# STATION REFUSED TO CHECK LUGGAGE



## Ruth B. Boulware (Mar 26, 2009)

On March 13, 2009, I was awaiting the Crescent Northbound at the Birmingham, Alabama Station. I arrived an hour early to check my luggage. When I arrived, a note was on the window saying, "BE BACK SOON." At approximately 2:10, the agent arrived, and began selling tickets. We were lined up to get our luggage checked. The agent came on the intercom to inform everyone that no bags would be checked, and we would be responsible for getting our luggage on the train. It was a very pitiful scene-seeing the elderly people trying to get their luggage up two flights of steps where the train was awaiting. The conductor wanted to know why we had all of the luggage? We informed him that the agent would not check the luggage. I was in tears! When we got to the train, NO ONE would help us with the luggage. I did contact Amtrak's Customer Service of this incident, and would you believe, Amtrak sent me a measly voucher for $25.00 which was an insult and a slap in the fact for the trauma that I went through at the Birmingham Amtrak Station. I am sending the voucher back to Amtrak. Please, before you board any AMTRAK TRAIN, make sure you know whether or not you will be able to check your luggage. This was an experience that I will never forget.


----------



## MrEd (Mar 26, 2009)

Sorry to hear about your experience. I have been to this station a few times and there have been two agents working, one doing tickets, the other bags. Maybe someone called in sick.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Mar 27, 2009)

I've re-read your post 3 or 4 times because I know how hard it would have been for me to take luggage up two flight of stairs. Having bad lungs, I'd probably collapse if I got to the top. I sympathize with you and all the other passengers who experienced that. Sorry to hear that it happened to you.


----------



## Upstate (Mar 27, 2009)

25 bucks is just blowing you off. Do airlines even offer travel vouchers that small? I could see 25 for problems on a regional, but not on a long distance train.

So either the elevator was broke or the guy running it was out. Do they not have contingency plans besides saying screw you? They can't have an agreement with the freight railroad to borrow a guy for a couple of hours or maybe just run down to the unemployment office and hire a guy for the day to be a redcap? Even if that elevator takes special training, if you have a couple of redcaps for the day running bags up the stairs for the elderly its still better than saying screw you.


----------



## jackal (Mar 27, 2009)

Upstate said:


> So either the elevator was broke or the guy running it was out. Do they not have contingency plans besides saying screw you? They can't have an agreement with the freight railroad to borrow a guy for a couple of hours or maybe just run down to the unemployment office and hire a guy for the day to be a redcap? Even if that elevator takes special training, if you have a couple of redcaps for the day running bags up the stairs for the elderly its still better than saying screw you.


No, they don't have agreements with the freight railroads to borrow a guy for a couple of hours. McDonald's doesn't have agreements with Taco Bell to borrow a cashier for a couple of hours when the Mickey D's guy calls in sick, and neither can the Abercrombie & Fitch store in the mall borrow one of the mall's janitors to be a stock person. Expecting such is just silly.

And who would they borrow? A conductor? A yardmaster? A MOW guy? Those guys are all unionized and are restricted in the type of work they can do by union rules, anyway. If it's out of their job description, fuggedaboudit. Especially if it's a separate company.

Even running down to the unemployment office won't work. I'll bet you Red Caps are unionized, too, just as the ticket agents are, and you can't just throw an extra guy in to do a union employee's work.

Welcome to a unionized environment.

Even if Red Caps aren't unionized, more seriously, it's not like they can just run down to the unemployment office (or, more appropriately, a temp agency). First of all, it's possible the employee called in sick at the last minute, leaving no time to work on that issue. Second, the people on duty at that time may not have such authority--I don't even know if the station manager has hiring authority or the authorization to spend money not specifically budgeted (especially in a large, government-run corporation like Amtrak).

I agree that the way this was handled was (based on the information and perspective we were given) abysmal, and there are things the agent probably could have done to work both positions and/or worked with the conductor/LSA to ensure someone was available to assist with loading luggage on the train, but you can't expect such ludicrous solutions as borrowing a guy from another company or bringing a guy in from off the street who has no idea how to tag bags, doesn't know how to operate the computer system, doesn't know where the carts are stored, doesn't have keys to the necessary places to get things out of storage, etc. to be realistic.


----------



## had8ley (Mar 27, 2009)

jackal said:


> Upstate said:
> 
> 
> > So either the elevator was broke or the guy running it was out. Do they not have contingency plans besides saying screw you? They can't have an agreement with the freight railroad to borrow a guy for a couple of hours or maybe just run down to the unemployment office and hire a guy for the day to be a redcap? Even if that elevator takes special training, if you have a couple of redcaps for the day running bags up the stairs for the elderly its still better than saying screw you.
> ...


I am very sorry that this happened to this pax. One way around the baggage clerk laying off and/or the elevator being broken would be for the SA's in the coaches and sleepers to handle the bags up the stairs without breaking union rules. Birmingham is one of the dingiest stations on the Amtrak system and laziness and lack of innovation on the agent's part is very obvious. I'm told Memphis also is still not much better for customer service.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2009)

jackal said:


> And who would they borrow? A conductor? A yardmaster? A MOW guy? Those guys are all unionized and are restricted in the type of work they can do by union rules, anyway. If it's out of their job description, fuggedaboudit. Especially if it's a separate company.


The station manager ?

At McD's (sticking one of our your examples), when the only cashier doesn't show up for work at lunch time, the manager him/herself runs the register.


----------



## Upstate (Mar 27, 2009)

jackal said:


> ...bringing a guy in from off the street who has no idea how to tag bags, doesn't know how to operate the computer system, doesn't know where the carts are stored, doesn't have keys to the necessary places to get things out of storage, etc. to be realistic.


What I said was having a day laborer haul bags up the stairs, not do the full luggage deal. Last time I checked it doesn't take any special skills to carry bags up the stairs.
and as far as the union bs goes, hire the guy as a "concultant"


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2009)

Upstate said:


> So either the elevator was broke or the guy running it was out.


There was an elevator, and it was broken too?

If true, maybe that is why the luggage guy didn't show up to work.


----------



## jackal (Mar 27, 2009)

Guest said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> > And who would they borrow? A conductor? A yardmaster? A MOW guy? Those guys are all unionized and are restricted in the type of work they can do by union rules, anyway. If it's out of their job description, fuggedaboudit. Especially if it's a separate company.
> ...


Sorry, meant to add "if there even is a station manager there"--and perhaps the lone ticket agent _was_ the station manager.

I know plenty about management having to do the job when the employees don't show up. Believe me.


----------



## lepearso (Mar 27, 2009)

> Birmingham is one of the dingiest stations on the Amtrak system and laziness and lack of innovation on the agent's part is very obvious. I'm told Memphis also is still not much better for customer service.


I agree with you that Birmingham is dingy. I wonder when and if they're going to move the Amtrak facility over to the new transit center next door? It would be a huge improvement and a step in the right direction for Birmingham.

I remember catching a train out of Memphis when Amtrak reduced station office hours in all locations to save money. The ticket office did not open until exactly one hour before train time. The ticket agents were overwhelmed by the crowd and obviously frustrated. They barely got everybody ticketed before the train arrived.

Ever since the station returned to normal hours, the service there has been very good in my experience. It's a clean and good-looking facility with free parking right beside the platform. It beats Birmingham and Atlanta both!


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Mar 27, 2009)

I could be all wrong here, and I am ready to stand corrected if need be,but I think two or three years ago BIrmingham became a one employee station. One poor guy has to sell tickets and check baggage both.

So far as I have noticed both jobs have always gotten done, somehow or another. But obviously not this time, which angers me also.

Since I always have my return tickets and never need to check baggage, maybe I have not always paid close enough attention.


----------



## daveyb99 (Mar 27, 2009)

Ruth B. Boulware said:


> It was a very pitiful sceneI was in tears!
> 
> Amtrak sent me a measly voucher for $25.00
> 
> ...



Colorful Adjectives. But this does not a thing for me. "Oh the _trauma_ of not being able to check a bag"? Please.

Now, what (other than a nice gesture of $25) would you have Customer Service do? Not being able to check a bag does not warrant a full-refund-red-carpet treatment.

Could the station done better? Maybe. Could more have been done trainside Maybe.

I agree you had an inconvenience, but "trauma".

I would take the voucher and enjoy the $25 off on your next trip. At least they made a gesture other than a verbal 'we're sorry'.


----------



## daveyb99 (Mar 27, 2009)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> I could be all wrong here, and I am ready to stand corrected if need be,but I think two or three years ago BIrmingham became a one employee station. One poor guy has to sell tickets and check baggage both.So far as I have noticed both jobs have always gotten done, somehow or another. But obviously not this time, which angers me also.


A perfect response to the "union will not permit it" nonsense posted earlier. AMTRAK short-staffs a station, leaving customers and Union employees are being chastised for NOT helping out. Please.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 27, 2009)

daveyb99 said:


> Ruth B. Boulware said:
> 
> 
> > It was a very pitiful sceneI was in tears!
> ...



Not to mention the OP is actually sending the voucher back! Of all the things in the world! Melodrama!

And then she finishes off with:



> Please, before you board any AMTRAK TRAIN, make sure you know whether or not you will be able to check your luggage. This was an experience that I will never forget.


Is that a warning to us? Amtrak Unlimited, or any poor helpless soul that gets on a train in the US?

Oh and by the way, you'll forget... wait two weeks. People forget about having broken legs, you'll forget about carrying your own bags. Truuuuust me.


----------



## Tim in Wisconsin (Mar 27, 2009)

As an occasional lurker, I'll step in with a small amount of defense for Amtrak here.

On the morning of March 13th, the main Amtrak computer system crashed. You may have noticed this if you were trying to get a train status report through web or phone that morning. For an hour or so, no Amtrak station was able to print out tickets. That meant that there were a number of people who came to their station expecting to get tickets for that day's train and were unable to do so. These people were allowed to board without tickets.

I was boarding the Empire Builder that day. By the time I got to my station to board, the system was back up and I was able to get my tickets no problem. However, my station agent was swamped because his was the first staffed station that the Empire Builder came to after the computers came back up. It was his responsibility to print out all the tickets for the people who had already boarded the train and didn't get their tickets yet. He needed to get that done before the train arrived, of course, so that those tickets could be distributed to the passengers on board the train.

Because of that, he was unable to check any bags. It just required too much additional time that he didn't have. Yes, Amtrak could stand to modernize its luggage ticketing system so that transfer tags don't need to be filled out by hand. And while my agent did a good job of communicating why this was the case, as always many Amtrak employees could stand to improve their communication when issues occur.

But it wasn't just because Amtrak didn't feel like checking bags. Birmingham wasn't the only station at which this happened on that day; it was going on system-wide. Never having ridden the Crescent, I don't know the level of staffing in Birmingham and if there was any assistance that could be done other than good-natured passengers helping other passengers up the steps.

A $25 voucher seems more than reasonable for an incident that, while an inconvenience, does not rise to the level of trauma. No, an airline wouldn't give you a voucher that small. They wouldn't give you anything.


----------



## sky12065 (Mar 27, 2009)

Excuse me, but who are we to judge what is or is not trauma to another! If what happened to Ruth had happened to me I would have all to do to make the stairs, if I in fact made them at all; and I'm not even talking about trying to get luggage up with me!

I'm pretty sure I would have also been in tears and popping my pain and anxiety medication. The same goes for getting onto the train if from ground level and into my H room. So yes, I would have considered my experience as traumatic too!

On the other hand I probably wouldn't have felt insulted over only being given an apology and $25 certificate! I'd just be thankful that I was at least given some consideration for my TRAUMA!

Let's try giving the benefit of the doubt and show a little compassion and not ass-u-me what we have no real understanding or knowledge about!

Ruth, you have my compassion but keep the voucher and enjoy your hopefully traumaless next trip!


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Mar 27, 2009)

Tim in Wisconsin said:


> As an occasional lurker, I'll step in with a small amount of defense for Amtrak here.
> On the morning of March 13th, the main Amtrak computer system crashed. You may have noticed this if you were trying to get a train status report through web or phone that morning. For an hour or so, no Amtrak station was able to print out tickets. That meant that there were a number of people who came to their station expecting to get tickets for that day's train and were unable to do so. These people were allowed to board without tickets.
> 
> I was boarding the Empire Builder that day. By the time I got to my station to board, the system was back up and I was able to get my tickets no problem. However, my station agent was swamped because his was the first staffed station that the Empire Builder came to after the computers came back up. It was his responsibility to print out all the tickets for the people who had already boarded the train and didn't get their tickets yet. He needed to get that done before the train arrived, of course, so that those tickets could be distributed to the passengers on board the train.
> ...


Guest Tim, thanks for clarifying this whole matter. We can use you here! Stop lurking so much and jump right in. This was a good professional interpretation of the whole thing.

You mention not knowing the staffing at BHM and that is cool. But in the meantime I was doubting my own senses that it is a one person operation which manages to work anyway. We now know that it was all srewed up that day-- staffing notwithstanding.

I am glad the original poster put in the date of the incident, that way you could speak for sure to the situation.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 27, 2009)

Trauma is when you get in a car accident and bang your head through the windshield.

Trauma is what a family goes through after somebody they love dies.

Annoyance is what you get when you carry your luggage up two flights of stairs.

Litigation sounds to me like the next step for Ruth. I'm sure there will be a lawyer to take the case if they haven't been offered legal counseling already!


----------



## Tony (Mar 27, 2009)

I guess these are the subject stairs, going up from street/station level to platform level.

BTW, who owns this station? Of all the comments I have read, the lack of a working elevator seems to be the most serious.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 27, 2009)

Tony said:


> I guess these are the subject stairs, going up from street/station level to platform level.
> BTW, who owns this station? Of all the comments I have read, the lack of a working elevator seems to be the most serious.



TRAUMA WAITING TO HAPPEN! <_<

It looks like two ordinary flights of stairs to me. Sure carrying your luggage up wouldn't be fun, it would be awful. But it would not be a traumatizing experience.


----------



## Tony (Mar 27, 2009)

Tim in Wisconsin said:


> But it wasn't just because Amtrak didn't feel like checking bags. Birmingham wasn't the only station at which this happened on that day; it was going on system-wide. Never having ridden the Crescent, I don't know the level of staffing in Birmingham and if there was any assistance that could be done other than good-natured passengers helping other passengers up the steps.
> A $25 voucher seems more than reasonable for an incident that, while an inconvenience, does not rise to the level of trauma. No, an airline wouldn't give you a voucher that small. They wouldn't give you anything.


Good points.

Was there no "good-natured passenger" who would offer some help? 

I remember one time an older woman came up and offered my grandson $10 to carry her bag. I had him do it, and not accept the money (a lesson in being simply a good person). I had a very pleasant chat with the woman as we all walked together.

Another time, on our Silver, there was another older woman with a walker. She was in the roomette across from ours. I noticed in the early morning that she keep peeking out her roomette, and up and own the hall. I asked if she needed some help. Apparently, she was looking for the SA, so that she would ask him for a cup of coffee. No problem; I got it for her.

I am more upset that no one at this station would offer help, than about Amtrak having a temp problem.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 27, 2009)

> I am more upset that no one at this station would offer help, than about Amtrak having a temp problem.


This isn't New York of even King Street in Seattle... I believe there is only one, maybe two people, during active hours.


----------



## Chris J. (Mar 27, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> It looks like two ordinary flights of stairs to me. Sure carrying your luggage up wouldn't be fun, it would be awful. But it would not be a traumatizing experience.


Well, it's not just lugging your luggage around the station, but where do you put it when you get to the train. If you can't check it, I guess it won't go in the baggage car (as it won't have a label on it to tell them where to take it off) so you're limited to what space they can find in the train. If two people were sharing a roomette and had a big bag to check each, that's two big bags you now need to store somewhere, and you can't fit them and the passengers in the roomette!

As to if it's a trauma or an irritation - well it depends on the person.

It's also often the case that regular travelers usually just get on with it, and aren't as phased by whatever the situation is (having done it before, or something similar), but to the less regular travelers it's a bigger deal. This applies to all modes really. When a flight gets canceled, the regulars normally just do what they can with a reluctant acceptance; it's the the one who flys twice a year will be the one yelling, screaming and demanding 'something must be done'.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 27, 2009)

> It's also often the case that regular travelers usually just get on with it, and aren't as phased by whatever the situation is (having done it before, or something similar), but to the less regular travelers it's a bigger deal. This applies to all modes really. When a flight gets canceled, the regulars normally just do what they can with a reluctant acceptance; it's the the one who flys twice a year will be the one yelling, screaming and demanding 'something must be done'.


And *shock* nothing does get done.

When people start being more concerned with the well being of others and less self-centered then maybe we'll be able to have a nicer place to live. Seriously, I can't believe that EVERY pax at that station had to lug up 3 bags, surely somebody was able to help out.

And I am willing to bet my post count that, yes people did *actually* help and that the OP for histrionic purposes either forgot that there was some good nature on that day or just left it out to garner more pity.

Funny thing though on a side-note... it was Friday the 13th.


----------



## sunchaser (Mar 27, 2009)

sky12065 said:


> Excuse me, but who are we to judge what is or is not trauma to another! If what happened to Ruth had happened to me I would have all to do to make the stairs, if I in fact made them at all; and I'm not even talking about trying to get luggage up with me!
> I'm pretty sure I would have also been in tears and popping my pain and anxiety medication. The same goes for getting onto the train if from ground level and into my H room. So yes, I would have considered my experience as traumatic too!
> 
> On the other hand I probably wouldn't have felt insulted over only being given an apology and $25 certificate! I'd just be thankful that I was at least given some consideration for my TRAUMA!
> ...


Skye,

I agree with you in part. Ruth does not say why she was in tears. Was it pain, or something else? I know that if I had to climb 2 flights with bags, it would be painful, in the least. But, I don't think it would be something that would make me that upset. My concern would have been for those around me that are needing more help. It seems that the train staff was unaware of the problem until the passengers started appearing with their bags. I would think that if the train staff had been aware, they would have attempted to assist more. Ruth, it is your choice whether you keep the voucher or send it back. I would hope that it doesn't cause you to avoid taking the train-it sounds like it was an unusual occurance. I hope that after Ruth's post that maybe, just maybe we all be more aware of our fellow passengers, and at least offer assistance if it's clear they are struggling. That being said, there have been times when I have offered assistance, and the person has refused it. They want to do it on their own. This does not stop me from continuing to offer help.


----------



## Upstate (Mar 27, 2009)

Tim in Wisconsin said:


> On the morning of March 13th, the main Amtrak computer system crashed. You may have noticed this if you were trying to get a train status report through web or phone that morning. For an hour or so, no Amtrak station was able to print out tickets. That meant that there were a number of people who came to their station expecting to get tickets for that day's train and were unable to do so. These people were allowed to board without tickets.


You are saying that the system crashed in the morning for about an hour, but this lady was denied checking her baggage in the afternoon. That still doesn't explain anything.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 27, 2009)

Upstate said:


> Tim in Wisconsin said:
> 
> 
> > On the morning of March 13th, the main Amtrak computer system crashed. You may have noticed this if you were trying to get a train status report through web or phone that morning. For an hour or so, no Amtrak station was able to print out tickets. That meant that there were a number of people who came to their station expecting to get tickets for that day's train and were unable to do so. These people were allowed to board without tickets.
> ...


A system wide crash of that magnitude would have aftershocks going on for the entire day if not week.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Mar 27, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> sky12065 said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse me, but who are we to judge what is or is not trauma to another! If what happened to Ruth had happened to me I would have all to do to make the stairs, if I in fact made them at all; and I'm not even talking about trying to get luggage up with me!
> ...


I have to wonder what has happened that some of the replies to Ruth's post are so uncaring. I don't think "trauma" is the correct choice of words, but that's not the point.

The picture of those stairs tells me a lot. I could have made it up those stairs, bad lungs and all, if I could have put my suitcase on the next step, caught my breath, moved up a step, then put my suitcase on the step above as I moved up one step, and gone up one step at a time. If there was no time to go one at a time and I had to hurry, I couldn't do it.

