# Amtrak Pets on Board Trial



## rickycourtney (Apr 28, 2014)

Amtrak made the surprise announcement today. At this point it's a trial program on one train that will last six months.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:



> ILLINOIS DOT AND AMTRAK TO ALLOW PETS ABOARD AS A TEST BETWEEN CHICAGO AND QUINCY
> 
> Six-month program will evaluate idea for other trains nationally
> 
> ...


Full press release and Passenger Service Notice posted here.

I look forward to reading some trip reports from our members on both sides of this issue as they ride the Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg.


----------



## MattW (Apr 28, 2014)

Sounds good to me! It will be interesting to see how many new people this will attract to Amtrak.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Apr 28, 2014)

I better make sure my big kitty stays under 20 lbs. He generally weighs about 19 lbs.

Wonder if the 20 lbs includes the weight of the carrier.


----------



## Allypet (Apr 28, 2014)

They have toyed with the idea of a pet car for the Auto Train. That will become a reality when they address the HEP and braking issues.


----------



## FriskyFL (Apr 28, 2014)

Another sign of the apocalypse.


----------



## Henry Kisor (Apr 28, 2014)

Time to trade in your 140 pound Neapolitan Mastiff for a chihuahua.


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 28, 2014)

AmtrakBlue said:


> I better make sure my big kitty stays under 20 lbs. He generally weighs about 19 lbs.
> 
> Wonder if the 20 lbs includes the weight of the carrier.


It doesn't appear so. Sometimes airlines will make a note that the carrier + pet have to be under a certain weight, but the way the Amtrak article reads, it sounds like the animal itself has to weigh 20 pounds or less. I imagine the carrier's weight wouldn't be an issue on a train as it would on an airplane.


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 28, 2014)

I have pets. But I do NOT want them on a common carrier. Service dogs? Of course. No others, though. All this pet-centric nonsense is just new-age, crystal-worshipping nonsense for and about fearful people. I truly do NOT care if you are afraid of travel without Rover by your side or that you get anxious or whatever. That is your problem, not mine.


----------



## fairviewroad (Apr 28, 2014)

This is such a limited scope trial that you have to wonder how useful the data/anecdotal evidence will be. They are only accepting pets at three stations--Chicago, Naperville, Galesburg.

Since presumably there is no CHI-NPV traffic, this is really only useful for people traveling round-trip CHI-GBB and NPV-GBB. I mean, you could disembark at any other station along the route but you'd be out of luck for the return trip. Also, with the pet fee exceeding the base rail fare on those segments (for advance purchase tickets) you have to wonder how many people will avail themselves of this service.

My guess? After six months, so few people will have used it due to cost/impracticality/lack of awareness that Amtrak/IDOT will simply say "Look, we tried and no one wanted it." [Alternatively, they might say "We tried it and over the first six months there were no problems, so let's expand it system-wide"] Either way, the conclusion will likely be based on a minimal amount of evidence.


----------



## MattW (Apr 28, 2014)

Wildcat said:


> I have pets. But I do NOT want them on a common carrier. Service dogs? Of course. No others, though. All this pet-centric nonsense is just new-age, crystal-worshipping nonsense for and about fearful people. I truly do NOT care if you are afraid of travel without Rover by your side or that you get anxious or whatever. That is your problem, not mine.


So people with pets that need to move them are just out of luck? So I assume you're against the pet policies on airlines too right? People don't bring their pets just because they're "afraid" of being without them. Many people are actually going places and staying there a while. It's not fair to the animal to lock them up for days or weeks while they're gone. Given that the trial route connects from smaller cities to Chicago, a good many of the pets brought aboard might just be headed for better vet care than can be found in the smaller cities. Why do you care so much about what other people do?


