# Pere Marquette Stranded North of Holland



## VentureForth (Dec 22, 2008)

What a weird story. The Pere Marquette was stranded North of Holland and apparently, eventually the crew timed out after moving the train a mile (with just 25 miles to their destination) and the town of Holland ready to offer assistance (but never asked).

Read the story for yourself, and wonder if Amtrak had some other [free] options available to them, not excluding knowing that the crew would time out and sent out a new crew earlier.

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/news/x10604...r-several-hours


----------



## the_traveler (Dec 22, 2008)

> Holland Police Chief John Kruithoff, who brought another officer over to the scene to check out the situation.
> 
> “CSX (the company that owns the tracks) denied them access,”


CSX denied the *POLICE* access?  I hope they never need police assistance!


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 22, 2008)

I am confused-- so the train was extremely late, why are the police involved?


----------



## AAARGH! (Dec 22, 2008)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> I am confused-- so the train was extremely late, why are the police involved?


I guess they wanted to 'show their hospitality' by pulling everyone off and sheltering them.

SO, I can just see it now.... The dispatcher gives the train an all clear, but the engineer tells them, sorry, we'll have to wait. I have to go get all the passengers from the middle school cafeteria. :blink: :blink: :blink:

Nice that they wanted to help, but they really need to understand how the rails work.


----------



## MattW (Dec 22, 2008)

I'm not sure that CSX can legally block the police from assisting especially since Amtrak's a federal agency. I'm not sure on this though I"ll have to do some looking.


----------



## Guest_yerry_* (Dec 22, 2008)

MAYOR said Police were denied access. AMTRAK SPOKESMAN said CSX didn't have a path plowed for the Police officer. Big difference. Area where the train stopped has no roads. Also, the Padnos Center is actually the renovated Pere Marquette train station, a whopping 20 feet from the tracks, not some middle school cafeteria. Snow's pretty deep here. We were still digging out from 16 inches Friday, when we got hit again Sunday night with another foot plus, and it's been snowing all day today (and tonight) to boot.

Of course, they're "still investigating". From talking with friends on the train, it all sounds amazingly identical to the Illinois fiasco a year ago. train held just past a station, nobody had access or permission to simply walk away, hours late become overnight late, yadda, tadda, yadda. And the usual question comes up, "Can't Amtrak talk to people DURING these situations? And can't the freight railroads listen?"

As for Holland's generosity, well, that's Holland, and I'm sure there are plenty of towns just like Holland in the Midwest. My neighborhood in suburban Grand Rapids was ripped up by a pair of tornadoes in '65, and Holland emergency crews, 15 miles away (before the Interstate was built) were on my street before LOCAL crews were. My dad stopped making his "First person to the fire station gets to drive the truck" joke that day.

Something I've noticed; the digital code line Grandville (end of double track W of Grand rapids) to Porter, IN goes out quite regularly in very cold weather. I've had THREE trips delayed by several hours by dead signals. the signal system was this huge multi-step kluge job that was only recently rebuilt in the past two years to bring them in compliance with FRA standardization regs; this is the first I've heard of the Winter reliability issue having NOT gone away.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 23, 2008)

Even so, putting them all in the train station would have been a nightmare. Not only do you have the problem of the train not leaving when given the all clear, you have a ton of people in an isolated area that are AMTRAK's responsibility, not the townspeople. Some may wonder off, take up shelter, complicate matters further.

No, when a train is delayed the best place for the people to be is on the train, as long as they have food, water, and HEP. The can be supervised by Amtrak persons.


----------



## VentureForth (Dec 23, 2008)

Certainly better to be on a train than on a plane for 9 hours - at least you have some room to roam. But again, I think that the biggest issue here is simply Amtrak's inability to effectively communicate with local authorities, the railroad, and then relay that information effectively (and encouragingly) to the pax.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 23, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> Certainly better to be on a train than on a plane for 9 hours - at least you have some room to roam. But again, I think that the biggest issue here is simply Amtrak's inability to effectively communicate with local authorities, the railroad, and then relay that information effectively (and encouragingly) to the pax.


I don't think there was any encouraging information about that.

A bit off that strand of thought: Why is this little town taking this so seriously?


----------



## ralfp (Dec 23, 2008)

The writer needs to be told that not ever sentence requires a new paragraph.



ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> No, when a train is delayed the best place for the people to be is on the train, as long as they have food, water, and HEP. The can be supervised by Amtrak persons.


Supervised? It is possible to leave people in public without supervision; anyone on the train unsupervised can be allowed in public unsupervised. People are not all little children, though keeping them confined overnight without food or information would make most adults start to act like like children.

Food & water? How much does Amtrak stock the snack carts on that train, if there is one at all? I'd say that a group of 100+ people expecting a 1-5 hour train ride will probably have several individuals who need more (e.g. medication, than can be provided by a snack cart.

Can a timed-out crew legally keep HEP running? Isn't that operating the train?



ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> A bit off that strand of thought: Why is this little town taking this so seriously?


How about the fact that it's a freebie (almost) for publicity? The town will be in the news regardless of what they do. In this situation it's all-too-easy to be the good guy. That, and sometimes people just want to be nice. I'd also consider a case of 100+ people confined overnight against their will to be a public safety matter, regardless of who is at fault.



AAARGH said:


> SO, I can just see it now.... The dispatcher gives the train an all clear, but the engineer tells them, sorry, we'll have to wait. I have to go get all the passengers from the middle school cafeteria. :blink: :blink: :blink:
> Nice that they wanted to help, but they really need to understand how the rails work.


They do understand who the rails work in this country: badly. Passenger welfare is part of the equation. Sometimes an additional delay is the price to pay for treating people as more than self-loading cargo.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 23, 2008)

ralfp said:


> Can a timed-out crew legally keep HEP running? Isn't that operating the train?


They aren't allowed to move the train if they've outlawed. Keeping the engine running is not against the rules.


----------



## ralfp (Dec 23, 2008)

AlanB said:


> They aren't allowed to move the train if they've outlawed. Keeping the engine running is not against the rules.


Makes sense, though it would probably make more sense to allow the crew to move the train to the nearest station, much as an airplane crew can continue to taxi until at a gate.

What if the train is already moving? Can they keep on moving until they otherwise stop, or do they have to stop the train immediately? Can they move the train to unblock an at-grade crossing? How about a medical emergency (on the train or an ambulance waiting at a crossing)?

If a person on the train in question had been in a situation where they needed to get to a hospital or die, would the crew have been allowed to take the action necessary to prevent the person's death?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 23, 2008)

> The writer needs to be told that not ever sentence requires a new paragraph.


Thank you for your opinion about my style of posting on a message board which has nothing to do with my professional career.... however, to humor you--



> Supervised? It is possible to leave people in public without supervision; anyone on the train unsupervised can be allowed in public unsupervised. People are not all little children, though keeping them confined overnight without food or information would make most adults start to act like like children.
> Food & water? How much does Amtrak stock the snack carts on that train, if there is one at all? I'd say that a group of 100+ people expecting a 1-5 hour train ride will probably have several individuals who need more (e.g. medication, than can be provided by a snack cart.
> 
> Can a timed-out crew legally keep HEP running? Isn't that operating the train?


The fact of the matter is they are confined to the train cars, safe from the elements and not allowed to wander.

What happens if a pax decided to venture out for a smoke into the snow and got hit by a car?

What happens if a pax decides to go exploring?

I can see the headlines now:

"Amtrak sued for letting teen wander around Holland"

Its a safety matter.

The pax are Amtrak's responsibility--

If something went wrong, Amtrak could, emphasis: could, be held accountable.


----------



## MrFSS (Dec 23, 2008)

Passenger jumped from delayed Amtrak train while parked outside Holland.

Full story is *HERE*.


----------



## ralfp (Dec 23, 2008)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> > The writer needs to be told that not ever sentence requires a new paragraph.
> 
> 
> Thank you for your opinion about my style of posting on a message board which has nothing to do with my professional career.... however, to humor you--


I was referring to the writer of the article. My apologies if it appeared otherwise. I certainly would hold a forum post to a much lower standard than a newspaper article (as I do for my own published articles and forum posts). I'm sure my posts are not the pinnacle of proper language, and I can say that your (ALC_Rail_Writer) posts certainly seem to be of significantly higher writing quality than average (though your opinions are totally wrong  ).



ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> What happens if a pax decided to venture out for a smoke into the snow and got hit by a car?
> What happens if a pax decides to go exploring?


Those are not reasons to confine people. If they were, I'd have to ask why people are allowed outside unsupervised at all? Those concerns would also apply to people getting off their train at a regularly scheduled stop.

If a child is traveling as an unaccompanied minor, then Amtrak certainly should watch that child.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 24, 2008)

MrFSS said:


> Passenger jumped from delayed Amtrak train while parked outside Holland.
> Full story is *HERE*.


What a dolt.


----------



## VentureForth (Dec 24, 2008)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > Passenger jumped from delayed Amtrak train while parked outside Holland.
> ...


Funny. 98% of the comments support his actions. He's 24. He's an adult and ready to accept responsibility for his actions. Perhaps the only law broken was trespassing on the ROW for 3 or 4 steps. What could have happened? Get hit by another train?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 24, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > MrFSS said:
> ...


He could have gotten lost, injured himself in the snow, hit by a car, gotten picked up by the wrong guy, any number of things.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 24, 2008)

I suspect that his opening the door without crew permission is also against the law.


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Dec 24, 2008)

Guest_yerry_* said:


> MAYOR said Police were denied access. AMTRAK SPOKESMAN said CSX didn't have a path plowed for the Police officer. Big difference. Area where the train stopped has no roads.


Exactly! There is a BIG difference here! I am sure the police were not actually denied access to CSX property. I would think a police officer has certain powers available to him/her to hold a train if necessary (even though they better have a darned good reason). A police officer has a public safety obligation to investigate or respond to a call for assistance wherever it is needed. This mayor needs to clarify for us if CSX did in fact tell him "no we are not going to plow a path to where the train is at." It appears to be a huge communication breakdown (how surprising).

The train dispatcher probably should not have released the train form the previous station if he knew the conditions and the amount of time the crew had was so close to expiring. If the crew was still "live" maybe they should have been allowed to make a reverse move if their time permitted. Amtrak may have had a hand in this situation as well though that's a good question. This situation is kinda similar the New Years incident a few years ago with train #98 being stuck in the South Georgia pine woods for over 25 hours (due to a freight train derailment just outside SAV station. Amtrak should not have released the train from the station in JAX as it was not completely known of when the situation would be cleaned up! As far as I am concerned, this is a direct result of what can occur when there are just simply way too many managers, officials, etc to communicate with in order to make some simple decisions. The more folks to go through just further complicates matters! Communication is best when it is kept as short and simple as possible with a clear and defined plan amongst those who can implement it in the safest and most efficient means possible! IMO that's seems kinda hard to do in railroading and the transportation industry as a whole.