Some of the posters who chose to ridicule Ruth are completely healthy. I hope they can stay healty and never have to have their words come back to bite them.


----------



## Upstate (Mar 27, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Upstate said:
> 
> 
> > Tim in Wisconsin said:
> ...


In the original post she said that the agent was selling tickets so their computer system was working at that point.
Now I have never checked bags so I don't know how it all works, but in Tim in Wisconson's post he said that the tags were filled out by hand anyway.


----------



## Neil_M (Mar 27, 2009)

For any able bodied person those steps are just a reminder you have too much luggage, and for any older or less able bodied people you would like to think that someone would help out.

I think the cries of "trauma" at the beginning are a bit drama laden......


----------



## printman2000 (Mar 27, 2009)

You know, we always pack two large suitcases that are checked and we all have an on-board bag. I I found out I was going to have to haul that all into a single level roomette, I would pretty hacked off as well. Amtrak should give them a better voucher than $25.

I am not sure if you were in coach or sleeper, but I agree that this is unacceptable.

I do not believe the system being down affects checking baggage. It is simply putting a preprinted tag on the bag for the final destination. I do not think there is any paperwork that has to be filled out. I may be wrong, but that is what I have observed.


----------



## Tony (Mar 27, 2009)

Upstate said:


> Now I have never checked bags so I don't know how it all works, but in Tim in Wisconson's post he said that the tags were filled out by hand anyway.


At Orlando, the baggage check-in is at the far, _far_ end of the platform. One would walk less, if one just brought their luggage directly to the train itself.


----------



## Tim in Wisconsin (Mar 27, 2009)

Upstate said:


> You are saying that the system crashed in the morning for about an hour, but this lady was denied checking her baggage in the afternoon. That still doesn't explain anything.


It's a ripple effect. Once the system came back online, it then became the responsibility of a down-line station to ticket everyone who had boarded while the system was down. Passengers on a train need tickets, especially if they plan on connecting somewhere or going on a round trip. Amtrak's baggage system is excellent at moving luggage without losing or delaying it, but it is a little archaic in the time it takes to get bags ready to load. From my experience, it's not too hard to get a bag to a station located on the same route as yours; they'll have preprinted tags for that. If you're connecting, however, that's when things take a little while to prepare. They have to fill out tags by hand with train numbers, destinations, and locations of transfer for each bag checked. It should be modernized, yes, but this is the system they have to work with at this time.

The timing of the event in this thread matches well with my experience on that day, so that's why I theorized that the checked baggage issue was related to the system crash. People in Columbus, WI, were denied checked baggage for a train that called at 2:00 ET even though the system was back up before then just because there were so many tickets to print out and only one person to take care of it. It wasn't that big of a deal on my train because there's a lot of room for unchecked baggage on a Superliner-equipped train, the track is at ground level, and it's only three stops and 150 miles to Chicago where there's a lot more help available to deal with baggage.

I guesstimated that ARROW was out for an hour; it easily could have been longer. I can narrow the outage down to a specific range of times (and even though the events occurred in Central Time, I'm going to report them in Eastern Time to help compare): Whenever I'm scheduled to be on a train, I always check its status in the morning just to see how it's doing. At about 10:00 AM ET, I checked the website and saw that my train was running on time. At Noon ET I wanted an update and I got a system error through the website. Figuring that something was up with the web site, I called Julie, who was also unable to do anything. When I got to the station at 1:30 PM ET, I learned that the computers systemwide had been down but were running again. I didn't ask how long they were down; it wasn't my business. None of the passengers who boarded at La Crosse (scheduled for 11:47 AM ET, the train was a few minutes down) were able to retrieve tickets if they didn't have them in hand when they got to the station, and my station agent was frantically trying to get those tickets together in the half-hour he had available before the train arrived. Once aboard the train, passengers without tickets were to go to the dining car to collect tickets for the other legs from the conductor.

So, sometime between 10:00 AM and 1:30 PM EDT the system was down. It is entirely plausible that the system outage affected passenger boardings at both Meridian and Tuscaloosa. If you were to add those two stations together with the people in Birmingham that needed tickets, that's a lot of printing and it's easy to get overwhelmed. (This is what happens now that Amtrak charges a fairly hefty fee to have your tickets mailed to you; a lot of people aren't going to show up at the station with tickets in hand.) I could see the agent having time to deal with some but not all of the bags. Because of that, I could understand not collecting any of the bags instead of creating a rift between passengers who got special treatment and those who did not.

My question for those of you familiar with the Birmingham station is this: how do the handicapped get to the platform? There has to be some kind of publicly accessible elevator, I'd think, and the true issue is why weren't more people directed to that ahead of the train's arrival so that they could use it to ferry their luggage upward. That, and again, why no one stopped to help anyone else.

Look at it this way: A low-bucket one-way coach seat from Birmingham is $31 to Atlanta, $35 to New Orleans. That voucher can get you a long way towards a couple of cool places.


----------



## Upstate (Mar 27, 2009)

Tim in Wisconsin said:


> From my experience, it's not too hard to get a bag to a station located on the same route as yours; they'll have preprinted tags for that. If you're connecting, however, that's when things take a little while to prepare. They have to fill out tags by hand with train numbers, destinations, and locations of transfer for each bag checked. It should be modernized, yes, but this is the system they have to work with at this time.


So check the bags down the line and it they are connecting tell them that they will have to recheck them at the connecting station. Easy enough. Its at least something more than completely blowing off the customer.

There are a lot of people on here making excuses on why we should accept Amtrak acting like a 3rd world train service.


----------



## sunchaser (Mar 27, 2009)

Everydaymatters said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > sky12065 said:
> ...



I hope you haven't misunderstood my post. I for one was not ridiculing her. As I said, it would be painful for me to carry bags up 2 flights. And I probably would need a breather at the top, as well. I understand she was frustrated, but she didn't say why she was in tears. She could have been in pain, but she didn't say. She sounded more angry & frustrated than hurt. She also seemed more upset that they sent a $25 voucher. What I meant is I may have been irritated temporarily, but not insulted if they sent me a voucher for $25. As a former customer service rep, I realize that there are situations you can fix. There are some you cannot. When we take our trip in June we will be using all carry on, 4 bags.

I may end up toting them all, or using RedCap where available. So I know that won't be fun, but if it has to done, it has to be done.


----------



## Walt (Mar 27, 2009)

I have been reading through this thread, and one thing just sticks in the back of my mind.

As far as I know, no passenger is ever allowed to check their own luggage. You can't just walk up to the baggage car, and toss your own luggage in there. I can't envision any set of circumstances that Amtrak would do that.

So, what are we really talking about here? It can't be about checked luggage. So, could it just possibly be "carry-on" luggage? And the OP was unable to find someone (a "red cap" or similar) to carry their "carry-on" luggage up to the platform and onto train?

If I am wrong (which is certainly a possibility), maybe could explain how Amtrak exactly allows passengers into the baggage car? Tag your own luggage?

I don't think this is really ridiculing the OP to ask such a question. I am just trying to make sense out of this.


----------



## Walt (Mar 27, 2009)

Tim in Wisconsin said:


> My question for those of you familiar with the Birmingham station is this: how do the handicapped get to the platform? There has to be some kind of publicly accessible elevator, I'd think, and the true issue is why weren't more people directed to that ahead of the train's arrival so that they could use it to ferry their luggage upward.


I have the same question. Is anyone familiar enough with this station, to say for sure if there is at least one elevator between street/station level and the platform level? Forget about lugging luggage, what about wheelchairs?


----------



## sunchaser (Mar 27, 2009)

Walt said:


> I have been reading through this thread, and one thing just sticks in the back of my mind.
> As far as I know, no passenger is ever allowed to check their own luggage. You can't just walk up to the baggage car, and toss your own luggage in there. I can't envision any set of circumstances that Amtrak would do that.
> 
> So, what are we really talking about here? It can't be about checked luggage. So, could it just possibly be "carry-on" luggage? And the OP was unable to find someone (a "red cap" or similar) to carry their "carry-on" luggage up to the platform and onto train?
> ...



Ruth said in her post that all the passengers were not allowed to have their baggage checked at the counter. She also said the passengers were told that they were responsible for getting their own luggage to the train..So apparently no

RedCap available.


----------



## had8ley (Mar 27, 2009)

Walt said:


> Tim in Wisconsin said:
> 
> 
> > My question for those of you familiar with the Birmingham station is this: how do the handicapped get to the platform? There has to be some kind of publicly accessible elevator, I'd think, and the true issue is why weren't more people directed to that ahead of the train's arrival so that they could use it to ferry their luggage upward.
> ...


To clarify some of the questions that have arisen; B'Ham has two clerks who serve as baggage man and ticket agent; there is no supervisor but there is a swing man to handle the off days of these two employees. There is also a one man extra board to cover B'Ham, Tuscaloosa and Meridian based out of Birmingham. There is a baggage elevator that also serves accessible pax; I don't know the operating status as of today. Maybe a call to the station would clarify its status.

You know fellow posters it is NOT a terribly hard job to be nice to people who subsidize your pay check and especially when you are only servicing one train in each direction in B'Ham. (#19 & 20.) The agent in Hammond, LA has been seen tagging checked bags as the headlights of #58 come into town. I doubt anybody has ever complained about the way he handles the paying pax. Why do Amtrak employees go out of their way to make life difficult for those that pay the excellent wages and benefits that they derive from their jobs? For the sake of repeating myself a major flaw in Amtrak's mode of doing business is too many managers are super glued to their desks. Only when management has to endure some of these hardships for themselves will we see a major turnaround in customer service. Until the worry is transferred to just what transpires on board, instead of OTP off the bumper, will we see any radical improvement in Customer Service.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 27, 2009)

I admit that this was an unpleasant experience for our poster, but she is overdramatizing. $25 is a more than fair voucher for the experience.

I'm not healthy. I have CP, a released tendon in my right leg, and some seriously screwed up ankles. (you could call them permanently sprained, for lack of a better description) and I could have done that. I woulda griped all the way of the stairs, and if I ever saw that station attendant again, I'd read them the riot act for it, if I remembered the experience. I might have complained to Amtrak, but probably not- I've forgiven bigger errors on their part in the past.

However, I do agree with a few peoples comments: fact of the matter is, some of the people boarding this train had to be in decent shape. Hell, if I'm not carrying too much, I coulda helped. Walking and hauling hurts like hell, but I've gotten used to it years ago.

Amtrak screwed up with this, sure. But $25 is a more than fair voucher to cover it. I will also bet you that if there were people who were truly disabled, rather than uncomfortable, they would have been helped. Our OP didn't say she is a disabled, unhealthy, charity case.

Now, if you show me some evidence that there are people, like Betty, who simply couldn't have done this on their own (rather than being irritated by it- trust me, I'd have been irritated) not recieiving help, then I will join with the poster and Betty in saying that this was a ridiculous response for the incident. Some people just don't like being inconvenienced.


----------



## tp49 (Mar 27, 2009)

sky12065 said:


> Excuse me, but who are we to judge what is or is not trauma to another! If what happened to Ruth had happened to me I would have all to do to make the stairs, if I in fact made them at all; and I'm not even talking about trying to get luggage up with me!
> I'm pretty sure I would have also been in tears and popping my pain and anxiety medication. The same goes for getting onto the train if from ground level and into my H room. So yes, I would have considered my experience as traumatic too!
> 
> On the other hand I probably wouldn't have felt insulted over only being given an apology and $25 certificate! I'd just be thankful that I was at least given some consideration for my TRAUMA!
> ...


If this were litigated any one of us could conceiveably be on the jury and thus have to judge whether it was a trauma.


----------



## Shawn (Mar 27, 2009)

And I would have to say "no" on the trauma part. Yes, on the irritation part.

Trauma is something that causes injury to someone...that was not proven...

And agree with Lion!



tp49 said:


> sky12065 said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse me, but who are we to judge what is or is not trauma to another! If what happened to Ruth had happened to me I would have all to do to make the stairs, if I in fact made them at all; and I'm not even talking about trying to get luggage up with me!
> ...


----------



## RRrich (Mar 27, 2009)

I travel with my wife. At KCY and ALB we request transportation from the train to the waiting area or vice-versa. At other stations like CHI we use Redcaps.

If we were boarding at that station we would not have attempted those stairs - I could have done it but wifey could not have. If she had tried (which I would NOT have allowed) and collapsed we would have been severely upset. The clerk would have had to close the ticket counter and run the elevator. Disabled pax are not that unusual - some accommodation must be on the books for that station - or one man should NOT have run it. They have an extra board don't they?


----------



## Everydaymatters (Mar 27, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> Everydaymatters said:
> 
> 
> > sunchaser said:
> ...


No, I didn't misunderstand. I quoted you and Sunchaser because I'm in agreement with both of you.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Mar 27, 2009)

I still don't think that Ruth meant "trauma" per se. But if she did, what is not traumatic to me could be terribly traumatic to someone else. If she was in tears, you can bet it sure wasn't a picnic for her.

I keep trying to find a word I would use for something that was a really terrible experience, that left me in pain, and was something I would never forget because of how miserable it was. Can any of you supply a word for that? What ever it is, I think that's what she meant.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 27, 2009)

Everydaymatters said:


> I still don't think that Ruth meant "trauma" per se. But if she did, what is not traumatic to me could be terribly traumatic to someone else. If she was in tears, you can bet it sure wasn't a picnic for her.
> I keep trying to find a word I would use for something that was a really terrible experience, that left me in pain, and was something I would never forget because of how miserable it was. Can any of you supply a word for that? What ever it is, I think that's what she meant.


Bull.

Her post is about as histrionic as it gets.


----------



## MattW (Mar 27, 2009)

I'm not sure this isn't a breach of contract on Amtrak's part. The OP paid to board at a checked-baggage station and got flatly told that they couldn't use the checked-baggage system. Fortunately, the conductors/attendants didn't refuse to allow the checked baggage on to the train when the online system always says that at non-checked-baggage stations that only carryon is allowed.

It sounds like the OP did everything right, and Amtrak did everything wrong in this case much as I love Amtrak.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 27, 2009)

Everydaymatters said:


> I keep trying to find a word I would use for something that was a really terrible experience, that left me in pain, and was something I would never forget because of how miserable it was. Can any of you supply a word for that? What ever it is, I think that's what she meant.


An inconvenience. Brought about by poor judgement (possibly), a bad situation (shorthanded, computer problems) and seemingly no decent human beings in the area to offer to help (if it was really all that much of a problem for this person to make it to the top of the stairs, which I'm not convinced of).

I find it interesting that the OP hasn't come back to clarify the situation at all - nowhere does she indicate that she let the agent that made the "no checked bags" announcement know that she was going to have difficulty reaching the platform. If she took the announcement for what it was, and did nothing to seek help, then obviously this is a case of overblown whining. If she sought help from the agent and was rebuffed, that could certainly change things, but I'm inclined to not fly off the handle and crucify Amtrak based on one side of the story missing several key facts. I'd like to say that I'm surprised that there are people willing to condemn Amtrak for the event with absolutely no way of knowing any more than was posted here, but that just seems to be how some people roll.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 27, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Everydaymatters said:
> 
> 
> > I keep trying to find a word I would use for something that was a really terrible experience, that left me in pain, and was something I would never forget because of how miserable it was. Can any of you supply a word for that? What ever it is, I think that's what she meant.
> ...


IMHO the OP came here to rant, then leave. If she comes back I'm more than willing to offer her support and advice. But based on her post's content and style... something tells me she won't be back for awhile.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 27, 2009)

MattW said:


> I'm not sure this isn't a breach of contract on Amtrak's part. The OP paid to board at a checked-baggage station and got flatly told that they couldn't use the checked-baggage system. Fortunately, the conductors/attendants didn't refuse to allow the checked baggage on to the train when the online system always says that at non-checked-baggage stations that only carryon is allowed.It sounds like the OP did everything right, and Amtrak did everything wrong in this case much as I love Amtrak.


You need to read MORE than the OP. The whole thread clarifies a lot of backstory from all sides of the issue. The OP seems to have left a lot of hard facts out in the name of heart-string pulling. Or she was ignorant of the facts which is excusable since pax don't always know everything that goes on with Amtrak.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Mar 27, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > Everydaymatters said:
> ...


Yes, she probably did come here to let off steam. There are a lot of people lurking here who will post once in awhile, but are too timid to join in on a regular basis. I know I would have been timid if my first post had gotten raked through the coals.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 27, 2009)

By toning down on the overblown ranting and toning up more actual facts, I'm sure that the OP could have avoided being raked over the coals.

Now don't get me wrong, sometimes all folks want is to rant and run, but such rants shouldn't be used to condemn Amtrak as 100% guilty in this case, excluding context helpfully provided by other posters.


----------



## Upstate (Mar 27, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> ...but such rants shouldn't be used to condemn Amtrak as 100% guilty in this case...


Why not? Amtrak did not provide a service that they said the would. It sounds pretty cut and dry to me. How would this be in any way Ruth's fault? Just because Amtrak can't keep their act for whatever reason is no reason to not blame them.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Mar 27, 2009)

Tim in Wisconsin said:


> So, sometime between 10:00 AM and 1:30 PM EDT the system was down. It is entirely plausible that the system outage affected passenger boardings at both Meridian and Tuscaloosa. If you were to add those two stations together with the people in Birmingham that needed tickets, that's a lot of printing and it's easy to get overwhelmed. (This is what happens now that Amtrak charges a fairly hefty fee to have your tickets mailed to you; a lot of people aren't going to show up at the station with tickets in hand.) I could see the agent having time to deal with some but not all of the bags. Because of that, I could understand not collecting any of the bags instead of creating a rift between passengers who got special treatment and those who did not.


Why is it that all of the tickets have to get printed out by the time the train reaches the first staffed station it reaches after the computer system comes back, and why is this so important that it justifies suspending checked baggage service? Why couldn't most of the tickets be picked up at the second or third station that's reached after the computer system is running again, which would provide those agents with plenty of time to print the tickets before the last minute checked baggage arrives at those stations?

Also, why does the ticket agent at the station have to do any significant amount of manual work at all? Why can't Amtrak find some way for a supervisor in a call center to enter a group of reservations into the computer so that the ticket agent in the relevant station can simply spend a minute telling the computer to print out all the tickets in that group, and then help passengers with checked baggage while waiting for the printer to work its magic?


----------



## Ryan (Mar 27, 2009)

Read my first post in the thread. Did Ruth even ask for help and was she refused it? Is there a reasonable explanation that the baggage service wasn't available (it certainly sounds like it, based on the info provided by other posters)?

Sometimes, bad things happen and it's nobody's fault.


----------



## Upstate (Mar 27, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Read my first post in the thread. Did Ruth even ask for help and was she refused it? Is there a reasonable explanation that the baggage service wasn't available (it certainly sounds like it, based on the info provided by other posters)?
> Sometimes, bad things happen and it's nobody's fault.


So after being told by the station agent that she was responsible for her own bags then she is supposed to go ask again? 
Even if there is a reasonable explanation why baggage service was not available that doesn't make it nobody's fault. Just because the system was down doesn't make it nobody's fault. Amtrak's computer system is their responsibility and when it fails all the crap that it causes is their fault.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 27, 2009)

Upstate said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > Read my first post in the thread. Did Ruth even ask for help and was she refused it? Is there a reasonable explanation that the baggage service wasn't available (it certainly sounds like it, based on the info provided by other posters)?
> ...


From her story, it sounds like there was just a general announcement made. Nowhere does Ruth state that she went to the agent and said "I'm going to have trouble getting these up the stairs, is there anyway that I can get some help?"


> Even if there is a reasonable explanation why baggage service was not available that doesn't make it nobody's fault. Just because the system was down doesn't make it nobody's fault. Amtrak's computer system is their responsibility and when it fails all the crap that it causes is their fault.


You're absolutely wrong. Like I said, sometimes unforeseen events happen. You're holding Amtrak to an impossibly high standard, and without more information it's impossible to reasonably say if they made adequate preparations.


