exit the train. Thank you for riding Amtrak."

As fairviewroad stated above, what the conductor says is true because he is on the Acela Express that

doesn't stop in Kingston (KIN) because *the_traveler *missed the train and is not on board!!

I think we have all had a lesson in grammer by reading this thread.

Anyhow, I think I understand what the conductor is saying and I would be able to exit

at the proper door. Do You??


----------



## TLC (Jul 29, 2011)

AlanB said:


> TLC said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


I never said there was someone at every door, normally the door you would be deplaning from. Sometimes it is one door and sometimes two doors. I would still try to open the door myself if Amtrak personnel were not there to do their job. They should know what cars have people getting off and should be there to open those doors.


----------



## LookingGlassTie (Aug 30, 2017)

On the three round trips I've taken on Amtrak so far, the conductors have announced that "not all doors will open; please exit where you see a uniformed member of the staff" (this phrase) and/or have walked through the cars and said to the effect of "(insert station stop name), this way toward the front (or rear) of the car".


----------