OBS gone freight...


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Dec 24, 2008)

maybe they should start putting a backup crew on the train that can take over should 1 crew outlaw.


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Dec 24, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> Funny. 98% of the comments support his actions. He's 24. He's an adult and ready to accept responsibility for his actions. Perhaps the only law broken was trespassing on the ROW for 3 or 4 steps. What could have happened? Get hit by another train?



And probably of that 98%, 100% of them are probably not railroaders either. But anyway, he didn't get caught nor does it appear that he got hurt.... so more power to him. Now let's see if he cries wolf and files a lawsuit...... that might get interesting! LOL

OBS gone freight...


----------



## AlanB (Dec 24, 2008)

KISS_ALIVE said:


> maybe they should start putting a backup crew on the train that can take over should 1 crew outlaw.


They would have outlawed too.

FRA rest rules require that the crew have a certain number of hours rest, either at home or in a hotel room. Being on an Amtrak train, even if they are given a bedroom (something not available in this case), does not qualify as FRA manated rest.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 24, 2008)

Amtrak OBS Gone Freight said:


> The train dispatcher probably should not have released the train form the previous station if he knew the conditions and the amount of time the crew had was so close to expiring.


We don't know the track layout at the station though either. Perhaps the CSX dispatcher didn't want a dead Amtrak train sitting on his only open main.


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Dec 24, 2008)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> I am confused-- so the train was extremely late, why are the police involved?


Because as human beings in general, we tend to be our own worst enemy! No one likes to be constrained or held in one place for an extreme amount of time involved. It is human nature and it comes into play when working with the public. When the answers from the railroad (crew, management, etc) do not satisfy the customers, there is always that one or two who call the "police" and report that they are being held hostage aboard this train!" Most average folks do not understand railroading! But truth be said, it is not the average customers' problem nor place or need to "understand" the railroad! Simply put, they bought a ticket for transportation between two points within a certain amount of time (and most folks are reasonable when it comes to delays and weather). But good customer service starts at the top! And there wasn't a single manager stuck on that train with the passengers, here ( I am willing to bet that I am right about this)! However, I don't want it to appear that I am bad mouthing Amtrak or CSX management, but there needs to be some kind of investigation and streamlining of the processes when potential emergency situations may arise such as this. I am known to preach that all travelers in any mode should have some sort of backup plan (in case their original plans go awry), but the same can be said of the transportation carriers as well!!!

OBS gone freight...


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Dec 24, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Amtrak OBS Gone Freight said:
> 
> 
> > The train dispatcher probably should not have released the train form the previous station if he knew the conditions and the amount of time the crew had was so close to expiring.
> ...


While this is a true statement, I still believe there is some form of miscommunication and mismanagement in this situation. Either on the part of both carriers' management, the dispatcher, and/or the crew. I feel the same way regarding this as well as the one which occurred with the "New Year's Meteor" saga some time ago. This just doesn't look good for business! But I must agree with you, we need some more clarification of just what happened. There is just too much of a two sided story so far....

OBS gone freight...


----------



## ralfp (Dec 24, 2008)

AlanB said:


> I suspect that his opening the door without crew permission is also against the law.


How long does someone have to be held against their will without access to food & medicine before they are allowed to attempt escape? Five hours? Five days?

How long can a common carrier hold people against their will before the actions become criminal? At 5:10am the delay due to 12-hour crew time-out was probably quite foreseeable for a train that began at 5:20pm. Unless I'm missing something, that demonstrates such reckless disregard for the passengers that it amounts to intentionally confining the passengers.



AlanB said:


> FRA rest rules require that the crew have a certain number of hours rest, either at home or in a hotel room. Being on an Amtrak train, even if they are given a bedroom (something not available in this case), does not qualify as FRA manated rest.


That's a silly rule. Pilots can fly an aircraft after resting in crew bunks or in an F seat... why not train crews?


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Dec 24, 2008)

exactly. how long does it have to be without food or water and not allowed off before you can charge the crew with attempted kidnapping. im being held against my will thats kidnapping and un-lawful confinement. they could have asked for help but didn't care about the passengers health. if someone died cause of lack of food(diabetic etc) they would be held responsible and that could lead to murder charges.


----------



## PRR 60 (Dec 24, 2008)

ralfp said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > They aren't allowed to move the train if they've outlawed. Keeping the engine running is not against the rules.
> ...


Airline crews have some additional leeway with the hours of service. A flight crew can depart if the expected arrival is within their hours-of-service. If, while en route, they are further delayed such that they will exceed their limit, they are permitted to continue to the destination. For a rail crew approaching the limit, the train must be stopped before the crew hours expire, and cannot move except under extraordinary circumstances.


----------



## ralfp (Dec 24, 2008)

PRR 60 said:


> Airline crews have some additional leeway with the hours of service. A flight crew can depart if the expected arrival is within their hours-of-service. If, while en route, they are further delayed such that they will exceed their limit, they are permitted to continue to the destination. For a rail crew approaching the limit, the train must be stopped before the crew hours expire, and cannot move except under extraordinary circumstances.


Sounds like a rule designed for freight trains, and not those holding self-loading cargo.

Maybe it's just me, but holding 100+ people prisoner overnight is an extraordinary circumstance. Something is really screwed up if it's an ordinary circumstance.

In any event it seems that Amtrak, CSX, or someone employed by those entities, was totally reckless in allowing the train to leave the station 23h50m after it left its original departure point. As I see it, the situation was not just foreseeable, but basically inevitable, such that it's a case of the dispatcher (or whoever decided to let the train leave the station) intentionally making this happen. Not just negligence, but a reckless disregard for the passengers' freedom and well-being.

Please tell me that I am missing some piece of information here...


----------



## WICT106 (Dec 24, 2008)

It never ceases to disappoint me just how often this happens with passenger trains in the US, every winter. I mean, it is not as if winter and snow are some sort of Midwestern secret. How could the organization fail to plan for this sort of event ? this is failure of a very serious kind, and this is part of how the "never again" group continues to grow larger and larger. The paying customer does not want to hear excuses, they want action and solutions ! :angry: If it means they give more administrative authority to the folks on the front lines, so they can better cope and _create,_ or _improvise_ some sort of ad hoc solution, then perhaps it i time to do so.


----------



## gswager (Dec 24, 2008)

Only the engineers, firemen (or firewoman), conductors, and asst. conductors are the ones that must follow the FRA rules. Meanwhile, the other employees such as chef, LSA, waitress/waiter, attendants, etc. don't "died" on the end of their hours, except at the end of the train's journey.


----------



## MrFSS (Dec 24, 2008)

Now the state of Michigan is involved in what happened.

Full story *HERE*.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 24, 2008)

MrFSS said:


> Now the state of Michigan is involved in what happened.
> Full story *HERE*.


Oh great, let's get the NTSB next!


----------



## PRR 60 (Dec 24, 2008)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > Now the state of Michigan is involved in what happened.
> ...


The State of Michigan pays for the Pere Marquette. They are not just an outside party.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 24, 2008)

PRR 60 said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > MrFSS said:
> ...


Never said they were an outside party.

What I am saying is that there's really no point. I mean what are they going to do, count the number of toilet paper rolls the train had left? It was a damned act of nature!


----------



## ralfp (Dec 24, 2008)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> What I am saying is that there's really no point. I mean what are they going to do, count the number of toilet paper rolls the train had left? It was a damned act of nature!


The decision to send the train out from the Holland station at 5AM _was not "a damned act of nature_." It seems to me that it was an act of reckless disregard for passengers on someone's part (please prove me wrong).

BTW:TP availability is pretty important when you're involuntarily confined for 10+ hours and trying to engage in that damned act of nature. TP is something of a public health issue (yes, it's minor, but addressing it is even more minor).


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 24, 2008)

> The decision to send the train out from the Holland station at 5AM was not "a damned act of nature." It seems to me that it was an act of reckless disregard for passengers on someone's part (please prove me wrong).


What should they have done? Kicked everybody off the train and let them roam around with 3 feet of snow blowing around?


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Dec 24, 2008)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> > The decision to send the train out from the Holland station at 5AM was not "a damned act of nature." It seems to me that it was an act of reckless disregard for passengers on someone's part (please prove me wrong).
> 
> 
> What should they have done? Kicked everybody off the train and let them roam around with 3 feet of snow blowing around?



ALC, a passenger train is best kept in a location to where it is accessible! It doesn't mean that the passengers on board the train would be "kicked off" the train. The point is they would be in a safe, accessible, location where they would have the ability (by their own rights) to disembark and leave if they so desired (even if that meant to hole up in the station and get stuck in town). The point is in this whole story, it appears there has been a huge miscommunication breakdown between many! IMHO, that operating crew was too close to going dead on the law to be attempting to finish their tour of duty under such conditions. I am an operating employee, myself!!!! If you are gonna die on the hours of service law, then it is best to be in an accessible location!

OBS gone freight...


----------



## Crescent Mark (Dec 25, 2008)

Random, but when in the world did the Pere Marquette start using Superliners? I could have sworn it is/was a single level train.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 25, 2008)

Crescent Mark said:


> Random, but when in the world did the Pere Marquette start using Superliners? I could have sworn it is/was a single level train.


It normally is. But during the winter months, especially during severe cold snaps, Amtrak often replaces the Michigan trains with Superliners as they handle the cold weather much better. Far less freeze ups with the Superliners, by comparison to the single level cars.


----------



## ThayerATM (Dec 25, 2008)

Amtrak OBS Gone Freight said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > > The decision to send the train out from the Holland station at 5AM was not "a damned act of nature." It seems to me that it was an act of reckless disregard for passengers on someone's part (please prove me wrong).
> ...


OBS GONE FREIGHT:

I think that you've touched on the bottom line here. Isn't it the responsibility of the Conductor to look out for the safety of the train and its passengers? Surely the conductor knows when his/her hours are going to go dead. I would assume that that conductor also knows when the engineer's hours will go dead. Certainly, under miserable conditions, the conductor should have taken the hours to get to the next safe station into consideration.

Everybody can run around and point at the other guy, but somebody made a really bad decision to move that train out of a station (safe position) and continue on until it got into an unsafe positon, and then all hell broke loose.

I'm certainly not a conductor, nor am I a meteorologist. But I've traveled enough to know when to abort my trip when I'm not sure that I can get through. I've cancelled driving when I've seen a snowstorm coming on my route, and holed up for another day in a motel to avoid ending up in the ditch.

My primary concern has always to be in a safe place, and wait 'till I can get to the next safe place without endangering my passengers. (In my case, that's my wife and kids.)