----------



## Upstate (Mar 27, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> > Even if there is a reasonable explanation why baggage service was not available that doesn't make it nobody's fault. Just because the system was down doesn't make it nobody's fault. Amtrak's computer system is their responsibility and when it fails all the crap that it causes is their fault.
> 
> 
> You're absolutely wrong. Like I said, sometimes unforeseen events happen. You're holding Amtrak to an impossibly high standard, and without more information it's impossible to reasonably say if they made adequate preparations.


If people want to keep excusing Amtrak for sucking at operating their business then they will never get into the 21st century. Airlines have stable enough systems with enough redundancy that they can do things like e-check-in. Amtrak's system fails and hours later they can't even do something basic like checking bags. I don't think it is too much to ask.


----------



## sky12065 (Mar 28, 2009)

sky12065 said:


> Excuse me, but who are we to judge what is or is not trauma to another! If what happened to Ruth had happened to me I would have all to do to make the stairs, if I in fact made them at all; and I'm not even talking about trying to get luggage up with me!
> I'm pretty sure I would have also been in tears and popping my pain and anxiety medication. The same goes for getting onto the train if from ground level and into my H room. So yes, I would have considered my experience as traumatic too!
> 
> On the other hand I probably wouldn't have felt insulted over only being given an apology and $25 certificate! I'd just be thankful that I was at least given some consideration for my TRAUMA!
> ...


It amazes me how some people have such a limited view of things. Now I'm not going to belabor what I've stated above, but because some "just did not a get part of it," I'm going focus on the one issue of what is and is not trauma!

Trauma like many words in the English language has multiple meanings and a wide range of how the words have different levels of intensity. According to TheFreeDictionary.com trauma is defined as follows:

*trau·ma* (trô




m



, trou



-) _n._

*1. *A serious injury or shock to the body, as from violence or an accident.

*2. *An emotional wound or shock that creates substantial, lasting damage to the psychological development of a person, often leading to neurosis.

*3. *An event or situation that causes great distress and disruption.

So at least item #3 in my opinion might certainly qualify to be used in what Ruth expressed if in fact it affected her as the definition describes and it would have most certainly been appropriate for me to use it if I experienced what she described. More importantly, why are some people so callous as to criticize her for using the term when they don't even know from her perspective what she actually experienced, if it were me what I experience or if it were you what you've experienced?

As I stated in the front end of this posting, I'm not going to belabor this since it's rare that one can broaden the view of others by mere words alone. Sometimes you just gotta be on the short end of the stick to understand!

Anyway, I stand by what I originally stated in my posting quoted above about the use of the word "trauma!"


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 28, 2009)

From the Oxford New American Dictionary:

histrionic |ˌhistrēˈänik|

adjective

overly theatrical or melodramatic in character or style : a histrionic outburst.

• formal of or concerning actors or acting : histrionic talents.

*• Psychiatry denoting a personality disorder marked by shallow, volatile emotions, and attention-seeking behavior.*

noun

*1 ( histrionics) exaggerated dramatic behavior designed to attract attention* : discussions around the issue have been based as much in histrionics as in history.

• dramatic performance; theater.

2 archaic an actor.

DERIVATIVES

histrionically |-ik(ə)lē| |ˈhɪstriˈɑnək(ə)li| adverb

ORIGIN mid 17th cent. (in the sense [dramatically exaggerated, hypocritical] ): from late Latin histrionicus, from Latin histrio(n-) ‘actor.’


----------



## tp49 (Mar 28, 2009)

Upstate said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > ...but such rants shouldn't be used to condemn Amtrak as 100% guilty in this case...
> ...


Amtrak performed the intended service of getting the OP from point A to point B. The OP was inconvenienced by the checked baggage service not being available but she did board the train and get to where she was going. As for trauma, I don't think it is or at best the OP failed to give sufficient facts to make that type of determination. She also doesn't say whether she talked to the agent or explained her issues. Did she talk to the agent and the agent tell her to "bugger off" (using the nice British version of the not so nice New York term) and lug the bags herself? We don't know.

As it stands I don't think the conduct of Amtrak arises to a level that would constitute trauma. Inconvenience, absolutly but not trauma.


----------



## had8ley (Mar 28, 2009)

Upstate said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > ...but such rants shouldn't be used to condemn Amtrak as 100% guilty in this case...
> ...


Fire away because I totally agree. The TT lists checked baggage as an available service. Just one look at the dismal station makes a grown man almost cry. But let's look at the facts; there are three people and a one man extra board in place to provide services. If Amtrak can't accommodate just one train a day with these people and services in place what's to come if we get more trains at the same station? Irregardless of how the pax presented her case we were able to establish that Amtrak dropped the ball~ is there anything new or unusual about this? She came here to vent because we are a Forum. I think she did an excellent job of telling us how lousy a job Amtrak did. My only hope would be that Amtrak would pick up on this and race to Birmingham and fix the elevator and the give the agent a refresher course in how to handle pax properly. Just my pipe dream of the week. Now just where is that suit of scorched armor?


----------



## jackal (Mar 28, 2009)

daveyb99 said:


> Bill Haithcoat said:
> 
> 
> > I could be all wrong here, and I am ready to stand corrected if need be,but I think two or three years ago BIrmingham became a one employee station. One poor guy has to sell tickets and check baggage both.So far as I have noticed both jobs have always gotten done, somehow or another. But obviously not this time, which angers me also.
> ...


It's not nonsense.

I won't claim to be a union expert, but I was in one for a short while.

Do I agree with it? No. I think the real need for unions disappeared many decades ago. Today, they're just giant political machines that exist to feed their own power-hungry natures. There's too much of a "screw The Man" attitude in unions that hurts more than helps. (Yes, they do protect employees from management that is overzealous to blame and discipline employees, but unfortunately they don't seem capable of performing this job without becoming a monster in and of themselves.)

But even though I'd probably vote for right-to-work laws if they came up on my state election ballot, we have to live with the reality that they exist. So to call it nonsense is just sticking your head in the sand. The reality is that the unions do restrict who can do what in an effort to keep jobs from disappearing (jobs which, in some cases, could and even perhaps should disappear, as harsh as that may sound).

I would suspect that whichever union represents the ticket agents also represents the baggage agents (and perhaps most other station staff), and they are allowed to work in both crafts or cross duties.

But that doesn't mean that the conductors' union or engineers' union (if they're not combined) or the freight conductors' union or the MOW crew's union doesn't prohibit them from going outside their job description to help elsewhere or--more likely--the ticket/baggage agents' union prohibits non-ticket/baggage-agents from assisting in their affairs (out of a desire to protect the jobs of ticket and baggage agents). (I know in my experience on the railroad, there were clear divisions between the duties of train service employees, engine service employees, hostlers, road crews, yard crews, etc., and there were all sorts of union rules established to prevent crossover and preserve jobs.)

It's silly: the company could probably run far more efficiently and eliminate a good bit of standing around if everyone could help out wherever they were needed. It's silly, but it's reality.

So saying it's nonsense is just pure balderdash.

And BTW, I'm not defending the ticket agent, Amtrak, the customer, or any other party here. I'm simply pointing out the silliness that union restrictions introduce into situations like this.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Mar 28, 2009)

had8ley said:


> Upstate said:
> 
> 
> > HokieNav said:
> ...


Jay, you summed it up perfectly.


----------



## caravanman (Mar 28, 2009)

As an aged traveler, and long time Amtrak Unlimited forum user, I am so embarassed that the younger fitter members of the forum are so often slapping down members of the public in such a "know it all" way.

When you get older, with back troubles or high blood pressure, it will not be so easy for you to unexpectedly adapt to having to carry your own heavy luggage.

For goodness sake show a little more compassion!

As to the solution to the luggage problems, proper communication at the time over the issues could have helped here.

One thing that springs to mind would be to ask fitter younger passengers and other members of the public to assist those with difficulties, in a humane and caring spirit.. unlike that shown by some on here..

I expect this voluntary assistance would lead to percieved problems for someone on here.. let's wait and see..?

Ed B)


----------



## Ryan (Mar 28, 2009)

Upstate said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > > Even if there is a reasonable explanation why baggage service was not available that doesn't make it nobody's fault. Just because the system was down doesn't make it nobody's fault. Amtrak's computer system is their responsibility and when it fails all the crap that it causes is their fault.
> ...


I'm not excusing Amtrak, I'm saying that we don't have enough info crucify Amtrak on this one the way that some people seem hell bent on doing. Remember the thread from a few months ago where someone got on here and ranted about being mistreated on a train and getting put off the train (I think that this was on the CS) and everyone agreed that he had been wronged until another poster showed up that was onboard and provided a very different story that indicated that perhaps the Conductor was justified in putting the man off the train? All I'm saying is that you folks need to stow the Jump To Conclusions mat and recognize that there is likely FAR more to the story than the emotional factoids that Ruth gave us, and perhaps we shouldn't be so hasty to judge?



had8ley said:


> Upstate said:
> 
> 
> > HokieNav said:
> ...


Is it not inconceivable that the man on the Extra board was assigned to another station for the day and the baggage man didn't show up on time? In that case, the one agent, faced with a train inbound and a station full of people has to get on the horn, try to find out where the baggage man is and then try to contact the swing person to come in and help out? Even with that setup, it's not inconceivable that a single person could be stuck at the station having to deal with all the pax. Toss in some computer problems, and a broken elevator it's not unrealistic to be faced with the situation at hand.

Now, even so there are still plenty of chances for Amtrak to better prepare, but a "perfect storm" of things breaking and people not showing up (especially on a Friday the 13th) isn't out of the question.


----------



## MrFSS (Mar 28, 2009)

As I read all the back and forth in this thread I wonder this:

If passengers had been able to check bags that day and the elevator was broken, how would the Amtrak employee(s) contended with the bags of say 30 people and gotten them all up those two flights of stairs? Especially to do so in a fashion as to allow the train to leave on time.

I wonder if the elevator being broken had any impact on the decision not to have checked baggage that day? We'll probably never know, but an interesting thought.


----------



## Walt (Mar 28, 2009)

MrFSS said:


> As I read all the back and forth in this thread I wonder this:
> If passengers had been able to check bags that day and the elevator was broken, how would the Amtrak employee(s) contended with the bags of say 30 people and gotten them all up those two flights of stairs? Especially to do so in a fashion as to allow the train to leave on time.
> 
> I wonder if the elevator being broken had any impact on the decision not to have checked baggage that day? We'll probably never know, but an interesting thought.


I am still left wondering if the elevator was indeed broken?

In reading back, all I have been able to come up with, is that the broken elevator is being presumed, speculated about, or part of a "what if" scenario. Not fact.


----------



## Walt (Mar 28, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> Ruth said in her post that all the passengers were not allowed to have their baggage checked at the counter. She also said the passengers were told that they were responsible for getting their own luggage to the train..So apparently no RedCap available.


Sorry folks, this is still not clear to me. :unsure:

If the passengers, including Ruth, were not able to check in their "checked luggage" at the counter, then where was it to be checked?

I keep bringing this up, because in my opinion, there is a *major distinction* between "checked luggage" and "carry-on luggage".

Not being able to check, at all, your large, possibly heavy, "checked luggage" is a rather major problem at any LD train. Its got to get into the baggage car somehow.

Not being able to find a "red cap" to help carry your "carry-on luggage" is a minor inconvenience. That's because I feel that it is a person's own responsible to pick their "carry-on" such that it is manageable by them. In other words, a "carry-on" carries with it (a pun?) a level of personal responsibility to, well, carry it.


----------



## had8ley (Mar 28, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Upstate said:
> 
> 
> > HokieNav said:
> ...


That's a lot of if and and butts !!!


----------



## Ryan (Mar 28, 2009)

had8ley said:


> That's a lot of if and and butts !!!


It is, and that's my point! Nobody knows what went down at the station that day, yet people are ready to fly off the handle and file this one in the "It's all Amtrak's fault" without knowing what actually happened.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 28, 2009)

caravanman said:


> As an aged traveler, and long time Amtrak Unlimited forum user, I am so embarassed that the younger fitter members of the forum are so often slapping down members of the public in such a "know it all" way.
> When you get older, with back troubles or high blood pressure, it will not be so easy for you to unexpectedly adapt to having to carry your own heavy luggage.
> 
> For goodness sake show a little more compassion!
> ...


That is what bugs me about the OP.

You honestly think that NOBODY helped SOMEBODY? That there weren't able bodied people who OFFERED assistance? And I'm not talking Amtrak, I'm talking pax. You have got your head up your you know what if you believe that.

The OP is being a histrionic venter who just decided to preach to *us* of all people about how screwed up she thinks Amtrak is and asked for pity. Her post is full of BS mistruths and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lie or two and there.

I would have sympathy for anybody who was inconvenienced by this event. I have NONE for somebody who calls it "traumatizing" and plays on your emotions for no goof reason.

She'll forget the whole thing in a month despite her promise to take this to her grave. (ANother histrionic statement that I find absent in her post but think would fit in perfectly.)



> Not being able to find a "red cap" to help carry your "carry-on luggage" is a minor inconvenience. That's because I feel that it is a person's own responsible to pick their "carry-on" such that it is manageable by them. In other words, a "carry-on" carries with it (a pun?) a level of personal responsibility to, well, carry it.


Adding to that is the fact that carry-on policy on Amtrak is more generous than checked policy on airlines. Your carry-on bags can be large (not supersize) suitcases up to 50 pounds... I've checked bags small enough to be carry-on before, I usually carry around just this one suitcase, but it is more often then not carry-on.


----------



## had8ley (Mar 28, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > That's a lot of if and and butts !!!
> ...


Let's be realistic here; how much effort would it have taken for the agent to radio the Crescent and explain his plight whatever it may have been? Then he would have the monkey off his back and would have had his pax taken care of if the SA's came downstairs and helped their pax. There is too much "convenience" for the employees going on; case in point~ week before last the Tuscaloosa agent called #19 and had him spot the baggage car door at the depot door. His golf cart worked; his trailer was operable but he didn't want to have to drive down to the end of the platform to load bags. Good gravy; one train a day and we double spot for someone who is supposed to just drive down and load up without question while pax de-train without any further delay to the train. I've picked up people at stations in wheel chairs riding the sleepers and begged station agents to double spot the train to no avail (I'm not blaming the agent; it could have been an ornery cnductor but they are both Amtrak employees.) It's not easy to push a wheel chair through ballast because of someone's ignorance. And before you ask if the cart at Tuscaloosa did run I watched him unload #20 at its usual stopping point which is about 6 car lengths north of the depot for the baggage car. I'd call B'Ham to see if the freight elevator is working but would be afraid the answer I would get might not match the elevator's actual operating condition.


----------



## sky12065 (Mar 28, 2009)

caravanman said:


> As an aged traveler, and long time Amtrak Unlimited forum user, I am so embarassed that the younger fitter members of the forum are so often slapping down members of the public in such a "know it all" way.
> When you get older, with back troubles or high blood pressure, it will not be so easy for you to unexpectedly adapt to having to carry your own heavy luggage.
> 
> For goodness sake show a little more compassion!
> ...


Ed, thank you, thank you, thank you for so eloquently expressing what I have been thinking but failed to express in my previous posts. Although I'd like to say more, I think I'll just leave my comment at that and not add fuel to the fire for those who may be hell-bent on being negative against the OP and possibly against Amtrak too for that matter!


----------



## tp49 (Mar 28, 2009)

Ruth B. Boulware said:


> On March 13, 2009, I was awaiting the Crescent Northbound at the Birmingham, Alabama Station. I arrived an hour early to check my luggage. When I arrived, a note was on the window saying, "BE BACK SOON." At approximately 2:10, the agent arrived, and began selling tickets. We were lined up to get our luggage checked. The agent came on the intercom to inform everyone that no bags would be checked, and we would be responsible for getting our luggage on the train. It was a very pitiful scene-seeing the elderly people trying to get their luggage up two flights of steps where the train was awaiting. The conductor wanted to know why we had all of the luggage? We informed him that the agent would not check the luggage. I was in tears! When we got to the train, NO ONE would help us with the luggage. I did contact Amtrak's Customer Service of this incident, and would you believe, Amtrak sent me a measly voucher for $25.00 which was an insult and a slap in the fact for the trauma that I went through at the Birmingham Amtrak Station. I am sending the voucher back to Amtrak. Please, before you board any AMTRAK TRAIN, make sure you know whether or not you will be able to check your luggage. This was an experience that I will never forget.


Again, nowhere in this post does it mention that the OP is elderly, nor does it mention a physical condition that would preclude them from carrying their luggage. Nor does it mention if the station agent was rude to her. There are very few facts here, yet a lot of assumptions have been drawn by posters putting down those of us who are younger as lacking compassion.

Someone mentioned that there is an elevator used to take luggage and handicapped passengers to the platform. Were there any handicapped passengers needing assistance that day and if so were they taken to the platform on the elevator? Was the elevator working or not? Did the OP ask any of her fellow passengers for help or did she make an assumption that people would just help? Did the OP ask if there was an elevator and if it could be used by the passengers? At some point the passenger bears some responsability here. If I were in her position and could not get my luggage up to the platform I'd be asking about alternatives or asking my fellow passengers for assistance.


----------



## PaulM (Mar 28, 2009)

I've have over 110,000 Amtrak under my belt; and fortunately I can't remember too many experiences like this. But they seem to get reported here quite often. There seems to be a common thread:

1. OP complains about problem (baggage service, elevator out of order)

2. The complainer is criticized (exaggerates , too emotional, not enough facts to perform an in depth investigation)

3. The reason for the problem is explained (computer down)

4. The reason could not be foreseen, i.e., is treated as an act of God (computers never go down and companies are not supposed to have contingency plans for when they do)

5. All suggestions as to how the situation could be rectified (extra board) are criticized as naive.

6. When all else fails someone will point out that the OP got from point A to point B.

With friends like this, who need enemies. No wonder Amtrak has a political problem, which is how I describe being staved for funds for so long.


----------



## sunchaser (Mar 28, 2009)

PaulM said:


> I've have over 110,000 Amtrak under my belt; and fortunately I can't remember too many experiences like this. But they seem to get reported here quite often. There seems to be a common thread:
> 1. OP complains about problem (baggage service, elevator out of order)
> 
> 2. The complainer is criticized (exaggerates , too emotional, not enough facts to perform an in depth investigation)
> ...


Great points all. I was going to post some ideas this morning but had other things to do.

I do have one question as a newbie, though..

To those are frequent train travelers, has anyone seen this behavior before- from the train staff not assisting the pax?

I thought that was part of their job?


----------



## wayman (Mar 28, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> Great points all. I was going to post some ideas this morning but had other things to do. I do have one question as a newbie, though..
> 
> To those are frequent train travelers, has anyone seen this behavior before- from the train staff not assisting the pax?
> 
> I thought that was part of their job?


Fortunately, I've never seen Amtrak station staff being anything other than helpful and courteous. I'm not saying bad things never happen, just that in my Amtrak travels I've never seen meltdowns like this.


----------



## sky12065 (Mar 28, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> PaulM said:
> 
> 
> > I've have over 110,000 Amtrak under my belt; and fortunately I can't remember too many experiences like this. But they seem to get reported here quite often. There seems to be a common thread:
> ...


With about 30,000 miles of Amtrak travel I would have to say no that I haven't seen this exact behavior before. I have however had some incidents that I would call mildly traumatic even though some may disagree with that assessment or usage of the word traumatic... which I couldn't care less about!

Since I'm not looking for any pity here I'll spare you the details of the incidents, but in none of the incidents did I feel that what occurred was intentional by Amtrak, their people, the Red Caps or other people that were involved, although I did came close to feeling it was on one occasion. I just sucked it up, moved on and later politely explained to customer service what occurred or the problem I faced with excellent results. In fact I also have to say that Amtrak people were always helpful when they knew I needed help and did so for the most part without my having to ask.

Sometimes you do have to ask for help or people just won't know that you need it!


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 28, 2009)

Amtrak staff are perhaps the nicest you will come across in the travel business. I may only have 10.5K under my belt, but I know good service when I get it.