----------



## rickycourtney (Apr 28, 2014)

fairviewroad said:


> This is such a limited scope trial that you have to wonder how useful the data/anecdotal evidence will be. They are only accepting pets at three stations--Chicago, Naperville, Galesburg.
> 
> Since presumably there is no CHI-NPV traffic, this is really only useful for people traveling round-trip CHI-GBB and NPV-GBB. I mean, you could disembark at any other station along the route but you'd be out of luck for the return trip. Also, with the pet fee exceeding the base rail fare on those segments (for advance purchase tickets) you have to wonder how many people will avail themselves of this service.
> 
> My guess? After six months, so few people will have used it due to cost/impracticality/lack of awareness that Amtrak/IDOT will simply say "Look, we tried and no one wanted it." [Alternatively, they might say "We tried it and over the first six months there were no problems, so let's expand it system-wide"] Either way, the conclusion will likely be based on a minimal amount of evidence.


Go back and read the document I posted again. Passengers must begin their trip at Chicago, Naperville, Galesburg but they can go to any other station on the line and once the pet is ticketed, they can make a return trip from an unstaffed station.

It sounds like Amtrak wants an agent to inspect the animal at the station before issuing a ticket.

I expect this could be the model used by Amtrak nationwide if this trial is successful.

I'm okay with the fee. It has the side effect of making passengers stop and think if they really need to bring their cat or dog... If they do, they'll pay the fee.


----------



## amamba (Apr 28, 2014)

I think this is a great idea for short haul trips. If they did this on the NEC I would absolutely travel that way for holidays when I visit my family. Right now I have to drive because my dog comes for thanksgiving/christmas and its a huge PITA. It would be great to get my car off the 95 gauntlet and the NJ turnpike and get me back onto the train. My dog can easily hold it for the 4 hour trip. He would probably just sleep the entire time.


----------



## berlin (Apr 28, 2014)

MattW said:


> Wildcat said:
> 
> 
> > I have pets. But I do NOT want them on a common carrier. Service dogs? Of course. No others, though. All this pet-centric nonsense is just new-age, crystal-worshipping nonsense for and about fearful people. I truly do NOT care if you are afraid of travel without Rover by your side or that you get anxious or whatever. That is your problem, not mine.
> ...


In most other countries, especially in Europe, it is VERY common for animals to be allowed on trains as well as in restaurants, etc. Rather than the US being "pet-obsessed" as some have suggested, I think it is more accurate to say that many in the US are pet-phobic (and/or animal haters?).


----------



## zepherdude (Apr 28, 2014)

On a recent Delta flight, a sweet girl sat next to me on the floor for a 6 hour flight. She was not a service dog. Just a dog on a leash. The owner said nothing to me the entire flight. My seat was 1B, on the bulkhead, and there was enough room for all 3 of us, Since the owner offered no words, I was just as quiet and forgot the dog was there. I am pet friendly and it was not an issue. I can not see this in coach however, there is little room for a floor traveler. On arrival I let the dog and owner go first off the airplane. Both passengers declined any comments.

Coast Starlight recently, 2 dogs on a leash boarded in Oregon and Washington in coach on a leash. Both were bound for SEA. They both went to the snack bar and lounge car as well.

The point is maybe times are changing for dogs. On the flight, I felt sorry the dog had no water for 6 hours. The lady used the facility once, which is quite close in this cabin. Dunno folks, dogs are family members. Maybe they are being treated as such now.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 28, 2014)

Frankly, if pet carrying is done it should be done in a special room in a baggage car. People are allergic to pets, you know. And what do you do if someone's dog won't stop barking? The babies are bad enough.


----------



## amamba (Apr 28, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Frankly, if pet carrying is done it should be done in a special room in a baggage car. People are allergic to pets, you know. And what do you do if someone's dog won't stop barking? The babies are bad enough.


So do you have a problem with people bringing their pets on planes as they do now with similar restrictions?

I am not saying that pets should have free run of amtrak trains, but I think some common sense regulations allowing pets in carriers on short haul trips (like on a plane) are reasonable.