----------



## amashr (Dec 25, 2008)

I live in Holland Mich. approx 6 blocks from the holland amtrak station. the pere marquette delivered its passangers to holland station. the rail yard where it was stopped is a 1/2 mile from the station. There is only one track passing the holland station and this track is the owned by CSX and is the main line from Grand Rapids to chicago. Our local television and radio stations were playing the recoded conversation between the mayor and police chief. The mayor was asking the chief to go check on the passangers because the train had be sitting for almost 10 hours at that point. The CSX attendant at the railyard refused the police access the rail property.

The holland station is small, but large enough to accomodate the 90-100 remaining passangers bound to grand rapids, the next stop. Why amtrak didnt back up and drop them off is unbelivable.

CSX wanted the main line through the station clear for their freight trains to roll. The railyard where they parked amtrak has multiple lines through it.

But to keep the people locked up on the train for almost 12 hours is mind boggling.


----------



## amashr (Dec 25, 2008)

this has been a front page newsmaker here in holland and grand rapids papers. Each one is running "horror" stories of those "trapped" on the pere marquette. One story has a college kid that slipped out a door and walked to business route us-31 that parrallels the railyard. He flagged a passing car down and asked where there were. He then used his cell phone to call folks in grand rapids, 35 miles away to come pick him up in holland. He then went back to the train and collected his luggage and again slipped of the train unnoticed.

Crazy to think that this train stopped inside holland city limits, 6 blocks from downtown, and only 35 miles from next stop in grand rapids, and crew was prevented from moving.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 26, 2008)

amashr said:


> Why amtrak didnt back up and drop them off is unbelivable.


Why? Because they can't.

First, if the engineer moves a train after he's been outlawed (completed his hours of service), without permission and some life threatening emergency like a fire, then he won't be an engineer any longer. The Federal Railroad Administration will take away his/her license to drive trains.

Second, CSX owns the tracks. Amtrak cannot move a train without CSX's permission, regardless of the circumstances.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 26, 2008)

ThayerATM said:


> I think that you've touched on the bottom line here. Isn't it the responsibility of the Conductor to look out for the safety of the train and its passengers? Surely the conductor knows when his/her hours are going to go dead. I would assume that that conductor also knows when the engineer's hours will go dead. Certainly, under miserable conditions, the conductor should have taken the hours to get to the next safe station into consideration.
> Everybody can run around and point at the other guy, but somebody made a really bad decision to move that train out of a station (safe position) and continue on until it got into an unsafe positon, and then all hell broke loose.
> 
> I'm certainly not a conductor, nor am I a meteorologist. But I've traveled enough to know when to abort my trip when I'm not sure that I can get through. I've cancelled driving when I've seen a snowstorm coming on my route, and holed up for another day in a motel to avoid ending up in the ditch.
> ...


Thayer,

I won't deny that some bad decisions were made. But it's also not as simple as people would like it to be.

I'm positive that the crew told CSX that they were going to outlaw, well before it happened. Heck, any dispatcher using even a modicum of common sense could figure that out without help. But I believe that it is an FRA rule, and if not at least an Amtrak rule, that the crew inform the local dispatcher two hours before they're going to outlaw. I've heard Amtrak crews call that info in to a dispatcher on more than one occasion.

Once that reminder has been given however, things are really out of the crews hands. They keep operating the train until they can no longer do so. The crew cannot decide "oh, hey we're gonna outlaw in the next 10 minutes, maybe we should stay right here in the station." As long as they have a signal to move, they move unless an unsafe condition exists.

Now while I'm not looking to truly place blame without all the facts being in yet, my money is still on CSX screwing things up. One thing that is still very unclear is did the crew think that they had a reasonable hope of reaching the last stop. I'm betting that the crew left Holland station thinking that they did have reasonable hope, and that CSX routed them into the yard for reasons unknown where they sat until they did outlaw. By that time there were no options left to the crew. They probably couldn't get permission to back up, not an easy thing to do in normal weather conditions.

And it's not like Amtrak has crews growing on trees. There is a finite number of crews, on top of which they have to find a crew that has completed the FRA mandated hours of rest, and a crew that's not already scheduled to run yet another train that would now be cancelled because they wouldn't have enough hours of service left to run that train. And let's not forget that all trains were running late, which probably means that Amtrak had already expended the few extra crews that they probably did have.

Again, I'm not really looking to point fingers, even though I did to some extent. But this is not a simple cut and dry matter, and we're missing too many facts at this point in time.


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Dec 26, 2008)

ThayerATM said:


> OBS GONE FREIGHT:I think that you've touched on the bottom line here. Isn't it the responsibility of the Conductor to look out for the safety of the train and its passengers? Surely the conductor knows when his/her hours are going to go dead. I would assume that that conductor also knows when the engineer's hours will go dead. Certainly, under miserable conditions, the conductor should have taken the hours to get to the next safe station into consideration.
> 
> Everybody can run around and point at the other guy, but somebody made a really bad decision to move that train out of a station (safe position) and continue on until it got into an unsafe positon, and then all hell broke loose.
> 
> ...


Thayer, maybe I should have been a little more specific. AlanB has pretty much gave you/us a realistic "railroad" explanation in his latest posting of the possible scenario here. So I won't further elaborate on too much other than the following.

I also believe the Amtrak crew followed up on their end of the rules! CSX requires us to give at at least three hours of notice to the train dispatcher of the time of our hours of service expiration. And Amtrak is required to follow that rule on CSX as well. All we can do as a crew is take care of our responsibilities accordingly! The whole point of my involvement in this thread, however, points to how the management bodies of the travel industry as a whole seem to have lost touch with reality when it comes to good customer service! I realize, even as a railroad employee myself, that there are those times where things, actions, etc just occur without warning! But over the years, I have seen too many instances of adverse action which could have been prevented if a good backup plan was in place! The big issue I see here as I have previously posted pertains to "communication!" That in itself seems to be a difficult ideal for many organizations to master (not just in railroading though it seems prevalent in this industry)! Hopefully, we will be able to get the scoop on exactly what the case is here. But whatever the explanation may be, it is not going to be worth too much to those folks who went through the ordeal! That is because there was obviously a "communication" breakdown somewhere between the Amtrak crew, CSX dispatcher, and Amtrak and CSX supervisors! BTW, I feel really bad for that Amtrak crew! When I was at Amtrak, I had my small share of difficult situations arise as well. I can most certainly feel their pain and the passengers' too.

OBS gone freight...


----------



## Guest_Yerry_* (Dec 26, 2008)

The defending of Amtrak, CSX and NS on this thread is simply ludicrous. Quoting the 10-hour law over and over is clutching at straws, and the disparaging comments about small-town midamerica fails miserably at the blind defense of everything the railroad does. Funny, how come anything clearly pointing out railroad failings is countered with "We don't have the facts yet", while 10-hour law (or anything else that absolves the railroads) is touted as an absolute that explains everything?

First, Holland's concern and attempted help being a publicity stunt is nothing short of a cheap shot. Holland routinely hosts Dutch royalty. It doesn't NEED publicity. The press writeup back in '65 after our tornado merely mentioned "emergency crews from as far away as Holland." Pretty lame PR since they got to us FIRST. For you NEC/NYC people, THIS IS TYPICAL OUT HERE WEST OF THE HUDSON! We don't call Washington and demand cash; we hole up, dig out, and take care of the travelers. This is mentioned in another post. I've been booted off the Interstate in CO during a storm in '01, and a campground put me in their lodge for the night; they wanted $25, but since I had $15 cash they charged $5 because "you need to get breakfast in the morning." Pretty much the same story in Peshtigo, WI.

Us stupid Midwesterners know all about the Hours Of Service law, so quit reminding us. PM's crew is based out of Chicago, and there's barely 10 hours between arrival in Grand Rapids and the next morning's departure. Many of us check the arrival the night before to find out if we have to wait for departure the next day--- many's the time we had a 9:00 AM departure thanks to that rule.

Holland's station is actually larger than the pole-barn station in Grand Rapids, and is right next to Business/Old US-31, plus a commercial district. Unload the passengers and THEN move the train. It was going to outlaw in MINUTES and couldn't make it to Grand Rapids anyway. While only 15 miles away, a lot of time is scheduled between the two, with over HALF of it tabbed at traversing Wyoming Yards. If keeping the Main clear was so important, there was the old C&MLS line to the south, and the Black Lake siding immediately North, both with main road access immediately adjacent to the tracks and a fr improvement in access than the yard.

Sorry, Alan, there is NO requirement than an Amtrak crew run an Amtrak locomotive. CSX dispatched the train, and knew how long it had been out there. It left Chicago at 5:40 PM, just like it has the past 7,500 times before. No excuse. Counting to ten is not "a difficult job". If parents can drive out from Grand Rapids to get their children, CSX can send out a crew from Wyoming, which is closer. What crew wouldn't want that once-in-a-lifetime job of running a passenger train for an hour, getting almost a day's pay doing so, and possibly getting quite a few pats on the back? CSX would bill Amtrak for the hours, so the "making more money off freight" argument doesn't work. INEXCUSABLE.

NS' blocking the Main with an outlawed train while KNOWING the PM was right behind it? Once more, ust how hard IS this counting to ten job, anyway? Again, 7,500 times to figure out a passenger train leaves at 5:40. Planning ahead would have saved NS money, again negating the "we don't make enough money off Amtrak to care" nonsense. As for not enough crews, well, some trains have a higher priority. One would think that with so much attention (finally) being devoted to late trains in Washington that NS would have sent out a crew ahead of time and said, "See? We don't have late train problems here!" And why is South Bend to Chicago still double track? There are ALWAYS three to five delayed freight trains just sitting there every time I ride the PM.

Ridiculing people who complained about running out of toilet paper? THAT post defies polite comment!

Running out of food? Surprise; any of you remember the PM's food service? It's a Horizon coach with a few seats pulled out, and large 100-quart Rubbermaid latching coolers filled with pop, beer, milk, and some baked goods. Crew makes coffee in the hotel room in Grand Rapids! They don't have enough food to serve everyone ONE snack, let alone a meal.

And what a bunch of lame-o remarks about "somebody getting hurt and suing Amtrak." Sure, it's 10 degrees out, snow's two feet deep and still falling; let's all run out into traffic. We're quite capable of taking care of ourselves and keeping our little dears under control 'way out here. With the Mayor and Police Chief both being so concerned, I'm sure there would have been grownups there to watch everyone and keep them safe. Holland offered free food, free beds, and even free buses to Grand Rapids. And what about the cancer patient on board the train? Isn't that ALREADY a safety/liability issue? Surprise; the PM hauls a LOT of medical traffic. It has since the PM was run by the original PM.