----------



## sunchaser (Mar 28, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Amtrak staff are perhaps the nicest you will come across in the travel business. I may only have 10.5K under my belt, but I know good service when I get it.


I'm glad to hear that-I was beginning to wonder what's going on. It seems like she got hit with a quadruple whammy that day-first no checked baggage, then no RedCap, then the stairs, then the train staff did not assist her or anyone else.

I'm not picking on Amtrak or Ruth. But I would assume that the SCA'S, Conductor & other staff, upon seeing all those pax with luggage would have stepped forward to assist them. I'm trying not to criticize. That's why I asked if anyone has seen that happen before. To me, it makes no sense that they would not help the pax at some point. I'm not trying to stir the pot-it just sounds weird to me. I hope Ruth will try again-and realize this situation is not the norm.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 28, 2009)

Lets sum it up here:

1) The poster is being over dramatic.

2) There was a problem that was dificult to deal with.

3) Amtrak can and should do better

4) Some of our members, not excluding myself, are jerks.

Good?


----------



## sunchaser (Mar 29, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Lets sum it up here:
> 1) The poster is being over dramatic.
> 
> 2) There was a problem that was dificult to deal with.
> ...


Atta boy!!!! :lol:

(I might change 1 to may have been)

The problem with someone putting only one post is that you cannot gain any more info, so you are left with speculation.

I was also wondering about the other pax-there hasen't been any other posts from them going one way or the other on this subject.

I was wondering, since I'm new to the board, is that also common to this situation? Only one side?


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Mar 29, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Lets sum it up here:
> 1) The poster is being over dramatic.
> 
> 2) There was a problem that was dificult to deal with.
> ...



This has definitely been quite an interesting topic at best. This posting sums it well overall for me. I'll add a little to this (seems like all the good discussions happen when I am away and not taking part in the forum's happenings).... using Lion's points.

1)Customers who are upset tend to over exaggerate what actually happened most of the time IMO. A lot of times they are still too wound up and leave out little pieces of necessary info as well. Unless Ruth comes back to fill in the details, we may never actually know what happened with her exactly (as several others have already said).

2)True there was a situation that occurred on that day. But it doesn't give Amtrak an excuse not to provide a service that is promised in writing. I can see an exception in a case such as a baggage car having been set out, or the train leaving without a baggage car for reasons beyond Amtrak's control. But OTOH about a week ago #98 passed through DLD with a lounge car in place of the baggage car which had been cut out of the train in MIA, so that tells me Amtrak did what it could to preserve that service in that case. So was the help so stretched on this day? Most likely.... if I still know Amtrak like I do.

3)Amtrak might have done the best they could have done despite the circumstances (that we know of) on that day, though. Maybe it was necessary to not offer the check baggage service due to the time constraints, but at some point there is a line where safety must take first priority! That stairwell still presents a potentially unsafe condition for anyone if they are having to haul bags up and down them (stairs are potential accidents waiting to happen anyway in these types of settings). Who had that in mind on that day? I wouldn't want healthy folks having to haul more than their allotted carry-ons with them up and down that stairwell. I would think it would be better to check as many bags as possible prior to train time in this case even though the cutoff for checked bags is thirty minutes prior to departure in most stations even if it causes the train some delay. I wonder how much personal safety was compromised that day. However, with all that said, Amtrak at least tried to compensate Ruth in a fair manner IMO. That's more than some other modes of transport.

4)Lion, you may have a point there with part of it, but I am gonna stay away from that one. :lol: :blink:

OBS gone freight...


----------



## daveyb99 (Mar 29, 2009)

jackal said:


> It's silly: the company could probably run far more efficiently and eliminate a good bit of standing around if everyone could help out wherever they were needed. It's silly, but it's reality.


I am a proud union member, and I will tell you why.

Unions began years and years ago when companies put profit over employee safety, demanded long hours for low wages, and generally showed great disrespect for employees. Ever heard of the Triangle-Shirtwaist Factory fire? Ever heard of 'company stores', where miners had to buy inflated priced necessities and even work tools, sometimes to the point of indebtedness to the company. How about Walmart - a company so anti-union that they would spend truckloads of cash to fight any form on union on their property, yet refuse to pay overtime to their mostly part-time workforce, instead requiring them to work off-the-clock.

As a result of these struggles, unions have overcome adversity to see implemented many of the things we take for granted today: a 40-hour workweek, overtime, paid vacations, health care benefits, retirement, and a safer workplace.

Yes, and even today, when companies are trying to short change every aspect of employee relations, unions stand to protect the employees and their negotiated agreements and benefits. Unions want a successful company because a successful company is good for the employees. Sure, disputes arise, some with tragic results. But to dismiss unions as unnecessary is completely wrong. Why? Because the US workplace is volatile. A union representing an organized workforce can temper company abuse of employee rights, both legal and negotiated, and hopefully come to a satisfactory resolution of difference so both employee and management can get back to the job of being successful.

But you will notice that spurs an 'evil nature of unions' or 'power hungry union boss" response. AIG execs are paid big bonus's because "we can not break a contract", yet UAW members at GM are blamed for GMs downfall and expected to break their contract to be force fed pay cuts. Jobs shipped overseas, jobs 'outsourced' to 'the low bidder', jobs eliminated - only a few of today's battles. Again, a union wants a successful company, and stands as the representative of a collective group of employees.

Think to the years of contract dispute between AMTRAK and the unions. So when AMTRAK short changes staffing, and employees continue to be expected to take up the slack, just where should one draw the line and say enough.

I do appreciate your point of view, but I am not wrong in saying 'nonsense' to unions being the stumbling block at BHM that day.

Thanks for allowing the off-topic response.


----------



## tp49 (Mar 29, 2009)

sky12065 said:


> Sometimes you do have to ask for help or people just won't know that you need it!


Couldn't agree with this statement more.

This is why I wonder if the OP asked for help. If she did and received the treatment she did my view of the situation is totally different than it currently is. Otherwise she should have asked for help first as I would content that most people are not mind readers. A little communication might/would/could have gone a long way here.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Mar 29, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> PaulM said:
> 
> 
> > I've have over 110,000 Amtrak under my belt; and fortunately I can't remember too many experiences like this. But they seem to get reported here quite often. There seems to be a common thread:
> ...


Yes, I have seen this behavior before from train staff. At CUS there were no red caps around to help passengers board the SWC. As I was walking toward the train, a lady ahead of me _had a walker_ which the right side fell off the platform and was partially hanging over. Of course, the lady was on the ground. She was about 15 feet ahead of me and I flagged down some workmen and they went and helped her up. The SWC is a big train with a lot of passengers. Why was there no boarding help!

Another point for those who said this lady should have or could have asked for help. Are you kidding? Have you ever seen a train being boarded where the passengers are running like a mob to try to board the train before everyone else? I've seen it several times. The more able bodied ones would just as soon push you out of the way. Now you tell me how a person who needs help is going to ask for help from someone who is hell bent on being first.


----------



## jackal (Mar 29, 2009)

daveyb99 said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> > It's silly: the company could probably run far more efficiently and eliminate a good bit of standing around if everyone could help out wherever they were needed. It's silly, but it's reality.
> ...


I don't disagree that unions were very necessary at one point in time, and I don't disagree that unions provide some beneficial protection today.

But when unions have to institute protective restrictions preventing crossing crafts in order to artificially inflate one craft's wages (such as the IBEW preventing the construction companies from using cheaper laborers to do any electrical work when, for the simple stuff, that regular laborer is perfectly capable of doing such work--or, more in my experience, the union forced the Alaska Railroad to pay an 8-hour penalty to a yard crew sent south of Runyan's Crossing to dogcatch the late northbound freight [i understand the idea is to prevent the railroad from calling a crew at the yard rate instead of the slightly more expensive road rate and using them as a road crew, but honestly, why should road crews even get higher pay as long as they make it home to their own beds every night?]), they're just being greedy for their employees. And union members--at least the ones I hung out with--have the idea that they can't give an inch on any of their policies lest the employer take a mile, which means there is no hope of silly restrictions like that going away, since even the rules that are obviously silly (and expensive to the employer) are held on to with a death grip by union members.

I was compensated very well on the Alaska Railroad, and the compensation made the bad life (bad hours, on-call, etc.) worthwhile (er, it would have had I not already been in love with the job as a railfan!  ). But I think a lot of the policies would exist as is without the union forcing the railroad's hand, since otherwise, they'd lose people or not be able to hire people in the first place. At the very worst, the wages and working regulations would have settled down to a point where employees felt they were compensated at least fairly for their work and lifestyle concessions (most employees would, if you asked them, admit that their paychecks significantly exceeded what the actual value of their work was). And if a company can replace its unionized workforce with non-union employees willing to work longer/worse hours or at lower rates of pay--in other words, the market dictates the value of the work--why should employees be paid more than they're worth?

Alan/Anthony, AU needs an OMNI forum where we can talk about this OT stuff!


----------



## tp49 (Mar 29, 2009)

Everydaymatters said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > PaulM said:
> ...


I don't think the number of people boarding the two trains a day that call in Birmingham is anywhere near the magnitude of the number of folks boarding in Chicago. I'd figure the number boarding at BHM to be near 15-20 tops and the procedure is probably more relaxed.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Mar 29, 2009)

tp49 said:


> I don't think the number of people boarding the two trains a day that call in Birmingham is anywhere near the magnitude of the number of folks boarding in Chicago. I'd figure the number boarding at BHM to be near 15-20 tops and the procedure is probably more relaxed.


I know you're right. I guess I was having a mental picture of the announcement being made that there would be no baggage service and everyone who had been waiting with their baggage making a mad dash up the stairs so they wouldn't miss the train. I can see how it would be hard to ask someone to help you when you're struggling with your suitcase and every able bodied person is rushing up the stairs.


----------



## oldtimer (Mar 29, 2009)

Jackal stated in this off topic discussion

"But when unions have to institute protective restrictions preventing crossing crafts in order to artificially inflate one craft's wages (such as the IBEW preventing the construction companies from using cheaper laborers to do any electrical work when, for the simple stuff, that regular laborer is perfectly capable of doing such work"

As a proud IBEW member just look at what the unskilled labor hired by KBR (which us taxpayers paid out the ying-yang for) did such a good job in Iraq in particular in the showers where several of our fighting men and women were shocked and some fatally by the "simple stuff" electrical work done by laborers.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 29, 2009)

jackal said:


> daveyb99 said:
> 
> 
> > jackal said:
> ...


I second Jackal on this one.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Mar 29, 2009)

oldtimer2 said:


> As a proud IBEW member just look at what the unskilled labor hired by KBR (which us taxpayers paid out the ying-yang for) did such a good job in Iraq in particular in the showers where several of our fighting men and women were shocked and some fatally by the "simple stuff" electrical work done by laborers.


I'm not disputing unions or non-unions, just wanting clarification:

I read that the soldiers put up the showers. Was it an outside company that did that???


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Mar 29, 2009)

Everydaymatters said:


> oldtimer2 said:
> 
> 
> > As a proud IBEW member just look at what the unskilled labor hired by KBR (which us taxpayers paid out the ying-yang for) did such a good job in Iraq in particular in the showers where several of our fighting men and women were shocked and some fatally by the "simple stuff" electrical work done by laborers.
> ...


Google Iraq showers electrocuted and you get hits. What I see is that KBR has been accused, and there are various civil cases. KBR denies fault. One of KBR's claims is that it's the military's fault. Nothing's been decided yet.

For an example see here.

And man are we off topic or what...


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Mar 29, 2009)

oldtimer2 said:


> Jackal stated in this off topic discussion"But when unions have to institute protective restrictions preventing crossing crafts in order to artificially inflate one craft's wages (such as the IBEW preventing the construction companies from using cheaper laborers to do any electrical work when, for the simple stuff, that regular laborer is perfectly capable of doing such work"
> 
> As a proud IBEW member just look at what the unskilled labor hired by KBR (which us taxpayers paid out the ying-yang for) did such a good job in Iraq in particular in the showers where several of our fighting men and women were shocked and some fatally by the "simple stuff" electrical work done by laborers.


Is there such a thing as a licensed electrician who's not a member of a union, and if so, does whether a licensed electrician is a member of a union influence the quality of that electrician's work?


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2009)

I still remember several years ago. I started a new job, and it was my first time working for a company that had a union (I was considered "management" even though I managed nobody).

The PC that was ordered for me, had not arrived yet. There was an empty office directly across the hall from mine, that had a PC on a wheeled cart. My boss told me to just grab it, and use it until mine came in. So, I just wheeled it across the hall into my office.

A member of the IBEW saw me do this, and filed an official grievance against me. Apparently, it is a "union job" to roll a PC across the hall. 

As they say, you never get a chance to make a second first impression, and from that moment on, my first and forever impression is that IBEW are all jerks.


----------



## had8ley (Mar 30, 2009)

Guest said:


> As they say, you never get a chance to make a second first impression, and from that moment on, my first and forever impression is that IBEW are all jerks.


Although I've been a union member for over 40 years your post almost makes me think that everyone who doesn't brush his/her teeth first thing in the morning are jerks. This is exactly what management wants you to think. Just who do you think is running each and every Amtrak train 365 days a year?~ a union member who does a darn good job!!!


----------



## Neil_M (Mar 30, 2009)

had8ley said:


> Just who do you think is running each and every Amtrak train 365 days a year?~ a union member who does a darn good job!!!


You can do just a good a job even if you are not in a union.


----------



## haolerider (Mar 30, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > Just who do you think is running each and every Amtrak train 365 days a year?~ a union member who does a darn good job!!!
> ...


Getting a bit off topic aren't we?


----------



## frj1983 (Mar 30, 2009)

One thing occurs to me about those people who do come to this forum to complain about a problem with Amtrak…I phrase the question in this way:

How do they find the Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum?

Why is that important? For a couple of reasons, if you type in Amtrak in the Google search engine, the Discussion Forum does not come up until page 4. These means you have to work your way through 60 some odd records to find a quick description of the forum, and then, one would have to click on the link to see what the forum offers. Strangely enough, when you type in Amtrak complaints into the Google search engine, the Discussion Forum comes up on the very first page (offhand question: I wonder what that says about us?). Again the person would have to click on the link and then read the rules to post and then finally post.

What’s my point? By the time you fire up the PC or Laptop or your web-enabled phone, start using Google, find a place you think you can post to, and then post to it…jeepers creepers if that were me, my outrage would have been long gone! I still believe that people think we are somehow allied to Amtrak (despite the tag at the top of the page).

In the long run, does **** happen? You bet it does! Does **** happen at Amtrak? Sometimes in spades! But in the give and take of a forum there are going to be emotions sticking out all over, and some will seem insensitive and jerk-like, and others will bend over backward to be sensitive and helpful! That’s just the way of a forum.

I too get frustrated when Amtrak’s (or other companies as well) people service goes down in flames! I often wonder if anyone, anywhere ever makes contingency plans? I think that’s where the big problem lies! :blink:


----------



## had8ley (Mar 30, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > Just who do you think is running each and every Amtrak train 365 days a year?~ a union member who does a darn good job!!!
> ...


That is not my point. I was trying to show that not every union member is a "jerk."


----------



## jackal (Mar 30, 2009)

had8ley said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > As they say, you never get a chance to make a second first impression, and from that moment on, my first and forever impression is that IBEW are all jerks.
> ...


See, there's the perfect example of what I mentioned earlier: union members tend to think in an us-vs.-them context.

Maybe I'm just lucky, but I work for an employer who is extremely generous because he realizes that paying employees well (better than the competition) attracts quality employees, increases productivity and morale, reduces turnover, and generally results in a smoother operation. In turn, the employees all love working here and respect the management very much, and everyone feels like a member of the family and that we're all working to make this company succeed together (because, realistically, if everyone isn't pulling their weight, we are not far from extinction not only due to the bad economy but also because of new challenges in our industry drastically increasing costs). In fact, you could argue that my employer is being a bit too generous, and the short-term health of the company would probably increase markedly if we laid off probably a third to a half of our staff and cut pay, but we believe that the good operation we have now will serve us better in the long term if we can just make it through to the next break in a couple of months.

You don't get that kind of "we're all in this boat together" feeling in an us-vs.-them union-vs.-management setting.

And if our employees, for whatever reason, formed a union and forced even higher wages out of my employer, you can bet not only would morale go in the toilet, the company would, too. We simply can't afford any more. Would I like more vacation time (the one thing I feel they're stingy on)? Sure, but I understand how tight margins are.

And I know not everyone is as lucky as I am to work for such a generous employer. But if we suddenly cut wages/bonuses and ticked our employees off, they'd not hesitate to jump right back to our competitors we stole them from. So you can see that there is also market pressure (not just generosity) keeping our compensation package sufficiently attractive, lest we lose our best assets. I think it's that way in many more workplaces than union idealists think and wages wouldn't drop beyond reason, and if they do, I think in many cases it's just because the union was artificially causing wages to be higher than the position was originally worth (good for employees but not fair for employers).

Perhaps it's just my perspective as a member of the younger generation, which doesn't see the need to invest in a single job and need assurance that job is going to last them for their entire life. That kind of thinking does require a union to ensure the job remains able to provide for the employee's lifestyle and standard of living. Today's generation changes jobs often and doesn't have an objection to leaving one employer for another if they feel it provides a better opportunity, and employers are having to rethink their strategies to keep their employees happy and employed, and that includes paying better attention to working conditions, compensation, and employee satisfaction. I think this means that the job market is moving beyond the need for unions, because the "employee class" doesn't need those kinds of protections and is nowadays choosing to vote with their feet.


----------



## goodnightjohnwayne (Mar 30, 2009)

Ruth B. Boulware said:


> On March 13, 2009, I was awaiting the Crescent Northbound at the Birmingham, Alabama Station. I arrived an hour early to check my luggage. When I arrived, a note was on the window saying, "BE BACK SOON." At approximately 2:10, the agent arrived, and began selling tickets. We were lined up to get our luggage checked. The agent came on the intercom to inform everyone that no bags would be checked, and we would be responsible for getting our luggage on the train. It was a very pitiful scene-seeing the elderly people trying to get their luggage up two flights of steps where the train was awaiting.


It occurs to me that a station like Birmingham only has two personnel on duty at train time. Personally, I don't think you can expect an agent to handle baggage, and if there was some sort of mechanical or personal delay, it isn't unreasonable to carry your own baggage. I wouldn't expect the same level of service in Birmingham that I expect in New York Penn Station. There are no redcaps in Alabama, for instance.

It is only common sense to pack no more than you can carry, regardless of the duration and medium of travel. This is true whether you are traveling by common carrier or by personal automobile.



Ruth B. Boulware said:


> The conductor wanted to know why we had all of the luggage? We informed him that the agent would not check the luggage. I was in tears! When we got to the train, NO ONE would help us with the luggage.


Who were you expecting to help you with the luggage? Other coach passengers?

When I board a train or airplane with luggage, I do so with the expectation that I will place it in the overhead rack or bin myself, unassisted.

I frequently do assist other passengers, but I do so voluntarily.



Ruth B. Boulware said:


> I did contact Amtrak's Customer Service of this incident, and would you believe, Amtrak sent me a measly voucher for $25.00 which was an insult and a slap in the fact for the trauma that I went through at the Birmingham Amtrak Station. I am sending the voucher back to Amtrak. Please, before you board any AMTRAK TRAIN, make sure you know whether or not you will be able to check your luggage. This was an experience that I will never forget.


It seems to me that $25.00 was a fairly generous reward for a minimal inconvenience.


----------



## VentureForth (Mar 30, 2009)

Sorry for not reading every reply to every post here first, but I did want to comment on one post regarding the fact that this is not checked luggage if you take it up to the train yourself.

Frankly, the ripple effect caused by refusing to check luggage can be far more inconvenient than simply having to take your own luggage up to the train. Tags are printed. Connections are made. Destinations are recorded. Bags are destroyed by sliding back and forth on the baggage car floor (oops, I digress...)