----------



## Eris (Apr 28, 2014)

People are bringing their pets now anyway- they call them service animals and the train crew is nearly helpless to do anything about it (though there was a young gentleman taken off the northbound Coast Starlight in Klamath Falls a few weeks ago with his utterly untrained "service dog"- he resisted leaving and was arrested- they had been on board since Van Nuys, so it took nearly 24 hours for the crew to feel it had a solid enough case to give them the boot). Perhaps by having an allowed way to bring some animals along, it will be easier for crews to call BS on ill-mannered dogs being brought on as service animals, or at least there is the possibility that some of the smaller ones will be paid for and kept confined.

I love dogs, would love to bring my dogs on the train, enjoy seeing any sort of animal, smuggled or not, on the train, but really dislike being growled at by a chihuahua for walking past its owner as she grips the dog with one hand and drags on a cigarette with the other right outside the door of the train at a fresh air stop. To be fair, I may have growled back, so maybe I need to be crated, too.


----------



## fairviewroad (Apr 28, 2014)

rickycourtney said:


> fairviewroad said:
> 
> 
> > This is such a limited scope trial that you have to wonder how useful the data/anecdotal evidence will be. They are only accepting pets at three stations--Chicago, Naperville, Galesburg.
> ...


You're right, I only saw the press release and did not see the passenger service notice. The press release does not mention the ability to make

the return trip from an unstaffed station. I still think this is of such limited scope that it will be difficult to apply the lessons learned to other routes,

but at least it's not as restrictive as I initially thought. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## CaliforniaMom (Apr 28, 2014)

The hamster will be happy to read this!


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 28, 2014)

I hope this fails in the most extreme sense.


----------



## FriskyFL (Apr 28, 2014)

CaliforniaMom said:


> The hamster will be happy to read this!


Dogs and cats only, per the press release. 
Expect howls of protest from the hamster lobby. It's RACISM against small furry rodents! ;-)


----------



## guest (Apr 28, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Frankly, if pet carrying is done it should be done in a special room in a baggage car. People are allergic to pets, you know. And what do you do if someone's dog won't stop barking? The babies are bad enough.


People are also allergic to peanuts, cleaning solvents, clothing fibers, fragrances, and too many other things to mention...all of which are found in public places, including on board Amtrak trains. You cannot expect an entire train to be "decontaminated" or have the upholstery replaced or the cafe stock removed simply because one person on board has an allergy. It is up to the allergic person to avoid such contact, such as asking for a seat that is not in contact with these things, as much as that is possible. It is not everyone else's responsibility, including that of the carrier.


----------



## Allypet (Apr 28, 2014)

Wildcat said:


> I have pets. But I do NOT want them on a common carrier. Service dogs? Of course. No others, though. All this pet-centric nonsense is just new-age, crystal-worshipping nonsense for and about fearful people. I truly do NOT care if you are afraid of travel without Rover by your side or that you get anxious or whatever. That is your problem, not mine.


Service dogs have a whole host of meaning. There are even therapy/ anxiety dogs for our returning vets who suffer from PTSD. Are you prepared to tell him/her its their own anxiety and to get over it? Not me, in fact I for one would be most happy to share my bedroom with one of these dogs if needed.


----------



## FriskyFL (Apr 28, 2014)

Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.

Bona fide service animals are most definitely not PETS.

Unfortunately, as with most things, some selfish arrogant people find ways to circumvent the laws regarding accommodating service animals, via brazenly bogus "certification", or baldfaced lying.

And no, "emotional support animals" don't count. Otherwise just about every pet would meet that vague definition.


----------



## rusty spike (Apr 28, 2014)

FriskyFL said:


> CaliforniaMom said:
> 
> 
> > The hamster will be happy to read this!
> ...


But I have one of those new designer breeds--the Hamdog. :giggle:


----------



## neroden (Apr 28, 2014)

rickycourtney said:


> It sounds like Amtrak wants an agent to inspect the animal at the station before issuing a ticket.