The people who ride the PM regularly are a pretty militant group, and have been so for years. When the Blue Water was added in the '70's, there was a huge outcry here because it didn't go Chicago - Grand Rapids - Lansing - Port Huron, and there's a lot of comments now that service to Toronto would have continued if the BH2O went through Grand Rapids. during the Michigan cuts in the '90's, these people brought back the PM to 7-days by tallying the amount of traffic that connected with other trains (oddly enough, Amtrak said they had no way of finding out how many PM passengers connected elsewhere! didn't Amtrak sell them the tickets?). Holland also charters 14-car trains from Chicago for Tulip Time most years; it's not a city AMtrak or CSX ignores.

If we're excusing things on the weather (which figures little, if a Mom can drive to Holland), then there'd better not be any more posts about rail being "the only all weather transportation mode". So which one is it?

Quite frankly, I'm baffled as to why most here are failing to join in the outrage and point out the gross failings in freight railroads' handling of Amtrak affairs. Apparently, it never happens on YOUR routes, and the hundreds of posts about the subject are fake.

Finally, there's a thing called credibility. Think only railfans read this? There are some newbie posts here from folks who obviously know how to use Google. Think back to the commuter crash in CA; when thy kids said the signal was green, their comments were quickly dismissed as "railfans protecting the rail industry". Looks like we're seeing the same thing here.


----------



## WICT106 (Dec 26, 2008)

Wait ! There's more :

"Stuck on Amtrak, Stuck with Amtrak" Holland, Mich., editorial

Amtrak is correctly criticized for its' atrocious customer service to some of the smaller communities in the Midwest.


----------



## Guest_Yerry_* (Dec 26, 2008)

And, to top it off, we pay extra for the "service". We get the same slipshod service for our 403b dollars as New York got for its Turbo contributions.

Amtrak is doing everything in their power to drive away their business and support, all while asking for more money to make up the difference. What happened to supply and demand? Provide what the customers want or lose your job.

That's how it works where I work, and I do a quality job every day for far, far less than these people make.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 26, 2008)

Guest_Yerry_* said:


> The defending of Amtrak, CSX and NS on this thread is simply ludicrous. Quoting the 10-hour law over and over is clutching at straws, and the disparaging comments about small-town midamerica fails miserably at the blind defense of everything the railroad does. Funny, how come anything clearly pointing out railroad failings is countered with "We don't have the facts yet", while 10-hour law (or anything else that absolves the railroads) is touted as an absolute that explains everything?


I'm going to try and respond to this calmly and carefully, without my emotions about having been insulted several times in this post getting in the way.

First, it's a 12 hour rule, or an 8 hour rule, but there is no 10 hour rule.

Second, I don't think that I defended anyone really, and I definitely didn't defend CSX. In fact, even though I did issue the disclaimer "that the facts weren't all in", I'm pretty sure that I accused CSX of screwing up.

Third, while you may not like the idea, the simple reality is that all we have so far is a few reports from a newspaper. Need I remind you that 95% of the time, the newspapers can't even get the fact that the engineer runs the train correct. I can't count how many times I've read in a story that the conductor was driving the train.

So I'm sorry, whether you like it or not, we don't have any verifiable facts about what happened, other than the fact that the train was hours late and that it wasn't stopped in the station at Holland. We don't know who did what, said what, and decided what! That is a fact!



Guest_Yerry_* said:


> Us stupid Midwesterners know all about the Hours Of Service law, so quit reminding us. PM's crew is based out of Chicago, and there's barely 10 hours between arrival in Grand Rapids and the next morning's departure. Many of us check the arrival the night before to find out if we have to wait for departure the next day--- many's the time we had a 9:00 AM departure thanks to that rule.


Apparently you don't know about the rule, since you keep insisting that it's 10 hours.



Guest_Yerry_* said:


> Holland's station is actually larger than the pole-barn station in Grand Rapids, and is right next to Business/Old US-31, plus a commercial district. Unload the passengers and THEN move the train. It was going to outlaw in MINUTES and couldn't make it to Grand Rapids anyway. While only 15 miles away, a lot of time is scheduled between the two, with over HALF of it tabbed at traversing Wyoming Yards. If keeping the Main clear was so important, there was the old C&MLS line to the south, and the Black Lake siding immediately North, both with main road access immediately adjacent to the tracks and a fr improvement in access than the yard.


No, the crew wasn't going to outlaw in a matter of minutes. The first crew out of Chicago would have outlawed before the train reached Holland. The train was already on its second crew when it reached Holland. How do I know this? Simple math. The crew has to report prior to the departure of the train. I believe that it's one hour before departure, especially for the conductor who has to pull manifests and train orders. The PM departs Chicago at 5:20 PM, which means that the crew came on duty at 4:20 PM. Now under normal circumstances, the engineer changes in Grand Rapids, not sure about the conductors though.

Therefore if the newspaper story is indeed correct and the train arrived into Holland at 5:10 AM the next morning, the crew would have outlawed before arrival into Holland, not after.



Guest_Yerry_* said:


> Sorry, Alan, there is NO requirement than an Amtrak crew run an Amtrak locomotive. CSX dispatched the train, and knew how long it had been out there. It left Chicago at 5:40 PM, just like it has the past 7,500 times before. No excuse. Counting to ten is not "a difficult job". If parents can drive out from Grand Rapids to get their children, CSX can send out a crew from Wyoming, which is closer. What crew wouldn't want that once-in-a-lifetime job of running a passenger train for an hour, getting almost a day's pay doing so, and possibly getting quite a few pats on the back? CSX would bill Amtrak for the hours, so the "making more money off freight" argument doesn't work. INEXCUSABLE.


First, I don't recall ever saying that an Amtrak crew had to run the train. That said, I'm not sure that I've ever heard of a non-Amtrak crew operating an Amtrak train. In fact when Amtrak runs on an alternative routing from the normal, the freight RR usually supplies a pilot, but the Amtrak crew remains in overall control of the train. Additionally, I'm not sure if a freight conductor is allowed to be the conductor of a passenger train. And I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't some insurance issues involved here either.

All of that said, the entire region was suffering from massive delays due to the weather conditions, not just Amtrak. What the heck makes you think that CSX just happened to have a crew available to move the train? They've got massive problems and delays themselves, even if they are allowed to crew an Amtrak train, CSX isn't going to torpedo their own operations just to help out Amtrak.



Guest_Yerry_* said:


> NS' blocking the Main with an outlawed train while KNOWING the PM was right behind it? Once more, ust how hard IS this counting to ten job, anyway? Again, 7,500 times to figure out a passenger train leaves at 5:40. Planning ahead would have saved NS money, again negating the "we don't make enough money off Amtrak to care" nonsense. As for not enough crews, well, some trains have a higher priority. One would think that with so much attention (finally) being devoted to late trains in Washington that NS would have sent out a crew ahead of time and said, "See? We don't have late train problems here!" And why is South Bend to Chicago still double track? There are ALWAYS three to five delayed freight trains just sitting there every time I ride the PM.


And while I'll agree with you that NS always seems to have big problems on the stretch of track through Indiana and into Illinois and Ohio, again at this particular time I'm sure that they were stretched thin on crews and didn't have one to send out to that train that died in front of the PM.

Additionally while I would agree that it isn't that hard to count to 12, not 10, when you're doing that for perhaps 20 or more trains, it does get a bit more complicated. And when you don't have enough crews for all of your trains because of the conditions, it doesn't really matter if you can count to 12. You could count to 100 for all the good it might do, but if you don't have an available crew, then it doesn't matter how high you can count.

Why they couldn't have made sure to get the PM around the dead train is another question and something definitely worth investigating.



Guest_Yerry_* said:


> And what a bunch of lame-o remarks about "somebody getting hurt and suing Amtrak." Sure, it's 10 degrees out, snow's two feet deep and still falling; let's all run out into traffic. We're quite capable of taking care of ourselves and keeping our little dears under control 'way out here. With the Mayor and Police Chief both being so concerned, I'm sure there would have been grownups there to watch everyone and keep them safe. Holland offered free food, free beds, and even free buses to Grand Rapids. And what about the cancer patient on board the train? Isn't that ALREADY a safety/liability issue? Surprise; the PM hauls a LOT of medical traffic. It has since the PM was run by the original PM.


I for can't believe that mid-westerner's are all that different that people elsewhere. I'm sure that there are many capable of taking care of themselves and their kids. But I'm also pretty sure that there are some parents out there who really aren't capable. We've all seen parents that when out in public situations are blissfully unaware of where their kids are and what their kids are doing. And it's those parents who will be the first to sue if their kid falls down while trying to exit the train, or runs out of the train station and gets hit by a car.

And what's with this bit about a cancer patient? First I've heard of it.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 26, 2008)

Guest_Yerry_* said:


> And, to top it off, we pay extra for the "service". We get the same slipshod service for our 403b dollars as New York got for its Turbo contributions.


Michigan's story is vastly different that NY's story. Michigan pays far more to Amtrak for their service and a much greater perportion of Michigan's service is supported by the state. NY State basically gets a free ride from Amtrak, so they really have nothing to complain about. The Turbo idea was a bad idea right from the start and it never should have been agreed to. The Turbo was all about trying to provide jobs in the State and make it look like the politicians were actually doing something for their constituants.

So comparing the two is not fair at all. Michigan should be proud of what they do to keep Amtrak running in the state. NY has nothing to be proud of IMHO.



Guest_Yerry_* said:


> Amtrak is doing everything in their power to drive away their business and support, all while asking for more money to make up the difference. What happened to supply and demand? Provide what the customers want or lose your job.
> That's how it works where I work, and I do a quality job every day for far, far less than these people make.


And I applaud you for that.

Wish it was that simple though. In far too many places it is very hard to find people who do have that work ethic.


----------



## Guest_Yerry_* (Dec 27, 2008)

Ten Hours? Twelve? Shouldn't have posted at 3 AM. (others have made that statement too) But does that change anything? No.

I don't have much sympathy about the difficulty of someone's job when they make five, six, or seven times my salary. QA doesn't cut me any slack whatsoever, and as a taxpayer, it's okay for me to have a "bought and paid for" mentality.

But when a very large number of people point out the obvious and say, "The railroads shouldn't have done it that way", countering with "But that's the way they do it" isn't a very good defense.

I'm aware that the rule is absolute-- Congress and the ICC was sure railroads would attempt to circumvent it, which was why they put penalties on crews too, so the companies couldn't bully them. Compare this with trucking's drug-fueled schedule keeping reputation (not as deserved as many think) resulting in logs being frequently faked. Maybe we'll get a "When hauling people" clause out of this, but NOT howling about it won't fix things.

It is too fair to compare NY with MI. They have one thing in common: whether it was a good idea in the beginning or not, Amtrak squanders other states' money. Any state that takes part in 403b funding pays twice, and again, much of that money gets wasted. Route start-ups are another example. The Brighton Park turbo shed, 100+ MPH operation on the Michigan Line, yard bypass tracks in New Orleans and Newport News, etc.