Point is, if someone has an expectation to check luggage a point A through point B to destination C, then that luggage is no longer the concern of the passenger, but rather Amtrak's. To arbitrarily refuse to provide that service now creates a superheadache for all. Passengers now have to carry their large, oversize bags onboard the train and take up all the in-car rack space. Not only that, but those who transfer must now carry their bags from Train A to Train B.

When one selects a departure station and an arrival station, both of which provide checked baggage service, it's not incomprehensible to be irate when that service is being temporarily suspended.

Amtrak should have at least three (two on duty plus one on call) at EVERY station that supports checked baggage. No exceptions.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 30, 2009)

> One thing occurs to me about those people who do come to this forum to complain about a problem with Amtrak…I phrase the question in this way:
> How do they find the Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum?


Google I suspect.

If you Google "Amtrak Forum" we're #1 on the list.


----------



## wayman (Mar 30, 2009)

Everydaymatters said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the number of people boarding the two trains a day that call in Birmingham is anywhere near the magnitude of the number of folks boarding in Chicago. I'd figure the number boarding at BHM to be near 15-20 tops and the procedure is probably more relaxed.
> ...


There would have been no need of a mad dash--baggage must be checked by 30 minutes prior to scheduled departure, so any announcement that checked baggage service was cancelled would have been made well prior to that time. Anybody in the station with baggage they were hoping to check would have had at least half an hour to get it up the stairs to the platform.


----------



## VentureForth (Mar 30, 2009)

I'm floored at how many people here think it's just simply OK to pay for an advertised service and being told to shut up and sit in a corner if that service doesn't materialize.

Amtrak will never succeed if their customers continued to be simply satisfied with the status quo. Either lower the expections and strive to exceed them, or just shut down.


----------



## p&sr (Mar 30, 2009)

wayman said:


> There would have been no need of a mad dash--baggage must be checked by 30 minutes prior to scheduled departure, so any announcement that checked baggage service was cancelled would have been made well prior to that time. Anybody in the station with baggage they were hoping to check would have had at least half an hour to get it up the stairs to the platform.


This is a good point. Looking at the photo that was posted, there are about 30 steps up to the platform... 30 steps in 30 minutes. If somebody cannot lug their own luggage up stairs at the rate of one step PER MINUTE, they are clearly carrying too much.

For those who don't do stairs, 30 minutes should be sufficient time to locate any alternative routes, ramps, or back-ways up. If none exist, then Amtrak is in legal violation of accessibility standards. (Which still doesn't get you onto the Train.)


----------



## p&sr (Mar 30, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> I'm floored at how many people here think it's just simply OK to pay for an advertised service and being told to shut up and sit in a corner if that service doesn't materialize.


No, it is certainly NOT OK for Amtrak to fail to deliver on promised and contracted service. But it does happen.



VentureForth said:


> Amtrak will never succeed if their customers continued to be simply satisfied with the status quo. Either lower the expectations and strive to exceed them, or just shut down.


No, we should NOT be "satisfied with the status quo". The issue, however, is what to DO when things somehow do not measure up.

One approach is to complain, which the original poster did.

How do we then respond? Some respond with sympathy and condolences. Some respond with shared outrage.

My own preference would be to share an adaptive response, what could somebody do to minimize the harm after the fact, or to minimize the risk on future trips, ASSUMING (NOT Recommending!) that Amtrak does NOT improve their act.

This is not at all about "sitting in a corner if things don't materialize", rather about how to GET OUT of your corner and Take Charge of things yourself.

Step One for me in all of this is to Travel Light, never check any luggage, and never carry more than I can comfortably jog with for a mile.

Others choose a different style. That's fine. Some styles work, some don't. Take your own pick.


----------



## frj1983 (Mar 30, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> > One thing occurs to me about those people who do come to this forum to complain about a problem with Amtrak…I phrase the question in this way:
> > How do they find the Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum?
> 
> 
> ...


That's true,

However the OP probably had no conception that there was an Amtrak Forum!


----------



## Ryan (Mar 30, 2009)

You'd be surprised - I use web forums as the primary way of gathering info about a product or service where available. I think that there's no better way to get a feel for a product than to visit a discussion site to read what real people are saying about it (and read the responses, unlike just reading product reviews at Amazon.com for example).


----------



## AlanB (Mar 30, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Amtrak should have at least three (two on duty plus one on call) at EVERY station that supports checked baggage. No exceptions.


What you're proposing is a huge expense that Amtrak cannot afford. People don't just sit at home waiting for a phone call in the off chance that they'll get to go to work today. You have to pay them to sit by the phone.

Amtrak offers checked baggage at 143 stations. If we back out 20 of the largest stations where there are always extra employees around anyhow, that leaves potentially 123 stations that would need a standby position. Figuring an 8 hour shift, even though some stations might need more than that, and a rather low-ball figure of $15 an hour, that would cost Amtrak $5.3 Million dollars a year. And that's before factoring in benefits and other costs associated with hiring employees.

And all of that would be largely wasted monies, since most of those workers would be getting paid to spend the bulk of their time just sitting around waiting for a phone call.


----------



## had8ley (Mar 30, 2009)

jackal said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


Well, I'll make it short and sweet...you have my head spinning in circles. Perhaps its my ties to the dinosaur age when a job was worth keeping for 30 or more years. Firstly, you praise your employer but want more vacation but don't want a union to get it for you. You call yourself "lucky" but would leave your present employ at the drop of a hat. It almost sounds like you're using your employers time and computers to send out resumes. You don't sound like a very happy camper from this angle but please don't blame the unions for your plight~ YOU are the one who determines your own destiny!!!


----------



## Everydaymatters (Mar 30, 2009)

jackal said:


> And I know not everyone is as lucky as I am to work for such a generous employer. But if we suddenly cut wages/bonuses and ticked our employees off, they'd not hesitate to jump right back to our competitors we stole them from.


Sorry, but it sounds like your employer is having to walk on eggshells.

Maybe things are better in Alaska, but here in the lower 48 off the top of my head I can think of 5 people I know who have had wages cut, hours cut, vacation time cut, benefits cut. And they're happy to have a job!

Your employees wouldn't hesitate to jump back to the competitors! Does the competitor still have all the wages and bonuses?

Maybe we should all move to Alaska.


----------



## VentureForth (Mar 30, 2009)

AlanB said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak should have at least three (two on duty plus one on call) at EVERY station that supports checked baggage. No exceptions.
> ...


Not necessarily. Some of these stations have very few hours - most of the agents qualify for part time duty. But I doubt that most of them work 7 days a week and no holidays. The extra people are there - it's a matter of scheduling. It's not too big of a deal (unless you're unionized ... oops ...) to ask a willing employee to be on call for one of their two days off. You don't pay them unless called, and if they are, double pay.

Maybe this happens more often than I'm aware, but they typically don't cancel a flight for a sick pilot or flight attendant. The spare labor is available. Substitute teachers, as well. Better yet - utilize part time labor as a substitute. $10/hr only when called, no benefits. Of course the Unions would again have a fit, but that seems to be a common barrier to superior customer service, doesn't it?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 30, 2009)

Am I out of line to request we let this topic die for my sanity?


----------



## VentureForth (Mar 30, 2009)

Awww, gee. 6 pages is nothing in this forum....


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Mar 30, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Am I out of line to request we let this topic die for my sanity?


Well, you _could_ quit reading it.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 30, 2009)

PetalumaLoco said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Am I out of line to request we let this topic die for my sanity?
> ...


I just don't like the idea of us keeping this thread up here given that the original post was made by a flamer and clearly did not intend to come back to hear our advice-- only rant about how bad Amtrak treated her.

That's not what we're about, is it?


----------



## PaulM (Mar 30, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> PaulM said:
> 
> 
> > I've have over 110,000 Amtrak under my belt; and fortunately I can't remember too many experiences like this. But they seem to get reported here quite often. There seems to be a common thread:
> ...


To be more accurate, I should say I've never seen this type of thing. The only " trauma" from worst situation I experienced - dead engine, bad-ordered lounge car, mechanical failure in the diner preventing coach passengers from eating, no AC in the bedroom section of a sleeper, missed connection, all on the same train, and the EB at that - was not being able to get a cup of coffee in the morning (which I rectified by swiping one from the sleeper). I definitely blame Amtrak for the mechanical problems; but I can't complain about the staffs response to it.

The point of my post was not to suggest these events are common, but AU's response to them.



Amtrak OBS Gone Freight said:


> I can see an exception in a case such as a baggage car having been set out, or the train leaving without a baggage car for reasons beyond Amtrak's control. But OTOH about a week ago #98 passed through DLD with a lounge car in place of the baggage car which had been cut out of the train in MIA, so that tells me Amtrak did what it could to preserve that service in that case.


Am I a prophet or what? See # 4 above. Normally a missing baggage car would not be considered an act of God, unless it was struck by lightening or maybe a vandal squirted super glue into the hot box just before departure.

Interesting enough, Amtrak did the right, if not orthodox, thing in this case by substituting the lounge. So there was no chance to test item # 5 above.


----------



## sky12065 (Mar 30, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> > ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> ...


I agree that this thread probably should have been closed down, but the flaming didn't begin until POST #13 (NOT POST #1) and it probably should have been closed down shortly after it was continued when post #15 was made! <_<

On Edit: I take it back that the flaming didn't start with post #1. By definition, what was posted could be classified as flaming! However, IMO fuel was added to the fire at post #13 and incited some really serious flaming thereafter!


----------



## sunchaser (Mar 30, 2009)

PaulM said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > PaulM said:
> ...


I should clarify my prev post. After I read #5, I chickened out on adding suggestions when I got back on the board to post.

The reason I asked about the staff, was that I thought SCAs and other staff would have started to assist her & others.

She states no one was assisted. But she may have been distracted because she was so upset, and may not have seen others being helped. She said she told the Conductor, my thought is at that point, he/she could have had the train staff assist. But I am not an expert on what the staff can or cannot do. Again, not trying to pick a side, but I remember at one job I had a guy called in for medical benefits for his mom, & I told him she wouldn't be covered the way he wanted to do it. He called back a month later, all mad because he said the woman he talked to said his mom would be covered. I had to explain to him that I was that woman! Of course we always put notes on the calls, but I remembered him arguing with me the first time he called. That being said, she is speaking from her perspective, & we have no input from anywhere else except the computer problem on that day. I must say if I was there, I would have been surprised if there was no help given. However, that being said, my husband & I will have to use carry on for our trip in June (4 bags), but I don't expect we will need too much help. Hubby can't lift too much, so that means I may end up making two trips to the trains or strap them together. Or ask a RedCap. But at our destination there is no checked luggage or RedCap.


----------



## jackal (Mar 30, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> > One thing occurs to me about those people who do come to this forum to complain about a problem with Amtrak…I phrase the question in this way:
> > How do they find the Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum?
> 
> 
> ...


If you Google "Amtrak complaints," we're #3 on the list! 



had8ley said:


> Well, I'll make it short and sweet...you have my head spinning in circles. Perhaps its my ties to the dinosaur age when a job was worth keeping for 30 or more years. Firstly, you praise your employer but want more vacation but don't want a union to get it for you. You call yourself "lucky" but would leave your present employ at the drop of a hat. It almost sounds like you're using your employers time and computers to send out resumes. You don't sound like a very happy camper from this angle but please don't blame the unions for your plight~ YOU are the one who determines your own destiny!!!


I don't see what's so confusing.

I'd love more vacation (wouldn't we all?), but what I get now is fair for both the level of job I'm in and the industry I work in. I know that giving people more vacation than they currently get wouldn't work well, because I know how crazy it gets when someone goes on vacation (scrambling to cover their shifts by calling in people on overtime and begging people to work on their days off). If our 40 or so employees formed a union and demanded more vacation, well, I think we'd just all be out of jobs because the company could quite possibly go under. Not to mention all of the goodwill my employer has towards us would evaporate, and I think that's worth more than forcing him to give us more vacation. (Instead, we need to work to get the company on better financial footing and then come to him and suggest that he consider rewarding us with more vacation time if we can make it work. I can definitely see that happening.)

And the part about "being willing to drop them at the drop of a hat" isn't just me--it's my entire generation, and there's been tons of writing and discussion on this, so you can't fault just me. And yes, I am lucky to have the position I have now (they've been very flexible with my needs and rewarding for the level of work I do), but what's wrong with in the event I come across something even better and find myself even luckier from jumping on that opportunity? (And it's not just at the drop of a hat--there is serious consideration involved, at least for me.)

And I wasn't blaming the unions for my plight, since I'm not in a plight--I was simply pointing out that conditions are sometimes better for both parties involved without them!

Now, if I seriously saw myself at this company for the next 30 years and was faced being stuck with my current pay and vacation indefinitely, then perhaps I'd be more interested in screwing my employer for his every last dime at my benefit, but I, like most people in my generation, know that many far better things will come along my way.



Everydaymatters said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> > And I know not everyone is as lucky as I am to work for such a generous employer. But if we suddenly cut wages/bonuses and ticked our employees off, they'd not hesitate to jump right back to our competitors we stole them from.
> ...


Actually, our economy is quite stable. None of our local banks participated in the sub-prime lending, and our resource-based economy isn't as easily hit as other economic bases. A few people are being hurt, but for the most part, it's life as normal up here. The only industry that I foresee being hurt is the leisure-market tourism industry, which is heavily affected by economic times, and which is also unfortunately the industry that I work in. We've scaled back costs for our busy tourist season (not staffing up and increasing our available inventory as much as we normally do) and hope we can make it through until the economy picks back up. So far, we haven't had to cut staff (though we have frozen wages until revenue starts coming in during our tourist season)--we're just not going to up-staff with as many summer temps as we normally do.

My point about the employer having to remain competitive with his wages was to illustrate that we do fine without a union because my employer realizes it's valuable to pay his good people enough to stay with him rather than have them be attracted to the competition. We used to be about even with most of our competitors (slightly below), but we revamped our bonus system and now we're by far the most attractive employer in our market...and wouldn't you know, with the sales bonus system we have, our sales numbers have shot up dramatically and we're doing better (from a sales perspective) than we've ever done before (unfortunately, our customer base to sell to is down because of the economy, so we'll see what happens). If in an effort to reduce costs we drop our wages back down to what they were before, given that our employees are members of a generation that doesn't hesitate to hop to whatever they think serves them best at any given time, some will probably gravitate toward the competition, given that some of them have begun to increase their wages and sales bonuses to compete with ours. So market competition can and does sometimes work in the employees' favor!


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 30, 2009)

sky12065 said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > PetalumaLoco said:
> ...


Post 17 was as dastardly as 15!

Who cares anyway? The OP isn't coming back. She doesn't really care about the advice we have to offer. She wanted to speak her piece and leave us-- which is harmful to the community here because it polarizes us.


----------



## mercedeslove (Mar 30, 2009)

On March 30th, 2009 I had to carry my school bag ALL THE WAY TO THE BUS STOP. People this was horrible. No one would help me and the moving sidewalk was broken. I am so traumatized. OMG! Then I called PACE and they gave me a 25 cent voucher. After all of this trauma I had to endure all I got was 25 cents. This was a spit in my face. Please before you take any bus make sure you know whether or not you will have to carry your own school bag. This was an experience I will never forget.

**goes off to cry and blog about her horrible bus experience**


----------



## amamba (Mar 30, 2009)

Wow, if you people think that there was flaming on this post, you would be downright scared of some of the other forums I visit.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 30, 2009)

amamba said:


> Wow, if you people think that there was flaming on this post, you would be downright scared of some of the other forums I visit.


We're railfans. You think Captains run tight ships? You should see some of these Conductors. "Tight train" makes the Navy look like chickens axed at the head if you catch my drift.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 30, 2009)

Uh yeah, no flaming here.

Flaming would have been:

You're wrong and you're a stupid and worthless person for believing that. (with far more colourful language than is appropriate).

This sounds like healthy disagreement, which has morphed into a fascinating conversation about very many interesting things - part of what makes this site great.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Mar 30, 2009)

mercedeslove said:


> **goes off to cry and blog about her horrible bus experience**


What's the URL of that blog?


----------



## AlanB (Mar 30, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> This sounds like healthy disagreement, which has morphed into a fascinating conversation about very many interesting things - part of what makes this site great.


And that is exactly what we try to promote here. We don't lock topics because they are difficult, or because they criticize Amtrak, or because they wander off the original topic. The OP most likely wanted to do nothing more than vent, and perhaps try to discourage a few people from riding Amtrak as a way of extracting her revenge for the wrong that she feels she suffered. And I'm not suggesting one way or the other that she was right or wrong. She also probably believed that this is something run by Amtrak, which it is not.

But she's not the first to come here to vent, and I'm sure that she won't be the last either. But we're also not going to stop people from coming here to vent. We discuss all aspects of Amtrak here, good and bad.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 30, 2009)

AlanB said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > This sounds like healthy disagreement, which has morphed into a fascinating conversation about very many interesting things - part of what makes this site great.
> ...


Alan there's a difference between "discussing good and bad" and "venting".

We do discuss a lot of the negative aspects of Amtrak using evidence, testimonials, logical support.

This was venting, somebody who wanted to be a loud mouth.

One is healthy, the other is not. I caution you into lumping "venting" and "discussion of bad Amtrak" together.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 30, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> I caution you into lumping "venting" and "discussion of bad Amtrak" together.


I'm not lumping anything together.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 30, 2009)

AlanB said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > I caution you into lumping "venting" and "discussion of bad Amtrak" together.
> ...



Then you should reword:



> But we're also not going to stop people from coming here to vent. We discuss all aspects of Amtrak here, good and bad.


That my friend is lumping.


----------



## mercedeslove (Mar 30, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> mercedeslove said:
> 
> 
> > **goes off to cry and blog about her horrible bus experience**
> ...



LMAO! It's not real but if it was I'd so post it.

None of my experience was real it just was my reply to the OP's totally ridiculous post.


----------



## tp49 (Mar 30, 2009)

mercedeslove said:


> On March 30th, 2009 I had to carry my school bag ALL THE WAY TO THE BUS STOP. People this was horrible. No one would help me and the moving sidewalk was broken. I am so traumatized. OMG! Then I called PACE and they gave me a 25 cent voucher. After all of this trauma I had to endure all I got was 25 cents. This was a spit in my face. Please before you take any bus make sure you know whether or not you will have to carry your own school bag. This was an experience I will never forget.
> **goes off to cry and blog about her horrible bus experience**


You owe me a new monitor. Mine just took a bath in the coke I was drinking after reading this.

*Makes mental note not to take that sip until after I've read not during the reading.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 31, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> ...


We may just have to agree to disagree here, but it's not lumping because she did have a bad experience. Venting or not, it was a bad experience. I would no more tell someone who came here gushing about their wonderful trip that they didn't have a good trip, than I would tell someone who came here to blow off steam that they didn't have a bad trip.

Should you wish to discuss this further ALC, then please let's do it privately.

And now I return everyone to our regularly scheduled program. :lol:


----------



## Chris J. (Mar 31, 2009)

AlanB said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak should have at least three (two on duty plus one on call) at EVERY station that supports checked baggage. No exceptions.
> ...


Or (more likely) Amtrak would just drop checked baggage from those stations, so you'll only be able to check bags at the major stations.

It doesn't look like Amtrak handled this all that well, but I'm not sure having staff on call is the right solution. How many times has this happened over the past year, past five years, past ten years?


----------



## Neil_M (Mar 31, 2009)

Chris J. said:


> It doesn't look like Amtrak handled this all that well, but I'm not sure having staff on call is the right solution. How many times has this happened over the past year, past five years, past ten years?


Not many railways offer checked baggage, only the Swiss do it (and they do it very well, as you might expect! They even offer delivery to your final Swiss destination, or airport) but I do think its a worthwhile thing to do,and its one aspect of Amtrak that other railways could learn from. However, like all services offered in the transport game sometimes it goes wrong, for any number of reasons, and then it splits into just inconvenience or big problem. If you are able bodied and capable of moving all your bags around it's a pain, if you have mobility issues then its a big problem but the OP never made that distinction and that's maybe why some people have got fired up! Some people expect everything to work as advertised,all the time and just fly off on one when it doesn't. Life ain't like that, especially on the railway!