Yeah. This seems mildly paranoid but it's understandable. Probably eventually it will be replaced by a "conductor may reject pet at boarding time" policy, but for now, this'll allow Amtrak to see how many people try to bring unruly pets vs. how many people are well behaved, *before* boarding time.

The rest of the policy seems well-thought-out. Clearly Amtrak has been listening to the Congressional delegation who complained about Amtrak's pet policy.



> I'm okay with the fee.


Likewise.
I know a fair number of people who have rented cars for one-way trips solely because of Amtrak's pet policy, which is kind of ridiculous. A $25 fee is cheaper than the difference between Amtrak tickets and a one-way car rental. So hopefully this pilot program will expand and Amtrak will recover the patronage of the pet-moving clientele.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 28, 2014)

Glad I'm not riding the Trains in Illinois (are the Zephyr and Chief excluded ?)and I'm with Tony on this one, I hope the experiment is a failure! (I love animals but not on a Train, Plane or Bus with the exception of certified service animals which are no behaviour problem!)


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 28, 2014)

FriskyFL said:


> Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.


No, but they are living, breathing creatures, so I would not want them somewhere that isn't climate-controlled and somewhere I wouldn't have access to them to check on them to make sure they are okay. If you wouldn't put a human in a baggage car, then an animal doesn't belong there either.


----------



## FriskyFL (Apr 28, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> FriskyFL said:
> 
> 
> > Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.
> ...


Then pets should stay at home.


----------



## 7deuceman (Apr 28, 2014)

The Illinois Amtrak "Pet Test" on the Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg is a very good start to creating a fair alternative for pet owners who want their friend to travel with them, safer travels for the pet and an increase in ridership for Amtrak.

In order to see a real acceptance of the new program by travelers, the test should be extended to the Hiawatha and other "Illinois Service" Trains connecting Chicago with Southern Illinois and St. Louis.

As the frequency of pets riding Amtrak continues, extra space for pets could be reserved in the baggage car. The success of these services will be rapidly passed along in blogs and social media.

Will pet travel on Amtrak work? Airlines have been testing allowing "pets on planes" for some time now and it seems to be working out. There is much more space on Amtrak then in a plane, especially with the availability of baggage cars.

I say this is a major win for Amtrak that will just get bigger and better as the word gets out.


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 28, 2014)

FriskyFL said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > FriskyFL said:
> ...


Or, they can be kept in a crate, under a person's seat. That limits the amount of dander that spreads, if any, and keeps them off the seats and carpet.

If they start barking, their owner can calm them. Babies cry, but we don't put them in baggage cars or leave them at home.


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2014)

MattW said:


> So people with pets that need to move them are just out of luck?


You take your pet with you when you move, but, what, leave your car out in the street at your old place?


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> Babies cry, but we don't put them in baggage cars or leave them at home.


OK, our next tangent begins....


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 28, 2014)

Guest said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > So people with pets that need to move them are just out of luck?
> ...


You're assuming everyone owns a car.


----------



## brentrain17 (Apr 28, 2014)

Wildcat said:


> I have pets. But I do NOT want them on a common carrier. Service dogs? Of course. No others, though. All this pet-centric nonsense is just new-age, crystal-worshipping nonsense for and about fearful people. I truly do NOT care if you are afraid of travel without Rover by your side or that you get anxious or whatever. That is your problem, not mine.


I agree


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 28, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> FriskyFL said:
> 
> 
> > Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.
> ...


Do you get to check on a pet on a plane?


----------



## neroden (Apr 28, 2014)

FriskyFL said:


> Then pets should stay at home.


Idiotic. How do you think they get home? Teleportation, perhaps? Or perhaps all pets should be born in the location where they will live forever?
The main need for pet transport on trains has been by people who are moving from one home to another, whether it is a one-time move, a "summer home", or indeed Congressmen going to DC. Or indeed for people acquiring pets from a previous owner. It is very bad government policy to force such people to rent cars and acquire drivers' licenses solely for the purpose of relocating their pets.


----------



## amamba (Apr 28, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> FriskyFL said:
> 
> 
> > Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.
> ...