But I still stand behind my comment of selectivity in when "get the facts in first" is applied. I recall one of my earliest posts here some years ago, where I was taken to task over a simple, low-interest mention of something in National Geographic. I was told I was patently wrong, misread the article, even NGM screwed up; *all cited the "fact" that I hadn't registered.* A month later, another post appears that says, "By golly, he was right", and miraculously, two posts disappear and the third was edited. All while, at the same time, the Nationwide Long-Haul Trainoff hoax was in full swing, with moderators defending the OP's blatant and repeated refusal to disclose his source, despite many demands that he do so. Shouldn't insistence of proof have been done the other way?

While it's nice to think only railfans know what's going on, ANY passenger can look out the window and see the underpowered, overloaded freight train FINALLY slog by after an hour wait. People actually ON a train aren't as stupid as some like to assume. We actually get good reporting here, compared to other cities; Grand Rapids Press pushes its staff to ride the train, frequently has editorials about the PM (most favorable), and NONE of them put the conductor at the throttle.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 27, 2008)

Guest_Yerry_* said:


> I don't have much sympathy about the difficulty of someone's job when they make five, six, or seven times my salary. QA doesn't cut me any slack whatsoever, and as a taxpayer, it's okay for me to have a "bought and paid for" mentality.


And where did I say anything about how hard one's job is or isn't? :unsure:



Guest_Yerry_* said:


> But when a very large number of people point out the obvious and say, "The railroads shouldn't have done it that way", countering with "But that's the way they do it" isn't a very good defense.


It is a good defense if it's the law. Just because something makes perfect common sense doesn't mean that one should do it if it's against the law.



Guest_Yerry_* said:


> I'm aware that the rule is absolute-- Congress and the ICC was sure railroads would attempt to circumvent it, which was why they put penalties on crews too, so the companies couldn't bully them. Compare this with trucking's drug-fueled schedule keeping reputation (not as deserved as many think) resulting in logs being frequently faked. Maybe we'll get a "When hauling people" clause out of this, but NOT howling about it won't fix things.


I wouldn't want such a clause, as I'd fear that we'd end up with engineers working 14 or 15 hours and endangering lives.



Guest_Yerry_* said:


> It is too fair to compare NY with MI. They have one thing in common: whether it was a good idea in the beginning or not, Amtrak squanders other states' money. Any state that takes part in 403b funding pays twice, and again, much of that money gets wasted. Route start-ups are another example. The Brighton Park turbo shed, 100+ MPH operation on the Michigan Line, yard bypass tracks in New Orleans and Newport News, etc.


No it's not really as again, you were comparing a straight subsidy to operate trains to a joint venture to overhaul some old trains. Amtrak was an equal partner in this deal. They supplied parts for the Turboliners, they paid for some track improvements. NY dropped the ball by picking a company that went bankrupt to do the overhauls, which delayed the project by like two or three years. Years that might have seen the project's completion if NY hadn't picked a bad company to do the work. NY failed to fulfill many of it's obligations in the Turbo project, just like Amtrak failed to fulfill some of its obligations.

Michigan didn't do anything wrong in this incident.



Guest_Yerry_* said:


> But I still stand behind my comment of selectivity in when "get the facts in first" is applied. I recall one of my earliest posts here some years ago, where I was taken to task over a simple, low-interest mention of something in National Geographic. I was told I was patently wrong, misread the article, even NGM screwed up; *all cited the "fact" that I hadn't registered.* A month later, another post appears that says, "By golly, he was right", and miraculously, two posts disappear and the third was edited. All while, at the same time, the Nationwide Long-Haul Trainoff hoax was in full swing, with moderators defending the OP's blatant and repeated refusal to disclose his source, despite many demands that he do so. Shouldn't insistence of proof have been done the other way?


Ok, now I've had enough. :angry: Please get your facts straight and refrain from wild accusations. I went and found that topic in question. There are no posts where someone suggested that you should not be believed because you hadn't registered. You were never patently told you were wrong, I simply suggested that things might have changed since that photo was taken. But I also didn't say that you weren't right either.

Additionally there are no edited posts, because back then when anyone made an edit to their post, it showed at the bottom of the post that an edit was made. These days Anthony and I can edit a post without leaving a trace, but no one else can do that. And finally I've gone through the moderator logs from back at that time period. Yes, every action taken by a moderator is saved in a log and that log dates back to August 23, 2002. There were no deleted posts in that thread ever. I'll be happy to email you those logs if you want.



Guest_Yerry_* said:


> While it's nice to think only railfans know what's going on, ANY passenger can look out the window and see the underpowered, overloaded freight train FINALLY slog by after an hour wait. People actually ON a train aren't as stupid as some like to assume. We actually get good reporting here, compared to other cities; Grand Rapids Press pushes its staff to ride the train, frequently has editorials about the PM (most favorable), and NONE of them put the conductor at the throttle.


And I would agree that even the novice can pretty much figure that scenario out on their own. The hours of service rule, not so much unless you've first seen a story talking about it or someone has explained it to you. But regardless I don't believe that I ever said that anyone on the train was stupid, although the guy who jumped off in certainly in the running IMHO.

As for your newspapers out there, honestly how would I know that? You have to admit that in general though the news industries track record isn't great at getting the facts straight.


----------



## MrFSS (Dec 27, 2008)

Amtrak Plans to Compensate for 11-Hour Delayed Train.

Full story is *HERE*.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 28, 2008)

MrFSS said:


> Amtrak Plans to Compensate for 11-Hour Delayed Train.
> Full story is *HERE*.


Fair enough.

But they keep acting like, of all people, the Amtrak crew left these people out to the dogs...

Again, the media not conveying the law and authority of the rails...


----------



## ralfp (Dec 28, 2008)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> But they keep acting like, of all people, the Amtrak crew left these people out to the dogs...


What does communicating status information about the train cost the crew (even if that information is: "Sorry, we know nothing.")? A minute of time. Status info, even if it does diddly squat for arriving on time, makes customers feel much better (it tells the customers that the crew gives a bleep). It also allows customers to make choices, such as getting off at an earlier station.

That, plus timing out a mile or so after leaving the station says that the crew knew they were screwing the passengers, but did not give a rat's gluteus maximus about it. They could have said "If you want to get off the train in the next few hours, do it now, because the next station stop will be a rail yard, and will be several hours long." They also could have told the dispatcher to "dispatch this", and not left the Holland station

The crew knew the law. They followed it, but did not consider its impact on the people they supposedly were serving. Unless I've got the facts wrong (please tell me I do), they don't give a damn about anyone besides themselves, but they're okay, because they're law-abiding.

Again, I hope I'm wrong about this. Please correct me.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 28, 2008)

> What does communicating status information about the train cost the crew (even if that information is: "Sorry, we know nothing.")? A minute of time. Status info, even if it does diddly squat for arriving on time, makes customers feel much better (it tells the customers that the crew gives a bleep). It also allows customers to make choices, such as getting off at an earlier station.


And they pax would never be satisfied even if they had explained it in the most intricate stance...

I must go with Alan and say we don't know all the facts, especially from the CSX side-- I don't think the crew knew they were going to time out a mere mile from Holland, I think there were other factors in play and it wasn't that simple.

I also do not believe they didn't consider the ramifications of their actions, they knew what was happened and weighed the two evils and made a decision based on the book.

As for "dispatch this"... well... thats just silly on so many levels.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Dec 28, 2008)

CSX interfered with the police that's obstructing justice and that is jail time right there. that yard attendant should be thrown in jail. i don't care what the signal says you don't move the train if 1 mile from the station the line is blocked with snow.the mayor needs to do something with CSX.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Dec 28, 2008)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > Now the state of Michigan is involved in what happened.
> ...


why not. both amtrak and CSX recklessly endangered the lives of 100's of passengers for no reason.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Dec 28, 2008)

ralfp said:


> What does communicating status information about the train cost the crew (even if that information is: "Sorry, we know nothing.")? A minute of time. Status info, even if it does diddly squat for arriving on time, makes customers feel much better (it tells the customers that the crew gives a bleep). It also allows customers to make choices, such as getting off at an earlier station.


I have been on a train which was late, and the crew _knew_ it was going to be late, and when the crew finally did announce it would be late, they lied about how many hours. It's a long story on how I got my information, but it is a fact. Going back to what I said before, I think the crews have been through tough situations so many times that they are taking the easiest way out in order to keep their sanity. Had the crew told the passengers, they would have had 90 to 100 angry people to deal with.

As to the "when hauling people" claus, maybe I am taking this out of context. I take it to mean "when hauling people", the crew is allowed to do something outside of the 12 hour law??? If so, I'm all for it. Why not: "After 12 hours, when hauling people, the train may progress to the next station". "After 12 hours, when hauling people, freight trains must stop allowing the passenger train to progress to the next station." Properly written, it makes a lot of sense to me.


----------



## daveyb99 (Dec 28, 2008)

Guest_Yerry_* said:


> The defending of Amtrak, CSX and NS on this thread is simply ludicrous.


I do not see anyone here defending AMTRAK. I see train-wise people talking about operational FACTS, something apparently missing in this whole mess, and to counter to sensationalism by the press (which sells papers of course).

"Stranded on AMTRAK". What B***SH**. Those people were safe where they were. Maybe they did not have all the comforts of home, but they were safe and warm. Further, AMTRAK does not control CSX property, nor does the mayor or police chief. Maybe AMTRAK Ops did indeed try to get assistance to the train, but they too were denied by CSX.

But I can see the article now: "AMTRAK crew violates federal law, goes over time limits, backs up train without permission, and dumps passengers in a small station with no amenities or water or working restroom or food -- all in the middle of the night. Passengers left to fend for themselves without their luggage or ... ... Passengers sue".

Again, no one is defending AMTRAK, just making sure the FACTS get out.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 28, 2008)

Everydaymatters said:


> As to the "when hauling people" claus, maybe I am taking this out of context. I take it to mean "when hauling people", the crew is allowed to do something outside of the 12 hour law??? If so, I'm all for it. Why not: "After 12 hours, when hauling people, the train may progress to the next station". "After 12 hours, when hauling people, freight trains must stop allowing the passenger train to progress to the next station." Properly written, it makes a lot of sense to me.


And Betty for this example such a rule might just make sense, but please consider the following.

What if the next station is 3 or 4 hours away? Do you really want someone whose been awake for at least 14 or 15 hours driving your train for another 3 hours just to reach the next station? Do you trust him/her not to fall asleep at a critical moment and miss a signal?

Things are never quite as simple as we'd sometimes like to believe. Additionally, just to complicate things, there really are two rules for trains. If there are two people in the engine, then it's a 12 hour shift maximum. If there's only one, like in the case of the Pere, then the maximum hours are 8 on duty.