Some people seem to take too much luggage anyway, I always take what I can carry, any more than that is just a pain.


----------



## VentureForth (Mar 31, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> Some people seem to take too much luggage anyway, I always take what I can carry, any more than that is just a pain.


I've seen this said more than once in this thread and have to throw in my 2c. It is not for ANY of us to judge what is too much for anyone at any time. We don't know circumstances, and we certainly don't need to know. Honestly, the OP did NOT have too much luggage for the advertised service. It only became too much when the staff arbitrarily decided to cancel a provided service.

Heck, my wife packs for a weekend trip like we're leaving the country. Our first goal after reaching our destination is to find a Wal*Mart to get the rest of the stuff we forgot. You should see the back of my Jeep when I go for a one night campout with my cubscouts! Too much for sure, but every bit of it is used.

As for Miss Ruth coming back to post here again... Can anyone blame her?


----------



## had8ley (Mar 31, 2009)

AlanB said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


I think our host, Alan, is doing an excellent job of handling this topic. It has brought out some very interesting view points. Sure, he could shut it down but the foamers would find someone else to pounce on.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 31, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> It only became too much when *the staff arbitrarily decided *to cancel a provided service.


[[citation needed]]

It sounds to me like there may have been a darn good reason that checked baggage wasn't available. Do you know something that we don't?

As far as Ms. Ruth not returning, do you honestly think that she ever intended to?


----------



## VentureForth (Mar 31, 2009)

In reference to my previous posts, it certainly wasn't arbitrary. Whatever the reason, the lack of a backup plan, or the failure of a backup plan created the perception to anyone inconvenienced that it was arbitrary.

In my most humble opinion, there should never be a darn good reason why an advertised service is not offered. When a paper slip is taped to a window and the adult in charge doesn't seem to care to explain the whys, it would seem to the average traveller that it was, indeed, arbitrary.

Do I know the whole story? Certainly not. However, my personal experience with Amtrak would lend me to give her the benefit of the doubt. Amtrak is NOT great for first timers. To get the most out of a long distance Amtrak trip, it is beneficial to be experienced.

As for Ms. Ruth, who knows? We've had previous one-posters come back and slam the flamers that attack them and seem to be insensitive towards their plight. I'm sure when she got to post #13, she said something like "Just forget it. Sheesh. Y'all must work for them..."


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 31, 2009)

She didn't read a damn one of our posts, just forget her. She didn't really care-- we're #1 on "Amtrak forums" and #3 on "Amtrak complaints". She complained, we argued, some of us patronized her some of us rubbed salt in her (apparently deep) wounds.


----------



## Tony (Mar 31, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> She complained, we argued, some of us patronized her some of us rubbed salt in her (apparently deep) wounds.


But wasn't it a fun "ride"? 

IMHO, a good debate fueled with a lot of truthful passion by all, can be quite invigorating.


----------



## MrFSS (Mar 31, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> She didn't read a damn one of our posts . . .



Oh -she may have been back and read some, but didn't respond for fear of what would be said next!


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 31, 2009)

MrFSS said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > She didn't read a damn one of our posts . . .
> ...


Oh right-- make her the victim. After all mean nasty Amtrak traumatized her for life and now all we do is make sure she sends herself to a psych ward!! Where do you people get off on treating crocodile tears with honey?

She made a stupid post that showed her wrathful side and left. If ANYBODY is the victim of any sort of "bad force" here it is our little community who had to put up with reading that disgusting pity-post that SHOULD have been destined for Amtrak Customer Relations NOT Amtrak Unlimited.


----------



## Upstate (Mar 31, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> Some people expect everything to work as advertised,all the time and just fly off on one when it doesn't. Life ain't like that, especially on the railway!


Sometimes things don't work, but when folks at least put forth some effort to show that they are trying then people don't feel like they are being blown off. If you advertise something as a service it should be taken seriously as a reason why people use the service. If they don't want to take it seriously then they need to put an asterisk after checked baggage service and say "only when everything is working 100 percent".

When an airline messes up my luggage they put it in a taxi and deliver it to my house. When this happens things didn't work as advertised, but they do what they need to do to get the job done.


----------



## frj1983 (Mar 31, 2009)

AlanB said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > This sounds like healthy disagreement, which has morphed into a fascinating conversation about very many interesting things - part of what makes this site great.
> ...


My point exactly Alan,

despite the banner at the top of the page stating we have no connection with Amtrak, I believe many visitors don't see it, or don't believe it (it has Amtrak in it's name so it MUST be connected).

I don't mind people venting here as it offers me the opprtunity to hear and learn from others. I would have had no idea that Amtrak's computer system was down that day and that there was trouble in other places as well! I still think Amtrak (and Metra which I ride regularly) do a poor job when faced with mechanical or other problems. Do they have anyone on their Staff who ever ask the question: What do we do if X happens and how do we handle it? it doesn't sound like they do and thus wing it, leading to gigantic service boondoggles! :huh:


----------



## MrFSS (Mar 31, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> . . . that SHOULD have been destined for Amtrak Customer Relations NOT Amtrak Unlimited.


And, you'd be amazed at the number of people who post here, usually as a guest, thinking this is Amtrak.


----------



## sky12065 (Mar 31, 2009)

MrFSS said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > She didn't read a damn one of our posts . . .
> ...


I've thought exactly the same thing! But frankly I didn't say it because I felt that it would have been an exercise in futility to... well, do I really need to say more? You saw the reaction to your statement!


----------



## sky12065 (Mar 31, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> She didn't read a damn one of our posts, just forget her. She didn't really care-- we're #1 on "Amtrak forums" and #3 on "Amtrak complaints". She complained, we argued, some of us patronized her some of us rubbed salt in her (apparently deep) wounds.


You're probably correct here, but would it have hurt you to have included IMO, IMHO or the word "probably" in expressing your opinions instead of presenting opinions as absolute fact? IMO, if you had you might not have come across as being so dogmatic!


----------



## Everydaymatters (Mar 31, 2009)

This entire topic seems to show the separation between the older (in age) forum members who understand and are compassionate about the frailities of health and aging and the younger ones who compare problems with luggage to carrying school books to the school bus (OMG!)

I doubt that Ruth or anyone else would write what she did if they were young and healthy.

Maybe Ruth has been reading this, and as others have implied, is now too intimidated to add further details. I certainly wouldn't put myself out there for more of the same.


----------



## sunchaser (Mar 31, 2009)

Everydaymatters said:


> This entire topic seems to show the separation between the older (in age) forum members who understand and are compassionate about the frailities of health and aging and the younger ones who compare problems with luggage to carrying school books to the school bus (OMG!)
> I doubt that Ruth or anyone else would write what she did if they were young and healthy.
> 
> Maybe Ruth has been reading this, and as others have implied, is now too intimidated to add further details. I certainly wouldn't put myself out there for more of the same.


Interesting observation. I would add, though it really depends on the person. So people at first reading of her comments may feel bad for her. Then after reading again, may feel another way. I actually read it over several times before responding, trying to get more info out of it. I felt bad for her originally, but then after reading again, it didn't pass the smell test. There must be more that she did not include. Or something else. If there had been more detail, or more posts from her, I would be able to tell if it truly was a major thing for her or if she is normally one who complains. Again, not picking on her, but knowing that there are people out there that look for things to complain about, makes me wonder.

I for one am a little older, but have always been the 'little mother' even as a child. So I'm not sure if there is an age separation on this subject. But anything is possible.


----------



## RRrich (Mar 31, 2009)

Everydaymatters said:


> This entire topic seems to show the separation between the older (in age) forum members who understand and are compassionate about the frailities of health and aging and the younger ones who compare problems with luggage to carrying school books to the school bus (OMG!)
> I doubt that Ruth or anyone else would write what she did if they were young and healthy.
> 
> Maybe Ruth has been reading this, and as others have implied, is now too intimidated to add further details. I certainly wouldn't put myself out there for more of the same.


I guess I (and wifey) are in the old [email protected] camp. I looked at the pic of the stairs and thought that if wifey had to cope with them, we would be SOL - luggage is not an issue. If the elevator is not available, we can't ride the train out of that station.

A member here contacted me and suggested that if wifey has such problems, I should inform Amtrak in advance that if the expected service is not available then we will have MAJOR problems. Thanks Pal.


----------



## sky12065 (Mar 31, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> Everydaymatters said:
> 
> 
> > This entire topic seems to show the separation between the older (in age) forum members who understand and are compassionate about the frailities of health and aging and the younger ones who compare problems with luggage to carrying school books to the school bus (OMG!)
> ...


Sunchaser,

I have to agree with Everydaymatters!

Most things in life are not absolute, but I do see more of a tendency for younger people to be less understanding or compassionate especially when they have yet to experience the effects of growing older and/or becoming disabled. At the same time we older people need to keep in mind that we may not have been any different when we were younger!

But this lacking is not exclusive to the young alone. There are still some older folks that still don't get it and quite possibly never will!


----------



## MrFSS (Mar 31, 2009)

sky12065 said:


> Most things in life are not absolute, but I do see more of a tendency for younger people to be less understanding or compassionate especially when they have yet to experience the effects of growing older and/or becoming disabled. At the same time we older people need to keep in mind that we may not have been any different when we were younger!
> But this lacking is not exclusive to the young alone. There are still some older folks that still don't get it and quite possibly never will!


"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

-- *Mark Twain*


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 31, 2009)

A. Ruth never said she was older. Her post doesn't indicate her age

B. I have compassion for those in need, not genuine fools.

C. Ruth's maturity level, as indicated by her post, is one that demonstrates a childish understanding of the world.

D. Her post was in a boisterous melodramatic tone, I HARDLY think that she'd be scared of us.

You people are playing into her childish need to get attention and sympathy where she deserves none. If she can present herself in a logical adult manner then I will offer compassion. Until then, I think she's a childish fool and deserves critique and not sympathy.

And E. I really hate when YOU judge me to be non-compassionate because I am young. I am a very generous and kind person, I just don't offer it to those who have brought drama unto themselves. I ascribe to "if you dug your grave... lie in it" and I will even help shovel you in.


----------



## wayman (Mar 31, 2009)

mercedeslove said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > mercedeslove said:
> ...


I've recently discovered some SEPTA-related blogs which mostly post stories of snafus and screwups submitted by readers (basically, all-vent, all-the-time, with some amount of constructive criticism). Pretty funny, because they're things that every regular SEPTA rider is familiar with, but it's a very different character than this board. http://www.septafail.com for example (which even by its name gives you a sense of where it goes!).

But nothing so dramatic as mercedeslove's humorous example  And none of it's name-calling or trolling or other examples of bad behavior.

So I guess where I'm going is that venting and posting the bad experiences can both be positive for a forum, and while they're somewhat different things, they're similar in that they can both lead to greater awareness of problems and constructive suggestions both with how riders can cope with them and with how the company could change to correct them. And as such neither should be squashed initially. If the comments go in a bad direction, that's different, but that could happen to _any_ thread. I'm glad this board is moderated in the way that it is.


----------



## Neil_M (Mar 31, 2009)

How many times has the particular scenario happened to someone other than the first poster?

Seems to be a lot of 'what ifs and whens' but if this is a one off or very very rare then why is everyone getting overexcited if they haven't personally experienced it?

Lots of stuff can go wrong, I imagine getting kicked off the train in the middle of the night onto a bus is not nice, (and that's the worst case scenario for me, apart from the diner running out of food!)

Anyone can create a worse case scenario, but that don't mean its going to happen!


----------



## Ryan (Mar 31, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> A. Ruth never said she was older. Her post doesn't indicate her age
> B. I have compassion for those in need, not genuine fools.
> 
> C. Ruth's maturity level, as indicated by her post, is one that demonstrates a childish understanding of the world.
> ...


As a young person who routinely help tourists (or others headed for the airport) load their bags from the low platforms, I couldn't agree more. Sweeping generalizations about young people are about as accurate as sweeping generalizations that old people should just stay home if they're too feeble to get around without assistance (which is to say, not correct at all, and equally offensive).


----------



## wayman (Mar 31, 2009)

sky12065 said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Everydaymatters said:
> ...


I've mostly tried to stay out of this thread as far as those discussions have gone, but I'll chime in here briefly.

I consider myself in the younger-member section, but I'm certainly aware of the issues of age, health, and disability. In college I had several friends with serious health issues or mobility issues, at least three of whom walked with canes and one who used a wheelchair most of the time--by their twenties. Another friend went from fully sighted to almost completely blind during the four years we were in college together. Perhaps my experiences are highly unusual in that regard. So I learned firsthand how to try to be accommodating--which means both how to help out _and_ how to respect the many things my friends can still do perfectly well on their own, appearances to the contrary. The first lesson to learn is that you need to be aware of everyone's situation; but the second, and almost the harder lesson, is that you shouldn't assume anything (such as, that someone always needs assistance), because that can be annoying or even insulting!

With regards to the original poster's situation, it means that I would be hesitant to immediately offer to carry her bags, unless it was evident she was having extreme difficulty with them. Since we have no idea how she comported herself in Birmingham, I really can't say how I would have handled the situation personally. It does sound like she may have been asking for assistance, though, and if that were the case I would have tried to help. But if she were being passive-aggressive about it--waiting to be asked if she needed help, rather than seeking it in any way--I might well have assumed she preferred not to be asked because she preferred her independence, and thus stayed away... and if she then later complained, I would feel upset with her behavior.

As it is, there are so many details we'll never know about what actually happened in this particular situation that I do not want to pass any sort of judgment on the actions of either the original poster or her fellow travelers. And given what has come to light about Amtrak's situation on that day, I find it hard to fault the ticket agent who was working in Birmingham. Perhaps he could have done differently, but if he were really working solo that day _and_ having to cope with a situation perhaps beyond anything he'd encountered in his time with Amtrak--perhaps even including dealing with complex and contradictory instructions from Amtrak's offices, the Crescent's conductor, and the rulebook--I can't fault him either. Maybe Amtrak should have had extra board available; maybe they normally do but on that particular day they couldn't bring a second person to Birmingham for some reason. Maybe the elevator worked, maybe it was broken. We'll never know.

The only absolutely crystal clear undeniable fault, in my opinion, lies with the architecture of the Birmingham station! Everything else in this situation is too unclear.


----------



## VentureForth (Mar 31, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Blah blah blah...


I thought you wanted this thread closed, but you're doing a great job keeping it live! 

I don't think ANYONE posts here thinking this is Amtrak. None of the OP had any of the pronouns (ie: YOU, You're Company, etc) to indicate such. One poster about a year ago or so DID call us here Amtrak but later explained that she simply copied and pasted an email to Amtrak to the forums here.

I appreciate AlanB allowing us to discuss the merits of customer service as weighed against expectations here. If any company not subsidized by the US Government to the tune of half it's budget annually was run the Amtrak is run, it would be gone forever. That's my opinion.

We generally talk about several aspects of Amtrak here: Experience on Amtrak, Routes that need to be restarted, Routes that need to be improved and frequencies increased, and Government's Role (though NO ONE here seems to like politics, it's all the rave).


----------



## Everydaymatters (Mar 31, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> A. Ruth never said she was older. Her post doesn't indicate her age
> B. I have compassion for those in need, not genuine fools.
> 
> C. Ruth's maturity level, as indicated by her post, is one that demonstrates a childish understanding of the world.
> ...


I rest my case.


----------



## sky12065 (Mar 31, 2009)

wayman said:


> I consider myself in the younger-member section, but I'm certainly aware of the issues of age, health, and disability. In college I had several friends with serious health issues or mobility issues, at least three of whom walked with canes and one who used a wheelchair most of the time--by their twenties. Another friend went from fully sighted to almost completely blind during the four years we were in college together. Perhaps my experiences are highly unusual in that regard. So I learned firsthand how to try to be accommodating--which means both how to help out _and_ how to respect the many things my friends can still do perfectly well on their own, appearances to the contrary. The first lesson to learn is that you need to be aware of everyone's situation; but the second, and almost the harder lesson, is that you shouldn't assume anything (such as, that someone always needs assistance), because that can be annoying or even insulting!
> With regards to the original poster's situation, it means that I would be hesitant to immediately offer to carry her bags, unless it was evident she was having extreme difficulty with them. Since we have no idea how she comported herself in Birmingham, I really can't say how I would have handled the situation personally. It does sound like she may have been asking for assistance, though, and if that were the case I would have tried to help. But if she were being passive-aggressive about it--waiting to be asked if she needed help, rather than seeking it in any way--I might well have assumed she preferred not to be asked because she preferred her independence, and thus stayed away... and if she then later complained, I would feel upset with her behavior.
> 
> As it is, there are so many details we'll never know about what actually happened in this particular situation that I do not want to pass any sort of judgment on the actions of either the original poster or her fellow travelers. And given what has come to light about Amtrak's situation on that day, I find it hard to fault the ticket agent who was working in Birmingham. Perhaps he could have done differently, but if he were really working solo that day _and_ having to cope with a situation perhaps beyond anything he'd encountered in his time with Amtrak--perhaps even including dealing with complex and contradictory instructions from Amtrak's offices, the Crescent's conductor, and the rulebook--I can't fault him either. Maybe Amtrak should have had extra board available; maybe they normally do but on that particular day they couldn't bring a second person to Birmingham for some reason. Maybe the elevator worked, maybe it was broken. We'll never know.
> ...


Wayman,

This was a very good, well thought out posting. In part it is what I've been trying to say all along.

One thing I may mildly disagree with is where you stated:

_"It does sound like she may have been asking for assistance, though, and if that were the case I would have tried to help. __*But if she were being passive-aggressive about it--waiting to be asked if she needed help, rather than seeking it in any way--I might well have assumed she preferred not to be asked because she preferred her independence, and thus stayed away*__... and if she then later complained, I would feel upset with her behavior."_

I've been in situations where I needed help, assistance or a favor and have been either too timid, apprehensive or just plain embarrassed to ask! Was I too independent to ask? No! It was more about not wanting to be in a position of or feeling bad about inconveniencing others. You may also look at it, and rightfully so as a case of pride on my part, but one thing it definitely was not was a case of independence. But not matter how you look at it, I speak only for myself and not the OP or anyone else in similar situations!


----------



## sky12065 (Mar 31, 2009)

Everydaymatters said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > A. Ruth never said she was older. Her post doesn't indicate her age
> ...


EDM, If you win your case, I'll betch'ya it'll be taken to a higher court! :lol:


----------



## Tony (Mar 31, 2009)

sky12065 said:


> Wayman,
> This was a very good, well thought out posting. In part it is what I've been trying to say all along.
> 
> One thing I may mildly disagree with is where you stated:
> ...


At least for me, I would have to say it all depends.

IMHO, part of the equation would be that being a fellow passenger, I would probably be aware of some problem (Luggage guy didn't show up for work, elevator not working, etc). So, that strongly temper my judgement and actions.

Now, given that, if I saw a timid 90yo lady struggling to get her carry-on bag up the two flights of stairs, I would definitely step up and offer to help.

However, if I saw a 22yo man, with six-pack abs, struggling to get his carry-on bag (obviously, filled with his dumbbell weight sets) up the two flights of stairs, I would completely ignore him. Yea, there might be some unobvious other reason he might have that's stairs would pose a problem (artificial legs?), but if that was true, he better get use to asking for help.


----------



## sunchaser (Mar 31, 2009)

Tony said:


> sky12065 said:
> 
> 
> > Wayman,
> ...


I'm going to go out on a limb here by stating that, regardless of age, most of us would offer help to someone who looks like they could use it.

I do include those that are younger, because I know people of all ages, young & old, and the even the teenagers I know would offer help. So that's why her post was odd to me. There's bound to be at least one person that will help. Maybe I'm too optomistic in this area, it's just what I have seen over the years.


----------



## tp49 (Mar 31, 2009)

A lot of folks raise interesting points and I'd like to hit some of them in kind. Mind you I love playing devil's advocate.