----------



## daveyb99 (Dec 28, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Everydaymatters said:
> 
> 
> > As to the "when hauling people" claus, maybe I am taking this out of context. I take it to mean "when hauling people", the crew is allowed to do something outside of the 12 hour law??? If so, I'm all for it. Why not: "After 12 hours, when hauling people, the train may progress to the next station". "After 12 hours, when hauling people, freight trains must stop allowing the passenger train to progress to the next station." Properly written, it makes a lot of sense to me.
> ...



When I was watching History Channel 'Extreme Train', they covered the hours of service issue by citing a head-on collision between two trains carrying people where the engineer fell asleep.

If so, the hours were put into place, just because of 'hauling people'. And SAFETY.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 28, 2008)

ralfp said:


> What does communicating status information about the train cost the crew (even if that information is: "Sorry, we know nothing.")? A minute of time. Status info, even if it does diddly squat for arriving on time, makes customers feel much better (it tells the customers that the crew gives a bleep). It also allows customers to make choices, such as getting off at an earlier station.


Ralf I don't disagree that it's not hard for the crew to say something and I certainly wouldn't argue that there are crews that don't make that minimum effort. I've been on trains that have sat for a half an hour without an announcement and I only knew what was going on thanks to my scanner. But I have also been on trains where the crew was making announcements, but because we were at the mercy of a dispatcher the crew really didn't know how long we were going to be sitting there.

And that wasn't good enough for some people. There are a few on every train that it seems as though nothing but a moving train is good enough for them. I'm sure that anyone whose been following these boards for a few years, or even just Amtrak in general remembers the Silver train from a few years ago that got stuck behind a derailment. I won't deny that both CSX and Amtrak screwed things up in that incident.

However, the media found several people who did nothing but complain that they were never told what was going on, that the train was out of everything almost immediately. One enterprising TV reporter however managed to find several people who discounted those horror tales. It wasn't widely broadcasted or printed, since that doesn't sell the news and hence the ads, but the majority of the people on the train did not fault the crew on the train. It was only a few hot headed people, most likely looking to sue, who seemed to have heard nothing and ate nothing.

Even in the current situation, there is one women running around posting in newspaper forums that the crew turned off the HEP to the train and was sitting safe and warm inside the train station. Not only do I not believe that a crew would do such a thing, that scenario is discounted by the fact that no one else on the train has told that story to anyone so far.



ralfp said:


> That, plus timing out a mile or so after leaving the station says that the crew knew they were screwing the passengers, but did not give a rat's gluteus maximus about it. They could have said "If you want to get off the train in the next few hours, do it now, because the next station stop will be a rail yard, and will be several hours long." They also could have told the dispatcher to "dispatch this", and not left the Holland station


As I pointed out to Yerry in my post, something is wrong with the math here. The engineer changed in Grand Rapids like normal, so he should have been on an 8 hour shift. I'm not sure about the conductors, they might well have been working on a 12 hour clock, or perhaps they too changed at Grand Rapids. However, if we assume that the crew was working on a 12 hour clock and we assume that the reported arrival time of 5:10 AM is correct, then the crew would have outlawed before arriving into Holland, not after Holland.

The crew must arrive before the train's departure, they don't just show up at 5:20 PM the scheduled departure time. I believe that they must be there 1 hour before departure, but there is a slight chance that it's a half an hour. Either way, 12 hours from either 4:20 or 4:50 means that the crew would have expired before a 5:10 AM arrival at Holland. Therefore I have to believe that the conductors also changed at Grand Rapids, along with the engineer. AFAIK, we don't know what time the train arrived at Grand Rapids, much less how long the replacement crew had been sitting there on the clock, so there is no way to know if the crew expired seconds after pulling into the yard or two hours after pulling into that yard. This is one set of facts that I'd like to see released before we start making judgements from our warm couches.

And OBS might correct me on this, but I believe that unless an engineer can see or predict an unsafe conditiion ahead, that he cannot refuse a dispatcher's order.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 28, 2008)

KISS_ALIVE said:


> CSX interfered with the police that's obstructing justice and that is jail time right there. that yard attendant should be thrown in jail. i don't care what the signal says you don't move the train if 1 mile from the station the line is blocked with snow.the mayor needs to do something with CSX.


Hardly. That is private property owned by CSX, the local police have no authority there unless called by CSX. And since CSX has its own police force, I'm not sure that the local cops have any jurisdiction. Just like a NYC cop cannnot go into New Jersey to arrest someone, unless they are in hot pursuit, local Holland cops can't enter CSX property without permission.

And the Mayor is totally powerless. CSX doesn't answer to him and there is nothing that the Mayor can do to change that. RR operate under Federal law, not state and local city laws.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 28, 2008)

KISS_ALIVE said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > MrFSS said:
> ...


Just because someone is stuck on an unmoving train for several hours does not mean that their life was in any danger. Had Amtrak dropped them in a snow bank, that would be endangering their lives. Or had the crew moved the train after outlawing, that would have been endangering their lives.


----------



## ThayerATM (Dec 28, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Again, I'm not really looking to point fingers, even though I did to some extent. But this is not a simple cut and dry matter, and we're missing too many facts at this point in time.


Alan,

I did some research tonight during the time I couldn't get on the "chat forum." <_<

It's beginning to look to me like that problem on the Pere Marquette last week was caused simply by the weather, and nobody (Amtrak/CSX) really knew what to do with each of the myriad of circumstances that sequentially came into play.

When events began to play out, everybody tossed their dog into the fight, and things became really confused.

If the Amtrak crew (subject to the 8/12 hour rules) is considered, there was pleanty of time for them to finish their run under normal circumstances. The weather caused abnormal circumstances. CSX would probably have allowed the Holland police access to the train under normal circumstances. But there's a high probability that CSX didn't have the snow removal equipment to get them there. And the Press?... They'll grab on to anything to sell a story. (read advertising)

Once the snow settles, it's my guess that almost everybody involved, at some point, made a poor decision to move that train out of Holland. Isn't that superb "Monday morning quarterbacking?" :unsure:


----------



## MrFSS (Jan 6, 2009)

More stories about this incident.http://www.hollandsentinel.com/news/x2094351394/Amtrak-apologizes-for-delayed-train-trip

Amtrak apologizes for delayed train trip

Amtrak releases its side of what created 12 hour delay

MDOT: Amtrak didn't answer all questions about delayed train


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 6, 2009)

I love how that "news" article is totally non specific. Based on the above releases from Amtrak-- they explained things very well.


----------



## ralfp (Jan 6, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Hardly. That is private property owned by CSX, the local police have no authority there unless called by CSX. And since CSX has its own police force, I'm not sure that the local cops have any jurisdiction. Just like a NYC cop cannnot go into New Jersey to arrest someone, unless they are in hot pursuit, local Holland cops can't enter CSX property without permission.


The tracks are still in the town... the fact that it's private property should have no more bearing on local police than the local McD's franchise owner's property rights have on police accessing his franchise.

That is unless the right-of-way is specifically excluded from the town's and state's jurisdiction. Or are you saying that a local cop could not issue a citation for actions done within the right of way?

If 100+ people being held against their will for many hours (regardless of fault) doesn't merit police attention, what does?


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jan 6, 2009)

ralfp said:


> If 100+ people being held against their will for many hours (regardless of fault) doesn't merit police attention, what does?


amen to that. you got 100+ people being held aganst there will thats kidnapping. the employees that made this mess on both sides should be charged with un-lawfull confinement or face kidnapping charges. you got family's with kids

let me put it this way. your the dispatcher for CSX. you know that 1 mile out from the station the line is closed cause of the snow. do you tell amtrak to highball and have it get stuck in the snow stranding 100+ plus passengers because you hate amtrak are there passengers. that's reckless behavior on CSX's part. that dispacher + the amtrak crew should be fired


----------



## AlanB (Jan 6, 2009)

ralfp said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Hardly. That is private property owned by CSX, the local police have no authority there unless called by CSX. And since CSX has its own police force, I'm not sure that the local cops have any jurisdiction. Just like a NYC cop cannnot go into New Jersey to arrest someone, unless they are in hot pursuit, local Holland cops can't enter CSX property without permission.
> ...


I guess I should have been a bit clearer. If a local cop sees someone committing some crime on the ROW, he/she can indeed stop and issue a citation. Of course he/she best not be standing in the ROW while doing it, as any speeding train that might happen along isn't going to care what the officer is doing, it will hit them without regard. However a local cop cannot enforce FRA rules and regs and they cannot take any action that would prevent a train crew from doing their jobs or force the crew to do something that would be in violation of FRA rules. For example, the local police cannot order the crew to move the train back to the Holland station and while they might think that they have the right to detain the crew for not obeying such an order, they don't. They might get away with detaining the crew overnight, but once a judge gets involved the crew would be released the officer will get a slap on the wrist.

In this case, since no crime was being committed, I liken the police being denied access to my refusal to allow an officer into my home, assuming that they don't have a search warrant. However, I believe that the main reason that they were denied access IIRC, was that no path was plowed through the snow to the train.

Even if they had reached the train, I'm still pretty sure that the officers would have had no authority to order the crew to open the doors and allow the passengers to leave the train. And again, they certainly would have had no authority to order the crew to move the train.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 6, 2009)

AlanB said:


> In this case, since no crime was being committed,


I think that this is the important bit to remember. Despite the claims that the passangers were "kidnapped"  , the police really didn't have any reason to be involved.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 6, 2009)

KISS_ALIVE said:


> ralfp said:
> 
> 
> > If 100+ people being held against their will for many hours (regardless of fault) doesn't merit police attention, what does?
> ...


First let's be quite clear about this, what happened in Holland is not kidnapping. Kidnapping is being taken against one's will and then being held against one's will. The passengers on that train boarded the train of their own free will. No one forced them to get on that train. In fact, they paid money to get on the train.

Second, there are times and circumstances where people are forced to do something that they don't want to do. Case in point, I'm frequently forced to walk and/or drive down a different street than I want because some dignitary comes to town to visit the UN. It pisses me off to no end, especially since it is a direct violation of my right to go where I want, when I want. But there is nothing that I can do about that.

The fact that these people were unhappy sitting on that train is something that I understand and appreciate. But that still does not give them the right to open doors and jump off the train. In fact, they could well be jailed for that. If one tried that trick on an airplane, assuming that one actually survived, one would quickly find one's self in a Federal prison. Our society has rules and laws for a reason and it's not up to us to decide that we know better or that we don't have to obey them. If you don't like them, then vote to change them. Don't ignore and violate them.

Third, if one actually looks at the timeline, things become much clearer.


The crew had to pull the train down from the station because they were blocking the crossing, they couldn't remain where they where. I can just see it now, if they hadn't done that, we'd instead be talking about either the death of someone because the ambulance couldn't get to them or about someone's house being destroyed by fire because the trucks couldn't get to them. At the very least, instead of the police chief moaning about access to the train, he'd have probably sent a cruiser over to give the crew a ticket for blocking the crossing. This despite the fact that he has no authority to issue a ticket.

The decision to move to the yard before the crew expired was to make it easier for the relief crew to reach the train, since it couldn't stay in the station.

While passengers were on the train for over 12 hours, only 3 hours (2:55 to be exact), was spent sitting in the yard. They weren't in the yard for hours on end.

At all times the train kept heat and lights. Additionally while it would appear that TP started to disappear, the toilets were otherwise functional. I'm not sure that the station could have done better.

The emergency food and water kept on all Amtrak trains was given out. I'm sure that some people didn't think that sufficient and were upset the all the food in the cafe car was not being given away. But no one was forced to starve because they had no money, unless they choose to not eat what was provided.

Buses were never an option thanks to road conditions.

Everyone, except for the idiot that jumped off, did get where they were supposed to go, even if it was hours late. Had they gone by bus or plane, they would have been far worse off than they actually were IMHO. Consider the Jet Blue incident from a few years ago where they had no food and went no where.



Now all that said, could Amtrak have done things better. I'm sure that they could have. Heck, even they admit that communications with the public were horrible. And now in hindsight they might well have done other things differently too, given a do over.

But at no time was anyone's life ever in danger and it would appear that the crew did every thing by the book. It's only thanks to a series of natural events triggered by the freezing cold weather and the snow, that this is even an issue.



KISS_ALIVE said:


> let me put it this way. your the dispatcher for CSX. you know that 1 mile out from the station the line is closed cause of the snow. do you tell amtrak to highball and have it get stuck in the snow stranding 100+ plus passengers because you hate amtrak are there passengers. that's reckless behavior on CSX's part. that dispacher + the amtrak crew should be fired


See my comments above as to why the train was moved and everyone made the correct decisions for the circumstances. I'm quite certain that there will be no firings over this one.


----------



## Guest_Birdy_* (Jan 6, 2009)

Trains have an inherent all-weather capability compared to other forms of public transport. Bad weather should be a competitive advantage for Amtrak, not cause for an excuse-fest. A relative who took the local Railrunner marveled at whizzing past all the cars that had skidded off I-25 during a snow storm. That's the way it should be.

Bad weather is predictable and something that can be planned for. A shrug of the shoulders and mumbling something about an act of God, or "dying" on the line as if the hours of service regulations were enacted last week, doesn't cut it.

I don't doubt the story about CSX denying access to the police. BNSF still lives in the 1890's where the railroad was a law unto itself, and I expect CSX is no different. Whether a police orchestrated rescue is ill-advised or not is not the railroad functionary's call, any more than his opinions on how the local SWAT team should respond to an incident.

Of course, a lot of this relates to the sorry state of resources of the system, both in stock and employees. When resources are stretched to the limit in good times there is no slack for the bad times.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 6, 2009)

Guest_Birdy_* said:


> I don't doubt the story about CSX denying access to the police. BNSF still lives in the 1890's where the railroad was a law unto itself, and I expect CSX is no different. Whether a police orchestrated rescue is ill-advised or not is not the railroad functionary's call, any more than his opinions on how the local SWAT team should respond to an incident.


With respect Birdy, like it or not, RR's still are a law unto themselves under Federal law. That's why each RR has a duly constituted police force. So it is within the RR's call to decide what to do and whether or not to allow the locals to evacuate the train. The Grand Rapid's police have no more authority to order a train's evacuation than they do to order a plane to be evacuated. I choose Grand Rapids, since I rather doubt that Holland has an airport, but GR does. There are areas where local police don't have the authority to order or demmand anything.

Heck, this wouldn't even be an issue at all, but for the advent of a cell phone. Thirty years ago, this entire event would be a non-event.

And as I stated above, a local police officer cannot order a train crew to do something that is in violation of Federal laws.


----------



## ThayerATM (Jan 7, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Guest_Birdy_* said:
> 
> 
> > I don't doubt the story about CSX denying access to the police. BNSF still lives in the 1890's where the railroad was a law unto itself, and I expect CSX is no different. Whether a police orchestrated rescue is ill-advised or not is not the railroad functionary's call, any more than his opinions on how the local SWAT team should respond to an incident.
> ...


Granted, a local police officer can't order the evacuation of a train, nor do anything in violation of Federal law.

But since cell phones ARE in existence, and radios have been in existence for a long time...

Don't you suppose that the local police officer would probably be able to get hold of his commanding officer, who would probably know how to get hold of the Govenor, who would probably know how to get hold of a federal judge, get a court order, and then would then be able to get hold of the commander of the local National Guard unit? It might have created a ruckus, but I'll bet those passengers could have been evacuated from the train over the objection of CSX.

Yes!!! Thirty years ago this would have been a non-event. But... are we stuck in the 1980's? This happended in Michigan in 2008. Have we no regard for humane treatment?

I guess not, after reading what happened.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 7, 2009)

ThayerATM said:


> Have we no regard for humane treatment?
> I guess not, after reading what happened.


What, precisely, is "inhumane" about providing shelter, free food and water to passengers in the middle of a snowstorm? What good would hauling everyone off the train do? What happens when the new crew arrives, and the train is empty? Sit and wait another hour while the pax are brought back to the train and it's reloaded? Do you really think that the Governor is going to accept phone calls from a local police chief in the middle of the night ad find a federal judge and call out the national guard to remove people from the train? The train would have been long gone before the National Guard ever made it to the scene.


----------



## ThayerATM (Jan 7, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> ThayerATM said:
> 
> 
> > Have we no regard for humane treatment?
> ...


I wish I could define "inhumane." Perhaps a definition relies on situitational ethics. Heck, I can't even define situitational ethics. 

This might be a good place to take a look at what really did happen that fateful day...

Did the Amtrak train run out of food?

Did the Amtrak train's toilets fill up, and become unusable?

Did CSX really deny the local police access to the train?

How long were the Amtrak passengers "stuck" on a stranded train without help?

The whole incident was a product of bad weather. I seriously doubt that Amtrak or CSX really had a workable plan on what to do in a situation such as this. It just strikes me that 100+ persons should (that's a subjective word) not have been inconvienced (another word that relies on subjective analysys) in a place (train) with no food or toilets for that length of time, when there was (a subjective call) a way to get them to more comfortable (another subjective word) place.

FACT: If my wife had been on that train, her thoughts (read screaming) would have been heard in Washington DC, right from the train. 

I'm more laid back. As long as I wasn't freezing to death, I could hold out for a long time, as long as the Amtrak supply of beer held out. If the beer ran out I'd be on my way to the local 7-11. I wouldn't much care who opened the train car door. :blink:


----------



## ralfp (Jan 7, 2009)

AlanB said:


> The fact that these people were unhappy sitting on that train is something that I understand and appreciate. But that still does not give them the right to open doors and jump off the train. In fact, they could well be jailed for that.


How many hours or days must you sit on a train (or plane) before it becomes legal to flee? Or is one supposed to shut up and die?

Sorry for the hyperbole, but, somewhere between a five minute delay and a five week delay, one gets the right to leave without permission. The question is where the line is drawn.



AlanB said:


> With respect Birdy, like it or not, RR's still are a law unto themselves under Federal law. That's why each RR has a duly constituted police force. So it is within the RR's call to decide what to do and whether or not to allow the locals to evacuate the train. The Grand Rapid's police have no more authority to order a train's evacuation than they do to order a plane to be evacuated.


Does a police officer have any less authority to order a train evacuated than to order a building evacuated? Is there a federal law codifying restrictions on state/local law enforcement on rights-of-way?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 7, 2009)

> Does a police officer have any less authority to order a train evacuated than to order a building evacuated? Is there a federal law codifying restrictions on state/local law enforcement on rights-of-way?


Last time I checked, yes. Evacuation of a train is the order of the train crew (Conductor) or the railroad police.


----------



## ThayerATM (Jan 7, 2009)

ralfp said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that these people were unhappy sitting on that train is something that I understand and appreciate. But that still does not give them the right to open doors and jump off the train. In fact, they could well be jailed for that.
> ...


That's an excellent question. And if there's a situation where some federal law didn't specifically mention...

We were on the Lake Shore Limited (train 48) in 2007 when it hit a truck about 15 miles west of Rochester NY. The New York State Police held that train for about 3 hours while it conducted its investigation. The train was not allowed to proceed until a NYS State police officer interviewed EVERY passenger to determine injury.

My best guess is that local police have the authority to hold, or evacuate trains in an emergency situation.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 7, 2009)

> My best guess is that local police have the authority to hold, or evacuate trains in an emergency situation.


Now define 'emergency'.

And in the case mentioned, hitting a truck, the NYSP had the rights to conduct an investigation into the accident with a vehicle not associated with the railroad. Now, with the Pere Marquette, there was nobody involved besides Amtrak and CSX.

Totally different situations.


----------



## ThayerATM (Jan 7, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> > My best guess is that local police have the authority to hold, or evacuate trains in an emergency situation.
> 
> 
> Now define 'emergency'.
> ...


They certainly are totally different situations.

Where I live, "emergency" is defined as a combination of circumstances, or the resulting state, that calls for immediate action. I think the situation under discussion qualifies as "emergency," unless there's a total disregard for *humane* treatment of people.

I have a copy of Daryl Pesce's Amtrak letter to Sharon Edgar of the Michigan Department of Transportation, explaining Amtrak's view on the situation. While sounding somewhat defensive, Pesce's letter does lay down Amtrak's view of the situation.

It appears that at 5:10 am EST, the crew on Amtrak train 370 gave all passengers the option of detraining at Holland. I suppose that anyone who did not detrain at that point, on their way to Grand Rapids, became a willing participant in the Fiasco, with no recourse. I DO wonder how many of the passengers on 370 were informed that the work crew had only 25 minutes left on their allowed work time, under Federal Regulations, and the train was still 25 miles from Grand Rapids. Under those circumstances, even I could have figured out that that in the miserable weather, I'd better get off at Holland. I was born and raised in Michigan. This entire situation is not a matter of rocket science.

Amtrak dropped the ball.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 7, 2009)

ThayerATM said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > > My best guess is that local police have the authority to hold, or evacuate trains in an emergency situation.
> ...



They did not.

Read the timeline of events, Alan posted it earlier in the thread. Amtrak did the best damn job they could.

And as for passangers being treated "humanely" whatever that is supposed to mean, they were given foodstuffs, water, heat, lights, and power. WHich is more than anybody could say for a lot of other people in the damn storm.

So they ran out of toilet paper, that hardly means they were treated inhumanely.

Travelers expect to be treated like gold bricks even in the worst of scenarios. Totally unreasonable.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 7, 2009)

ThayerATM said:


> It appears that at 5:10 am EST, the crew on Amtrak train 370 gave all passengers the option of detraining at Holland. I suppose that anyone who did not detrain at that point, on their way to Grand Rapids, became a willing participant in the Fiasco, with no recourse. I DO wonder how many of the passengers on 370 were informed that the work crew had only 25 minutes left on their allowed work time, under Federal Regulations, and the train was still 25 miles from Grand Rapids. Under those circumstances, even I could have figured out that that in the miserable weather, I'd better get off at Holland. I was born and raised in Michigan. This entire situation is not a matter of rocket science.