VentureForth said:


> In reference to my previous posts, it certainly wasn't arbitrary. Whatever the reason, the lack of a backup plan, or the failure of a backup plan created the perception to anyone inconvenienced that it was arbitrary.
> In my most humble opinion, there should never be a darn good reason why an advertised service is not offered. When a paper slip is taped to a window and the adult in charge doesn't seem to care to explain the whys, it would seem to the average traveller that it was, indeed, arbitrary.


As OBS stated in his post there is one person on the extra board to cover an area from Birmingham to Meridian, Mississippi. If the extra board worker was in Meridian it's a two to two and a half hour trip to get that person from Meridian to Birmingham to cover for the missing person at Birmingham not withstanding the southbound train. If the extra board person was in Tuscaloosa that's at minimum an hour drive to Birmingham again notwithstanding having to work the southbound train at TCL. In theroy, they might have been able to pull someone from Atlanta but even then it's a two and half to three hour drive to Birmingham from Atlanta.

Maybe given the coverage area there should be another person on the extra board from Birmingham to Meridian.



sunchaser said:


> Everydaymatters said:
> 
> 
> > This entire topic seems to show the separation between the older (in age) forum members who understand and are compassionate about the frailities of health and aging and the younger ones who compare problems with luggage to carrying school books to the school bus (OMG!)
> ...


EDM before you paint all of us younger people with a wide brush understand this I have arthritis in my shoulder and knee and it affects my mobility. I manage to do what I have to just fine but I'm apainfully aware of mobility problems. It's funny though in an ironic way as my grandparents were able bodied and healthy but loved to complain about everything and I do mean _*everything*_. When I first read the original post it reminded me of them. Second, I believe the books to the bus thing you are refrencing was intended as a joke by the person who wrote it and yes I laughed at it because it seemed to me to be meant to lighten the mood.

I agree with you sunchaser. I read Ruth's post several times before I responded to it. I had the same reaction to it that you did. I would have liked to see more details from what occurred. If she would have said "I have health/mobility issues" having been a member of this community (AU) for almost seven years now I believe the response would have been more compassionate from the beginning than it was.



sky12065 said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > With regards to the original poster's situation, it means that I would be hesitant to immediately offer to carry her bags, unless it was evident she was having extreme difficulty with them. Since we have no idea how she comported herself in Birmingham, I really can't say how I would have handled the situation personally. It does sound like she may have been asking for assistance, though, and if that were the case I would have tried to help. But if she were being passive-aggressive about it--waiting to be asked if she needed help, rather than seeking it in any way--I might well have assumed she preferred not to be asked because she preferred her independence, and thus stayed away... and if she then later complained, I would feel upset with her behavior.
> ...


I agree with Wayman. His post is similar to my thoughts on the subject. As I've continuously said throughout the thread is that I would have liked to know more information. Without additional information there is no way to come to a logical conclusion and coming to a conclusion without all of the facts is dangerous.

Sky as for what you said, I can understand not wanting to inconvenience others but that's an unfair assumption you're making. I also understand it is an issue of pride. However, how is someone going to know that a person needs assistance unless they ask? Worst case scenario is that the person says no but then you'd ask another. Unless Kreskin is in the room people are not mind readers and considering how litigious our society has become people are apt to not want to get involved. A hypothetical would be say Ruth asked a young man if he could help her carry her bag to the platform and the young man says "sure, no problem." As he lifts the suitcase up the handle breaks and the bag falls onto Ruth's foot breaking her foot. Ruth then sues him and wins. Now this person who was just trying to help and do the right thing is on the hook for money. When you hear about situations like that it makes people not want to be helpful for fear of being sued. I know this isn't anything that was stated but I'm putting it out there for consideration.

I generally follow the rule my mother told me when I was a child. If you need help ask for it. If you ask and the person is a jerk about it that's on them it has nothing to do with you.



sunchaser said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here by stating that, regardless of age, most of us would offer help to someone who looks like they could use it.
> I do include those that are younger, because I know people of all ages, young & old, and the even the teenagers I know would offer help. So that's why her post was odd to me. There's bound to be at least one person that will help. Maybe I'm too optomistic in this area, it's just what I have seen over the years.


In the end I agree wholehartedly with this. While our society has its issues I don't think we've been reduced to being total barbarians at least not yet.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Mar 31, 2009)

tp49 said:


> EDM before you paint all of us younger people with a wide brush understand this I have arthritis in my shoulder and knee and it affects my mobility. I manage to do what I have to just fine but I'm apainfully aware of mobility problems. It's funny though in an ironic way as my grandparents were able bodied and healthy but loved to complain about everything and I do mean _*everything*_. When I first read the original post it reminded me of them. Second, I believe the books to the bus thing you are refrencing was intended as a joke by the person who wrote it and yes I laughed at it because it seemed to me to be meant to lighten the mood.


I didn't intend to paint all younger people with a wide brush. It was a general statement that there is a general separation in age as to attitudes. You and Wayman and others, young and old, made some very good points.

I felt the school books commentary was a sick joke and insensitive.

And to be told " I will even help shovel you in", well that must have been written by a very young person.

This whole topic seems to have brought out some of the best and some of the worst in people.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 31, 2009)

Yet you continue to paint with a broad brush when you make statements like "must have been written by a young person".

I won't speak for ALC, but given his posts (in this topic and others) I suspect that him and I are very much alike in not suffering fools well. Prove yourself a decent person worth helping, and I'll go to the end of the road helping you out. However, attempt to take advantage, not play fair or at least try to pull your own weight, and not only will I cease to help you (lie in the grave that you've dug for yourself), but make sure that you get what's coming to you (help shovel you in). That's hardly a youthful attribute at all, in my experience age has no bearing on whether folks ascribe to that attitude or take a more "hands off" approach.

But, it's clear that you're stuck in the "youth == bad" and "age == good" paradigm, even by your comments in this most recent post. I wouldn't say that this has "brought out" the best/worst in anyone, but merely made it easier to see what's been there all along. No value judgment required.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 31, 2009)

Everydaymatters said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > EDM before you paint all of us younger people with a wide brush understand this I have arthritis in my shoulder and knee and it affects my mobility. I manage to do what I have to just fine but I'm apainfully aware of mobility problems. It's funny though in an ironic way as my grandparents were able bodied and healthy but loved to complain about everything and I do mean _*everything*_. When I first read the original post it reminded me of them. Second, I believe the books to the bus thing you are refrencing was intended as a joke by the person who wrote it and yes I laughed at it because it seemed to me to be meant to lighten the mood.
> ...


Haha, well you certainly don't show your age when you quote me as "blah blah blah" which, by the way, shows me that you didn't bother reading the posts I make-- which demonstrates a rather ineffective view towards the world.

Because if you had actually bothered to read my post you would realize that what I say has logical sense. By acting the way you are you encourage people to create drama-filled situations in order to garner your sympathy. That would make somebody a tool. Are you a tool? I hope not. But certainly people must use you if you allow them to dig their own graves and then beg and plead to help them out.

I'll say it again:

I have NO (NONE, ZERO, NADA) sympathy for somebody who knowingly creates their own disfunction. Your mess is your mess, not mine. Somebody (many people) at that station were subjected to an unfortunate circumstance which should have passed. Instead we have a rant here by a person who decided to make her own situation even worse and then complain about it-- then people on this board have the nerve to make the situation even worse than she made it by offering her sympathy and genuine compassion for her "trauma".

Getting shot is a trauma.

Getting raped is a trauma.

Lord knows thousands of rapes happen every day, thousands of people are murdered every month, there are soldiers with shell shock and people who have lost their retirement thanks to a guy named Madoff. THAT IS TRAUMA.

If you, any of you by any and all strands of thought knowingly SUPPORT this woman's claim to trauma then you are doing an injustice to the suffering of people who actually have things in this world to complain about but silently take it-- YOU are allowing behavior that knowingly preys upon your emotions and insults the actual suffering of other people.

I feel compassion, guilt, sadness, the whole run of emotions on a daily basis to people who suffer because of external forces. None of you have the right to accuse me of not being empathetic-- and if we're talking about what's brought out the worst in some people I think we've seen it. We've seen several people offer genuine pity to a histrionic ranter and then dehumanize somebody who logically dissects the situation.

Grow up. ALL of you.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 31, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Yet you continue to paint with a broad brush when you make statements like "must have been written by a young person".
> I won't speak for ALC, but given his posts (in this topic and others) I suspect that him and I are very much alike in not suffering fools well. Prove yourself a decent person worth helping, and I'll go to the end of the road helping you out. However, attempt to take advantage, not play fair or at least try to pull your own weight, and not only will I cease to help you (lie in the grave that you've dug for yourself), but make sure that you get what's coming to you (help shovel you in). That's hardly a youthful attribute at all, in my experience age has no bearing on whether folks ascribe to that attitude or take a more "hands off" approach.
> 
> But, it's clear that you're stuck in the "youth == bad" and "age == good" paradigm, even by your comments in this most recent post. I wouldn't say that this has "brought out" the best/worst in anyone, but merely made it easier to see what's been there all along. No value judgment required.


Thank you, could not have said it better myself-- I give you credit for putting it the best way possible, something I have failed at apparently.

Do not suffer the fools.

Right on-- never let the fools distract you from the real issues we all have to face...


----------



## JayPea (Mar 31, 2009)

Adding to the hubbub: I once worked for an old goat (which is actually insulting to goats) who in his rantings and ravings always started off with "You young people...." I was a younger person then and grew to resent his rantings about the young. I couldn't help being born when I was. Now that I am 49, I'd be flattered to be lumped in with young people!!!! :lol:

With this situation, I have never been in a situation where NO ONE offered to help. Not saying it didn't happen, I've just never seen it. It sounds as if things weren't up to working order at Birmingham. And checked luggage was promised there. I might have asked the reason for it, in a kind way. If I got my head bitten off for asking, that's THEIR problem, not mine. Without more details, it sure sounds like things could have been handled better.

Regarding accepting poor service: I certainly wouldn't accept it as is. I'd make sure to let Amtrak know about it. But I'm not sure throwing a fit right on the spot, as tempting as it might be, would do any good other than to elevate one's blood pressure. And make the problem worse. Best to count to 10 (or 100, or 1,000), cool off, and THEN let Amtrak know when you got back from your trip of the problems.

I don't know whether Ruth was giving an honest report, or if she was just ranting about a situation and made it sound worse than it was ,or what the deal was. I think if it were me I'd want to come back on here and clear up some misunderstandings. But that's me.

Bottom line: I wouldn't rush to judge ANYTHING without all the facts. And that includes the ages of posters here.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 31, 2009)

> Adding to the hubbub: I once worked for an old goat (which is actually insulting to goats) who in his rantings and ravings always started off with "You young people...." I was a younger person then and grew to resent his rantings about the young. I couldn't help being born when I was. Now that I am 49, I'd be flattered to be lumped in with young people!!!!


Age is just a number, gender is just a letter, race is just a word... Silly things we say "define" us that actually don't make us who we are.

We're individuals, judged on an individual basis by other individuals. It's sad when age, sex, and race and such are all that matter to some people-- it isn't traumatizing or something to take cause against, it is just society. But society can be disheartening.

You can express disheartening or sadness or anger, just leave the histrionics at home. Save the drama... for the stage.


----------



## Godwin (Mar 31, 2009)

this thread sure is getting long.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 31, 2009)

Has anyone noticed that the woman has not come back to say anything? This was a simple drive by posting.

I agree with ALC Rail Writer completely on Trama. Being inconvenienced, even missing your train is NOT Trauma. It does not matter whether you are male female, 5 25, 55, 95 or something in between what happened does not rise anywhere close to trauma. If you think it does, you have some serious mental dysfunction.

We have given this Drama Queen 9 pages of satisfaction. It is time for it to stop, and in fact deleting the thread seems like a good idea to me.


----------



## sunchaser (Mar 31, 2009)

George Harris said:


> Has anyone noticed that the woman has not come back to say anything? This was a simple drive by posting.
> I agree with ALC Rail Rider completely on Trama. Being inconvenienced, even missing your train is NOT Trauma. It does not matter whether you are male female, 5 25, 55, 95 or something in between what happened does not rise anywhere close to trauma. If you think it does, you have some serious mental dysfunction.
> 
> We have given this Drama Queen 9 pages of satisfaction. It is time for it to stop, and in fact deleting the thread seems like a good idea to me.


I was noticing that this thread is really getting long as well.

I do not think we are giving her any satisfaction, however. She may have been a drive by. Doesn't matter to me. I do think that is important that we discuss helping each other out, and the best way to do that. She got her voucher. I get the feeling she expected much more, and that's why she got on here to complain. But I do think this thread probably needs to be put to bed.


----------



## Alice (Mar 31, 2009)

George Harris said:


> We have given this Drama Queen 9 pages of satisfaction. It is time for it to stop, and in fact deleting the thread seems like a good idea to me.


I'm against deleting this thread. The discussion has covered a lot of territory, most of it interesting. At this point, the intentions and comportment of the OP are irrelevant to the value of the posts.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 31, 2009)

George Harris said:


> Has anyone noticed that the woman has not come back to say anything? This was a simple drive by posting.
> I agree with ALC Rail Rider completely on Trama. Being inconvenienced, even missing your train is NOT Trauma. It does not matter whether you are male female, 5 25, 55, 95 or something in between what happened does not rise anywhere close to trauma. If you think it does, you have some serious mental dysfunction.
> 
> We have given this Drama Queen 9 pages of satisfaction. It is time for it to stop, and in fact deleting the thread seems like a good idea to me.


I think by further discussion we are only not only giving her more time on the stage, but encouraging others to come here and do the same thing which is disruptive to our community. I will move once again to have this topic locked-- In PM.

EDIT::

Its ALC Rail Writer... I write poems about trains, though, both are flattering. I thank you George.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 31, 2009)

Alice said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > We have given this Drama Queen 9 pages of satisfaction. It is time for it to stop, and in fact deleting the thread seems like a good idea to me.
> ...


I heartily agree. It isn't about Ruth, it's about us.

(and I'm only on page 5)


----------



## George Harris (Mar 31, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Its ALC Rail Writer... I write poems about trains, though, both are flattering. I thank you Bill.


Oops. I will go back and edit my original.

George


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 31, 2009)

George Harris said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Its ALC Rail Writer... I write poems about trains, though, both are flattering. I thank you Bill.
> ...


Heh, no worries my friend George... I'll do the same.


----------



## tp49 (Mar 31, 2009)

Alice said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > We have given this Drama Queen 9 pages of satisfaction. It is time for it to stop, and in fact deleting the thread seems like a good idea to me.
> ...


Agreed. Besides, if the moderators or admin wanted to kill the thread they already would have. Don't like it, don't read it.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Mar 31, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> gender is just a letter


Not everyone considers their gender to be straightforwardly male or female, in which case a single letter isn't sufficient to express it.


----------



## mercedeslove (Mar 31, 2009)

ALC for the win in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...



> I have NO (NONE, ZERO, NADA) sympathy for somebody who knowingly creates their own disfunction. Your mess is your mess, not mine. Somebody (many people) at that station were subjected to an unfortunate circumstance which should have passed. Instead we have a rant here by a person who decided to make her own situation even worse and then complain about it-- then people on this board have the nerve to make the situation even worse than she made it by offering her sympathy and genuine compassion for her "trauma".
> Getting shot is a trauma.
> 
> Getting raped is a trauma.


the OP needs to be on failblog.org

and for what its worth don't remove this post. Not only is there useful information in it, but it's highly amusing. I love wank on the internets!


----------



## mercedeslove (Mar 31, 2009)

George Harris said:


> Has anyone noticed that the woman has not come back to say anything? This was a simple drive by posting.
> I agree with ALC Rail Writer completely on Trama. Being inconvenienced, even missing your train is NOT Trauma. It does not matter whether you are male female, 5 25, 55, 95 or something in between what happened does not rise anywhere close to trauma. If you think it does, you have some serious mental dysfunction.
> 
> We have given this Drama Queen 9 pages of satisfaction. It is time for it to stop, and in fact deleting the thread seems like a good idea to me.



Probably because no one will carry the computer downstairs to the basement for her. Heavens for bid she should have to do it. It might cause her omgz trauma.

oh internets how I love you!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Mar 31, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> Some people expect everything to work as advertised,all the time and just fly off on one when it doesn't. Life ain't like that, especially on the railway!


I think every mode of transportation has its problems some of the time. I've had an engine fail in the middle of a thousand mile drive in an automobile. I've had an airline claim my flight was bustituted and then fail to provide me with adequate instructions as to where to actually find said bus (which maybe I can claim was a bus and airplane problem simultaneously). I think the only reasonable advice we can offer to people who can't tolerate the slightest risk that something might go wrong in their travels is to not travel at all.



Neil_M said:


> Some people seem to take too much luggage anyway, I always take what I can carry, any more than that is just a pain.


I've lately made a habit of walking for about ten mintes from my home to the subway on each trip, which provides a big incentive to limit what I'm bringing to what I can reasonably carry. I did take advantage of checked luggage on my last Amtrak trip, dropping off some luggage at South Station the day before my departure, and picking up some luggage the day after I returned, and getting help from my parents dealing with that extra luggage on the other end of my trip.

In the case of that missed bustitution trip I mentioned above, I was moving from Oahu to the Boston area, as well as moving out of my parents' home. I knew it was going to be a couple months before my parents would get all of our stuff to the mainland That was not a situation where traveling light would have been sensible (though I did limit myself to a backpack, a suitcase, and a cardboard box on the plane flight).


----------



## p&sr (Apr 1, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I've had an airline claim my flight was bustituted and then fail to provide me with adequate instructions as to where to actually find said bus (which maybe I can claim was a bus and airplane problem simultaneously).
> In the case of that missed bustitution trip I mentioned above, I was moving from Oahu to the Boston area, as well as moving out of my parents' home.


Bustituted out of Oahu! That must have been quite a Swim!


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 1, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > gender is just a letter
> ...


Way to totally miss the point of the post.

"gender is just a letter" is understatement by which I mean a letter is not sufficient to express the person behind it.

You should read a whole post and consider major themes before performing a deconstructionist analysis.


----------



## Chris J. (Apr 1, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I've lately made a habit of walking for about ten mintes from my home to the subway on each trip, which provides a big incentive to limit what I'm bringing to what I can reasonably carry. I did take advantage of checked luggage on my last Amtrak trip, dropping off some luggage at South Station the day before my departure, and picking up some luggage the day after I returned, and getting help from my parents dealing with that extra luggage on the other end of my trip.


A ten-minute walk with something fairy heavy is good at showing how much heavier it gets as you carry it!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 1, 2009)

p&sr said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > I've had an airline claim my flight was bustituted and then fail to provide me with adequate instructions as to where to actually find said bus (which maybe I can claim was a bus and airplane problem simultaneously).
> ...


The planes took me as far as Newark, NJ. Only my checked luggage made it to Hartford that day, though. (I was actually trying to get to Bridgeport that day.)


----------



## jackal (Apr 2, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> I think by further discussion we are only not only giving her more time on the stage, but encouraging others to come here and do the same thing which is disruptive to our community. I will move once again to have this topic locked-- In PM.


AlanB already indicated that it is not this board's policy to lock or delete threads which wander off topic as long as they do not get abusive.



AlanB said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > This sounds like healthy disagreement, which has morphed into a fascinating conversation about very many interesting things - part of what makes this site great.
> ...


I personally doubt the OP ever came back to read these responses: she didn't register, so she can't track it on her favorites, and I doubt she knew to bookmark the URL. If she came back to these forums looking for the replies, she won't find it: it's been buried along with the dozens of other threads that are added to each day--perhaps showing on page 2 or 3 of the thread listing (and I doubt she knew how to get to page 2 or 3).


----------



## Tony (Apr 2, 2009)

jackal said:


> If she came back to these forums looking for the replies, she won't find it: it's been buried along with the dozens of other threads that are added to each day--perhaps showing on page 2 or 3 of the thread listing (and I doubt she knew how to get to page 2 or 3).


Wow, for me, this thread has not only been on page 1 all along, but constantly near the top of page 1. Its been pretty lively debate.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 2, 2009)

jackal said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > I think by further discussion we are only not only giving her more time on the stage, but encouraging others to come here and do the same thing which is disruptive to our community. I will move once again to have this topic locked-- In PM.
> ...


ALC-Do you really think this thread or others like it are are disruptive? I know it sounds like a rude question, I don't mean it that way. What I've seen of this board is that sometimes there are disagreements, but overall the participants seem to get along fairly well. If we all had exactly the same opinion, we'd be pretty boring!  After some thought, maybe it should continue, because it seems to be a very active one. If her intention was to cause strife (that's a big if), it has failed miserably! If that were true, I think she would come back on and vent more to try to stir it up. I don't think she thought this board is part of Amtrak, I think she was complaining. She was trying to wrap it in a 'warning' so that it wouldn't look like she was complaining. If it had been just a warning, all she would have needed to say is 'be prepared to carry your own luggage as in this instance they had no checked on baggage'. Or she could have formed it in a question.

And it is ok to complain, but as I've said before I think she expected a lot more from Amtrak for the situation. And thats why she got on this board-to complain.


----------



## jackal (Apr 2, 2009)

Tony said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> > If she came back to these forums looking for the replies, she won't find it: it's been buried along with the dozens of other threads that are added to each day--perhaps showing on page 2 or 3 of the thread listing (and I doubt she knew how to get to page 2 or 3).
> ...


Er, duh. Forgot about the fact that replies bump it to the top. h34r:


----------



## supergrandmother (Apr 6, 2009)

I was in Birmingham station last week. There were about 6 people boarding north bound Crescent. I carried both my carryon and my granddaughter's carryon up the stairs. 5 year old granddaughter carried her backpack and the bags of peanuts we had purchased. The stairs are not bad. There are about 8 steps and a flat area, then about 8 more steps. I wouldn't really call it 2 flights. There are no Redcaps in Birmingham that I have ever seen, although there is a young man who hangs around the station and offers to carry luggage (for a tip, of course).


----------



## AlanB (May 11, 2009)

Not that I want to restart all of the lively debate and interesting twists and turns that this topic took, but I do have an update that I think important enough for everyone to know.

It would seem that Amtrak mounted an investigation of Ruth's incident in Birmingham. That investigation uncovered some unacceptable issues in this case. Out of that an employee has received formal discipline and the incident is now considered closed.

This would seem to confirm that Ruth was indeed telling the truth, even if some people felt that she was being a bit overly-dramatic, she certainly wasn’t lying. I have no idea if Ruth has been offered additional compensation because of this investigation, nor if she’s received any further apology or communication from Amtrak. And frankly if she has, it’s really up to her to come back and reveal said info if she wishes, since that is a private matter between her and Amtrak.

Finally, I have no idea just what “formal discipline” entails so please don’t bother asking as I just don’t know. I rather doubt that such details would ever be released anyhow, as details like that step over several lines of employee confidentiality.


----------



## Ryan (May 11, 2009)

Wow!

Do you know (or can you comment) if Amtrak became aware of this issue because of being posted here, or did Ruth's complaint to Amtrak get the ball rolling?

I'm curious as to the level to which Amtrak keeps an eye on postings here to look out for potential issues (if I were to own a business big enough to garner a message board about my product, I'd sure as heck want to keep tabs on what's being said about my product!).


----------



## the_traveler (May 11, 2009)

While there may be an Amtrak Lurker who looks in from time to time, I don't think anyone from Amtrak "keeps an eye on us" all the time!


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (May 11, 2009)

WOW  I'm shocked I saw this thread bumped up and I was like oh man not again but thats good news. Since this was a HUGE debate


----------



## MrFSS (May 11, 2009)

It shows that many times people jump to conclusions without all the facts and then it goes downhill from there. Not to say that every story we hear is true, but perhaps we need to be a bit more lenient in situations such as this.


----------



## VentureForth (May 11, 2009)

This is indeed refreshing news to know that Amtrak expects to provide advertised services and that heads will roll when those services can't be provided. Obviously we will probably never know the intricate details of the internal happenings here, but it certainly _seems_ that management is actually begining to be capable of managing.

An interesting show on CBS in 2007 was "Kid Nation". There was a saying that became quite common regarding one girl who seemed to be a spoiled brat and didn't care about the consequences of her actions or inactions. Her common statement was "Deal with it!"

Might work well for an 8 year old, but certainly not for a business that deals with customers.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 11, 2009)

the_traveler said:


> I don't think anyone from Amtrak "keeps an eye on us" all the time!


only if we're taking pictures of trains


----------



## had8ley (May 11, 2009)

Everydaymatters said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > EDM before you paint all of us younger people with a wide brush understand this I have arthritis in my shoulder and knee and it affects my mobility. I manage to do what I have to just fine but I'm apainfully aware of mobility problems. It's funny though in an ironic way as my grandparents were able bodied and healthy but loved to complain about everything and I do mean _*everything*_. When I first read the original post it reminded me of them. Second, I believe the books to the bus thing you are refrencing was intended as a joke by the person who wrote it and yes I laughed at it because it seemed to me to be meant to lighten the mood.
> ...


Age creates wisdom; youngsters just have to wait their turn...


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 11, 2009)

had8ley said:


> Everydaymatters said:
> 
> 
> > tp49 said:
> ...


Saying that... age must also produce a fleeting ignorance and an heir of superiority. <_<


----------



## caravanman (May 11, 2009)

I can't believe that the matter was resolved by Amtrak in favour of the original soul who was so upset.. After all, her complaints were held to be excessive by many members of this forum.

Do I hear any contrition?

Ed B)


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 11, 2009)

caravanman said:


> I can't believe that the matter was resolved by Amtrak in favour of the original soul who was so upset.. After all, her complaints were held to be excessive by many members of this forum. Do I hear any contrition?
> 
> Ed B)


None.

Anybody who yells enough into the earpiece of a customer service rep will get something done. Histrionics have a way of working like currency in this country.


----------



## caravanman (May 11, 2009)

I am going outside... I may be some time...

Ed B)


----------



## Ryan (May 11, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> caravanman said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe that the matter was resolved by Amtrak in favour of the original soul who was so upset.. After all, her complaints were held to be excessive by many members of this forum. Do I hear any contrition?
> ...


I concur. Not to mention, my general thrust was "we don't have the whole story", which we still don't. The fuss that this lady caused may well have made Amtrak take note of a guy not showing up for work, but that in no way provides any illumination as to the accuracy of the rest of her story or if the trauma she suffered was in any way comparable to her histrionic post.

Yet I'm sure that this will provide more fodder for the "jump to conclusions" crowd that we're just a bunch of young whippersnappers that don't know any better.


----------



## Everydaymatters (May 11, 2009)

I'm glad to find out that this was a real incident and not a convoluted rave and that Amtrak has taken steps it felt was necessary to prevent this from happening to another person who has problem navigating stairs, with or without luggage.

I'm joining Caravanman for a breath of fresh air.


----------



## AlanB (May 11, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> caravanman said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe that the matter was resolved by Amtrak in favour of the original soul who was so upset.. After all, her complaints were held to be excessive by many members of this forum. Do I hear any contrition?
> ...


I'm not at liberty to say much more than I've already said, and even then what I know is limited. That said, you're wrong ALC, sorry. Amtrak management was proactive on this one and it wasn't due to persistant calling or harrasment on the part of Ruth to anyone at Amtrak.


----------



## tp49 (May 11, 2009)

I'm figuring she probably gave the whole story to Amtrak management which would include facts omitted in her post. Management took what they felt was necessary action based on what she told them. I'm glad the issue was resolved I'm figuring to Ruth's satisfaction.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 11, 2009)

AlanB said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > caravanman said:
> ...


It still makes no difference Alan. I never doubted that *some* problem happened. What I doubt is the histrionic attitude these people take and then expect the world to cry for them. If they fixed a problem, good. We still don't know the full story much less whether or not Ruth herself, after spamming our boards and causing rifts that you just dug up again, actually made any difference in the matter.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 11, 2009)

tp49 said:


> I'm figuring she probably gave the whole story to Amtrak management which would include facts omitted in her post. Management took what they felt was necessary action based on what she told them. I'm glad the issue was resolved I'm figuring to Ruth's satisfaction.


That I can also buy. That she vented on here only discredits her story. If she had taken the proper attitude with us as she did with management, as you propose, then I would have sympathized with teh situation-- a lot of others would have too. If anybody wants to bother reading the old posts you'll find there was a constant theme in those made by us "beraters" and that was "strip off the damn drama and give us the facts."

If she did, she was successful. As it should be-- a mature adult handling a situation with respect.


----------



## AlanB (May 11, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Not to mention, my general thrust was "we don't have the whole story", which we still don't. The fuss that this lady caused may well have made Amtrak take note of a guy not showing up for work, but that in no way provides any illumination as to the accuracy of the rest of her story or if the trauma she suffered was in any way comparable to her histrionic post.


I won't deny that we don't know the full story, and quite frankly never will. Unless Ruth herself comes back here to further fill us in with the details of what precisely happened, as well as why it was so traumatic for her, we will never know. And perhaps that is as it should be; after all it did happen to Ruth and not us.

Either way based upon what I've learned, it is quite apparent that at least one Amtrak employee did do something wrong and/or otherwise failed to do his/her job that day in Birmingham. Amtrak would not have taken action if their investigation had turned up nothing other than a customer who thought that they were deserving of something more than what Amtrak promises to deliver.

The bottom line here is that at some level Amtrak failed to deliver what it promised to Ruth and other customers that day in BHM, and an Amtrak employee has been disciplined because of what they did or didn't do that day in BHM.


----------



## AlanB (May 11, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm figuring she probably gave the whole story to Amtrak management which would include facts omitted in her post. Management took what they felt was necessary action based on what she told them. I'm glad the issue was resolved I'm figuring to Ruth's satisfaction.
> ...


Guys, try to remember that Ruth was not the only person affected that day in BHM. She may have been the only one who came here to post something about it, but multiple passengers were affected by whatever happened that day in BHM to cause the no checked baggage situation. Ruth was not the only person denied baggage check that day.

I do not know if management contacted Ruth during their investigation, or any other passengers that were affected by the problem. I do know that Amtrak management found a problem with how customer service was handled that day in BHM, and that the investigation was not started because Ruth managed to get someone from management on the phone or via a letter or email.


----------



## mercedeslove (May 11, 2009)

Lets not all pick on the younger crowd. I am one of them, and at 30 years old carrying luggage should be easy for me but isn't. One I seriously hurt my neck when I was in my late teens, and it effected how I do things, and two I am rather tiny. I might be tall, but I am skinny so I do have the ''muskels" as I like to say. However if I had no choice but to carry my stuff I would, and I wouldn't create a scene or anything, like the OP did with this post. I know that sometimes in life things won't work just how they should I need to deal with it, it's just luggage and it was only a short period of time. If you understand what I am saying.

It would be different if the OP was say 85-years-old with a heart condition.

I am glad she got the matter resloved, however her post, the way it was written, and the reactions/comments to it. She had it coming. She didn't conduct herself nicely and brought it upon herself.


----------



## sunchaser (May 11, 2009)

AlanB said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > tp49 said:
> ...



At least Amtrak got to the bottom of the problem-whatever it was and dealt with it. We may never know all of what occured, but that does not matter. Based on the info Ruth supplied, it seems that the ball was dropped more than once.

There must have been others who contacted Amtrak about the situation.

It is good to know that Amtrak did step up to the task at hand. I hope the passengers involved had their concerns & complaints addressed & taken care of.


----------



## Everydaymatters (May 12, 2009)

The only drama I saw in Ruth's original post was: "I was in tears" and "Amtrak sent me a measly voucher for $25.00 which was an insult and a slap in the fact for the trauma that I went through at the Birmingham Amtrak Station. I am sending the voucher back to Amtrak."

The rest of her post was simply stating the situation as she saw it.

I don't understand how this could have escalated as it did. I hope that the next time someone comes to us to vent we'll be more willing to take that person at face value and overlook the emotions expressed by the poster.

We are a community of Amtrak patrons and one of our purposes is to help eachother, just as all of you were helped here at one time or another in one way or another.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 12, 2009)

If another person wants to come here to vent-- then I shall take them at face value.

A venter.


----------



## VentureForth (May 12, 2009)

Why not let folks vent here in peace?

90% of the folks that patron Amtrak are probably no where close to being railfans. That being said, expectations are what they are based on advertising and/or limited knowledge or information. In addition, expectations are set to a basic standard, ie: polite employees, clean facilities, and the availibilty of advertised goods and services. When those expectations are not met, it can be emotionally draining.

This morning, I was overcharged 30 cents at Wafflehouse. When I asked the server about it, she said she was right. I went ahead and paid, but showed her the menu where she was wrong. Didn't create a scene in front of the other customers. She didn't offer me my 30 cents back (nor did I ask for it), but I saw her adjust the ticket and pocket the change (with my regular grat for a $4 meal, she got a 50% tip). She will no longer ever wait on me.

I know I've mentioned this before, but when I asked my manager at Disney why he was cutting corners, he said that customer's expections were too high. I don't think that customer's expectations could ever be too high. What seems to be more likely is that employees efforts seem to be too low.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 12, 2009)

> I don't think that customer's expectations could ever be too high.


For the sake of all of us, careful what you wish for.


----------



## had8ley (May 12, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > Everydaymatters said:
> ...


No...it just gives us the right to the soap box via seniority


----------



## had8ley (May 12, 2009)

Everydaymatters said:


> The only drama I saw in Ruth's original post was: "I was in tears" and "Amtrak sent me a measly voucher for $25.00 which was an insult and a slap in the fact for the trauma that I went through at the Birmingham Amtrak Station. I am sending the voucher back to Amtrak."
> The rest of her post was simply stating the situation as she saw it.
> 
> I don't understand how this could have escalated as it did. I hope that the next time someone comes to us to vent we'll be more willing to take that person at face value and overlook the emotions expressed by the poster.
> ...


I think the one equation missing in most posts is attitude. Some Amtrak agents you would swear woke up in a dumpster while some pax act worse. Expressing one's self in a matter pleasing to everyone is very difficult. I don't condone ranting and raving ALL the time but neither do I tolerate employee incompetence ALL the time. There is a lot of it around~just read some of the Travelogues.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 12, 2009)

had8ley said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > had8ley said:
> ...


We need a NAYP to counter the NARP.

Grey dawn! Grey dawn!

h34r:


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (May 12, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> ...


Actually NARP has a youth membership program.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 12, 2009)

Long Train Runnin said:


> Actually NARP has a youth membership program.


Cloning for the future--


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (May 12, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Long Train Runnin said:
> 
> 
> > Actually NARP has a youth membership program.
> ...


Not at all. I say we all just let this topic sink back down to the far away pages.


----------



## DET63 (May 13, 2009)

I've read through a few pages of rants, counter-rants, debates, sidetracked discussions, and so on. I don't know how legitimate the complaints by the OP were; her apparent reluctance to come in and clarify what she was saying (was she _physically_ traumatized, such as being severely injured by having to drag her bags up the stairway, or was she simply _emotionally_ traumatized, perhaps merely fearing the possibility of bodily injury—or even that of missing her train?).

I know that Birmingham is a fairly large city (about 230,000 in 2007, according to Wikipedia), but given that it has only one train in each direction each day, how much passenger traffic does the station get? Is it justified in having more than one or two on staff at the station? If there were more frequent service, perhaps having three or more staff on at any one time (with two able to do the necessary work in a pinch) might make sense. My guess, however, is that a one-train-each-way-daily service simply means Amtrak would have to pay a lot of wages for little work under normal circumstances with a larger crew.

I know nothing of union contracts, regulations, etc., so I can't speculate as to whether other personnel who normally handle other tasks could have been pressed into service to help passengers.

If the picture of the stairway is of the one at the station, and the elevator was also out of service, then passengers with disabilities or needing mobility assistance might have some beef. If an unexpected incident (e.g., out-of-service elevator) makes an accessible station now inaccessible, does Amtrak have to compensate a passenger who now cannot get to (or from) the train? If so, how? I would assume such issues would be covered under ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) or similar legislation, but I'm not a legal expert.


----------



## AlanB (May 13, 2009)

Birmingham saw just shy of 37,000 passengers either boarding or disembarking there in 2008.


----------



## Alice (May 13, 2009)

DET63 said:


> If the picture of the stairway is of the one at the station, and the elevator was also out of service, then passengers with disabilities or needing mobility assistance might have some beef. If an unexpected incident (e.g., out-of-service elevator) makes an accessible station now inaccessible, does Amtrak have to compensate a passenger who now cannot get to (or from) the train? If so, how? I would assume such issues would be covered under ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) or similar legislation, but I'm not a legal expert.


One time I got a phone call that the bus I was going to be on didn't have a wheelchair lift so we'd have to find a workaround. I walk well enough to put the wheelchair under the bus in the luggage section and climb up the steps, and told him so, and he said OK but if I was wrong about this and needed help, I wouldn't be getting it from the driver and would be left behind. This is the Greyhound that runs Denver to Raton, and it never has a lift.


----------



## Everydaymatters (May 13, 2009)

Alice said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > If the picture of the stairway is of the one at the station, and the elevator was also out of service, then passengers with disabilities or needing mobility assistance might have some beef. If an unexpected incident (e.g., out-of-service elevator) makes an accessible station now inaccessible, does Amtrak have to compensate a passenger who now cannot get to (or from) the train? If so, how? I would assume such issues would be covered under ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) or similar legislation, but I'm not a legal expert.
> ...


Well that's nice! Just how far have we gone that the driver won't help a passenger. That's criminal! :angry:


----------



## Observer (May 13, 2009)

Everydaymatters said:


> Alice said:
> 
> 
> > DET63 said:
> ...


If the driver helps the passenger, and the passenger gets hurt in any way, the passenger sues the bus company for millions, and a jackass jury awards it -- THAT's how far we have gone, and what is criminal.


----------



## MrFSS (May 13, 2009)

Observer said:


> Everydaymatters said:
> 
> 
> > Alice said:
> ...


And, if the driver gets hurt helping the passenger, it is a work comp claim and they loose his services while he recovers. But, it is probably that helping passengers in that way isn't in the driver's job description.


----------



## Alice (May 13, 2009)

Observer said:


> Everydaymatters said:
> 
> 
> > Alice said:
> ...


Agreed. Also note that "helping" a person with a disability might mean lifting them up the steps, a good way to injure both lifter and liftee. I think the agent was right to phone and right to make sure I understood the situation.

People not trained (and equipped) for medical lifting shouldn't do it. The solution is a bus with a lift, an entirely different and potentially complicated discussion.


----------



## Ispolkom (May 14, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Saying that... age must also produce a fleeting ignorance and an heir of superiority. <_<


No, it's good breeding that produces an heir of superiority.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 14, 2009)

Alice said:


> Observer said:
> 
> 
> > Everydaymatters said:
> ...


why can't they put lifts on greyhound. on the smart city buses here there are no stairs its almost flush with the curb. the buses "kneel" and a ramp folds out of the floor and you roll up on that. its all done from the drivers seat via a switch. some older buses had stairs at the back door that transformed into a lift.


----------



## RTOlson (May 14, 2009)

Most long-distance motorcoaches are different than the "low-platform" city buses. Most of the Greyhounds I've seen are motorcoaches where the seating area is raised above the luggage storage area (and you need that storage for long-distance travel). There is usually a narrow set of a stairs and an equally narrow aisle to get to your seat. It would be extremely difficult to navigate a wheelchair on these buses through the front.

That said, it is somehow possible to do it on motorcoaches. Amtrak California offers accessible Thruway bus transportation with 24-hours notice. The Thruway I was on Saturday had an area toward the rear where one could secure a passenger riding in a wheelchair.

I'm not 100-percent sure how this is accomplished, but this Web site shows how a panel can open toward the rear of the bus to accommodate a lift and bus access.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 14, 2009)

the FOLDover is the one the low-platform city buses here use.


----------