So you'd choose a cold, dark, locked station with no facilities or food over the warmth and comfort of a seat on a train going nowwhere in the middle of a blizzard and freezing cold temperatures. And all just on the hope that someone you know will actually be able to get to the station in the middle of that snowstorm to pick you up.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stay with the train.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 7, 2009)

ThayerATM said:


> This might be a good place to take a look at what really did happen that fateful day...Did the Amtrak train run out of food?


Not until the very end, but it wasn't like people were starving.



ThayerATM said:


> Did the Amtrak train's toilets fill up, and become unusable?


No.



ThayerATM said:


> Did CSX really deny the local police access to the train?


Seems that way, but it's still unclear if it really did happen and just why they were denied (if indeed they were) is also unclear. However, I can't imagine what that has to do with being inhumane.



ThayerATM said:


> How long were the Amtrak passengers "stuck" on a stranded train without help?


Less than three hours.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 7, 2009)

AlanB said:


> ThayerATM said:
> 
> 
> > It appears that at 5:10 am EST, the crew on Amtrak train 370 gave all passengers the option of detraining at Holland. I suppose that anyone who did not detrain at that point, on their way to Grand Rapids, became a willing participant in the Fiasco, with no recourse. I DO wonder how many of the passengers on 370 were informed that the work crew had only 25 minutes left on their allowed work time, under Federal Regulations, and the train was still 25 miles from Grand Rapids. Under those circumstances, even I could have figured out that that in the miserable weather, I'd better get off at Holland. I was born and raised in Michigan. This entire situation is not a matter of rocket science.
> ...


Just a random question--

But what emergency provisions are on these trains? I know they aren't eating five star here-- but they have to be a step above nothing


----------



## AlanB (Jan 7, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Just a random question--
> But what emergency provisions are on these trains? I know they aren't eating five star here-- but they have to be a step above nothing


I'm not really 100% sure, but I know that it includes a bottle of water for each person on the train and some form of a snack pack.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 7, 2009)

AlanB said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Just a random question--
> ...


Better than dark cold and no heat!


----------



## ralfp (Jan 7, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Last time I checked, yes. Evacuation of a train is the order of the train crew (Conductor) or the railroad police.


So if a local cop came on board a train you were on and ordered everyone off because of some emergency, but the conductor said to stay aboard, would you refuse to leave?


----------



## AAARGH! (Jan 7, 2009)

ralfp said:


> [so if a local cop came on board a train you were on and ordered everyone off because of some emergency, but the conductor said to stay aboard, would you refuse to leave?


I would refuse. IMHO, the conductor IS the authority on a train.

Of course this hypothetical is quite a stretch. If there is an emergency, the chances are the cop AND conductor would agreee to evacuate. ALSO, the cop would have to have major cajones to go aboard and make any kind of orders.

This also assumes the conductor is being reasonable (which is likely). If the emergency caused the conductor to not be in his/her right mind and a police officer made a responsible order that the conductor controverted, I would follow the police order. Again, quite a stretch.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 7, 2009)

ralfp said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Last time I checked, yes. Evacuation of a train is the order of the train crew (Conductor) or the railroad police.
> ...


Yeah, pretty much.

What does your local cop know about railroad safety? If a cop knows something that the conductor doesn't, maybe a bomb for argument's sake, then he needs to alert the conductor or the railroad.

Not to mention said cop would be instantly subject to the conductor, most I would assume, would run up and say "What the hell are you doing on this train?" At which point the cop explains, and the conductor will order the evacuation if he perceives a reasonable threat.


----------



## ThayerATM (Jan 7, 2009)

AlanB said:


> ThayerATM said:
> 
> 
> > It appears that at 5:10 am EST, the crew on Amtrak train 370 gave all passengers the option of detraining at Holland. I suppose that anyone who did not detrain at that point, on their way to Grand Rapids, became a willing participant in the Fiasco, with no recourse. I DO wonder how many of the passengers on 370 were informed that the work crew had only 25 minutes left on their allowed work time, under Federal Regulations, and the train was still 25 miles from Grand Rapids. Under those circumstances, even I could have figured out that that in the miserable weather, I'd better get off at Holland. I was born and raised in Michigan. This entire situation is not a matter of rocket science.
> ...


I know that this "ASSUMES" a lot, but...

*If Amtrak had informed me *that there were only 25 minutes left on the crews hours of service, and I knew that we were 25 miles away from Grand Rapids, and it was snowing like mad, and the Holland police were looking into the situation in order to evacuate everybody at Holland, I certainly would have opted for getting off the train in Holland. *Key point here... IF AMTRAK had informed me.*

Did Amtrak inform any of the passengers as to their option of detraining in Holland before the train tried to proceed to Grand Rapids? Given my experience in past train travel, I doubt that Amtrak would have informed the passengers *adequately* via the speaker system.

I've already written down the user names of those that are going to come back at me, seriously defending Amtrak and condemning CSX, but you're ******* into a strong wind.

We all know that Amtrak dropped the ball on this one.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 7, 2009)

> We all know that Amtrak dropped the ball on this one.


Then label me ignorant.



And.. no, I don't do that into a strong wind..


----------



## ThayerATM (Jan 7, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> > We all know that Amtrak dropped the ball on this one.
> 
> 
> :
> ...


If there is a light side to this saga, you just made it. !!!!!!!!!!!!

I really had a long an hard laugh after your remark.    B)

Thanks for adding some fun to my day !!!!


----------



## AlanB (Jan 7, 2009)

ThayerATM said:


> I know that this "ASSUMES" a lot, but...
> *If Amtrak had informed me *that there were only 25 minutes left on the crews hours of service, and I knew that we were 25 miles away from Grand Rapids, and it was snowing like mad, and the Holland police were looking into the situation in order to evacuate everybody at Holland, I certainly would have opted for getting off the train in Holland. *Key point here... IF AMTRAK had informed me.*


Assuming may be your downfall. One thing I can tell you that is wrong with your assumtion above is that the Holland police were looking into the situation. The Holland police did not become involved until long after the train left the Holland station. It wasn't until the impatient passengers started calling 911 when the train was stopped in the yard for a while, that the police got involved.

Therefore, even if you had known about the impending crew timeout (and that's assuming that Amtrak did tell people), you would have been stranded in the Holland station for at least I'm guessing an hour or more before the police came by. Unless of course you called them yourself. But I'm guessing that at least initially they'd have looked at you like you were nuts for getting off the train in a snow storm at a stop that wasn't your stop.



ThayerATM said:


> Did Amtrak inform any of the passengers as to their option of detraining in Holland before the train tried to proceed to Grand Rapids? Given my experience in past train travel, I doubt that Amtrak would have informed the passengers *adequately* via the speaker system.


Unknown at this point in time what the crew did or did not tell the passengers. But I for one don't consider getting off the train in a snow storm, with freezing temps, at a closed station that isn't mine, with no pickup planned, an option.



ThayerATM said:


> We all know that Amtrak dropped the ball on this one.


And I continue to disagree with that statement.

I do still think that certain aspects of this incident could have been handled better than they were. But I don't think that Amtrak dropped the ball either.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 7, 2009)

> I do still think that certain aspects of this incident could have been handled better than they were. But I don't think that Amtrak dropped the ball either.


Exactly.

Do these people think that a blizzard strong enough to bring modern trains to a halt is safe to go out in with a bus or car? The safest mode of travel in those conditions is the train and part of that reason is the fact that if the train gets stuck, at least you're unlikely to run out of gas-- less likely to run out of food, you have plenty of heat and a strong steel cage to protect you.

It is a horrible thing that pax will expect to be treated with better service during a situation than if it was a normal day.

They gave the pax a warm place to sleep, shelter, food and water. The toilets worked, I am still at a loss to see where the hell they were treated inhumanely? They were deprived of nothing besides their ability to travel.


----------



## Alice (Jan 7, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Do these people think that a blizzard strong enough to bring modern trains to a halt is safe to go out in with a bus or car? The safest mode of travel in those conditions is the train and part of that reason is the fact that if the train gets stuck, at least you're unlikely to run out of gas-- less likely to run out of food, you have plenty of heat and a strong steel cage to protect you.


Can't resist this. I was on a train that had to be refueled in the middle of nowhere on account of bad weather between Chicago and Washington DC (March 2007). Airports and roads were pretty much closed, like last month. We pulled up and blocked a dirt road that had access parallel to the tracks, and a tanker truck joined us. Of particular note was how many clothes all those guys outside were wearing compared to we comfortably warm passengers. I can see two reasons for inadequate fuel: We got in around 18 hours late; we had a bad engine that we abandoned so were short power over the mountains.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 7, 2009)

ralfp said:


> Sorry for the hyperbole, but, somewhere between a five minute delay and a five week delay, one gets the right to leave without permission. The question is where the line is drawn.


Temperature is also an issue. Some recent summer, there was a fire at an MBTA Red Line station (probably Park Street). The fire department ordered the MBTA to shut off the power to that station, which had the side effect of stranding a train on the Longfellow Bridge. After an hour or two, the temperature inside that train was apparently over 100 degrees. (Depending on the vintage of Red Line car, some or all of the lights will run off the batteries in the car if there's no third rail power, but the HVAC system has no battery backup, as far as I can tell. There are windows that the crew can open in the cab so that they can look out to close the doors, but no windows intended to be opened by passengers.) At which point, some passengers decided to use the emergency brake / door release controls, climbed down onto the fence, and crossed two lanes of traffic to get to the sidewalk.

It probably would have gone better if the police had been there to block off the two lanes of traffic for several minutes, but they and the MBTA officials may have been too distracted by the fire.

The MBTA's position on this was that the pasengers leaving was unauthorized, but I have to think that at some point, someone staying in one of those cars would have suffered serious injury from the heat, and the risk of crossing traffic was probably worth taking. Also relevant here is that crossing traffic well before one is about to collapse is probably safer than waiting until one is ready to collapse.

All that said, in freezing temperatures, I'd much rather be on a heated train than at a closed station in the middle of nowhere with no clear plan of where I was going to find heat. I do think that if the train was really out of toilet paper, Amtrak needs to tweak their produres a bit, but I'd still rather be on a train with no toilet paper than out in the cold. (I also worry that Amtrak's practice of sometimes running long distance trains with a single locomotive is dangeous from the perspective that if the locomotive fails in certain ways, the HVAC systems in all the cars die with it, and if Amtrak didn't include a second locomotive in the consist, they have no way of getting one to the train in a timely fashion.)


----------