LOVE. One million times this.


----------



## amamba (Apr 28, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > FriskyFL said:
> ...


Yes, when they are flying with you in the passenger cabin of the plane and underneath the seat in front of you as proposed by amtrak and allowed by most airlines for animals up to approximatley 20 lbs.


----------



## neroden (Apr 28, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> You're assuming everyone owns a car.


This. Lots of people don't own cars... and they are particularly likely to ride Amtrak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_households_without_a_car

The *first 32 cities* on this list have access to Amtrak, perhaps by public transportation which allows pets.

Actually, the only cities on this list of *50* who don't have Amtrak access are Honolulu, Allentown, Dayton, and Louisville.


----------



## rusty spike (Apr 28, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> FriskyFL said:
> 
> 
> > Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.
> ...


If you have ever been inside of one of the old "heritage" baggage cars, you would see that it isn't fit for human or pet travel. No controlled climate, doors that don't properly close, that actually permit snow drifts to form inside amongst the luggage, etc.


----------



## neroden (Apr 28, 2014)

rusty spike said:


> If you have ever been inside of one of the old "heritage" baggage cars, you would see that it isn't fit for human or pet travel. No controlled climate, doors that don't properly close, that actually permit snow drifts to form inside amongst the luggage, etc.


I recall my baggage arriving with a layer of red dust on it from its trip in the baggage car through New Mexico. Yeah.
The Viewliner baggage cars can't come soon enough.

In the meantime, "pet under seat" works at least for the shorter routes. Based on the list of cities with the highest percentage of car-free households, the NEC is the top priority for allowing pet carriage. The next priorities are its branches: Empire Service to Buffalo, Springfield shuttle, Richmond & Norfolk service, Pennsylvanian to Pittsburgh. (The LSL is also a pretty high priority.)

Using the Quincy route as a testbed is a bit odd, but perhaps Amtrak wanted to test policies out on a route which would have LOW usage.

*** Note: I notice the car-free percentage numbers on Wikipedia are from the 2000 census. It's too much work right now to redo them from the 2010 census, though it would be a valuable thing to do.


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 28, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > FriskyFL said:
> ...


I have never taken my pets on a plane. If I did, they would be under my seat.

If they were not allowed under the seat and had to fly in the cargo hold, I would not take them on a plane. You know why? Because they are live creatures and should not be treated like suitcases. Like humans, they are sensitive to cold and heat and need to be fed and watered.

Additionally, if there were an emergency, I would have no way to rescue them (from the cargo hold or baggage car). If they're under my seat, I can grab them and go.

My original point remains: humans do not travel in cargo/baggage, so neither should pets.

When you have a pet, you are responsible for its health and safety. Anyone who has the attitude "it's just a dog/cat" should never, ever own a pet. Pets are not a piece of furniture or a decorative item. If you wouldn't put your kid in the baggage car along with some food/water bowls, why would you put your pet back there?


----------



## MikefromCrete (Apr 28, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > SarahZ said:
> ...


I always get a little nervous when people compare animals to children.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Apr 28, 2014)

Eris said:


> People are bringing their pets now anyway- they call them service animals and the train crew is nearly helpless to do anything about it (though there was a young gentleman taken off the northbound Coast Starlight in Klamath Falls a few weeks ago with his utterly untrained "service dog"- he resisted leaving and was arrested- they had been on board since Van Nuys, so it took nearly 24 hours for the crew to feel it had a solid enough case to give them the boot). Perhaps by having an allowed way to bring some animals along, it will be easier for crews to call BS on ill-mannered dogs being brought on as service animals, or at least there is the possibility that some of the smaller ones will be paid for and kept confined.


I think this is a very good point. People who are now allowed to take their pets with them probably won't bother with all the fake certifications. So, Amtrak can now police bad "animal behavior", and simply boot the bad animals (and their pets) off the train.

Secondly, while I know a lot of people who have really bad pet allergies, I think Amtrak's new method is a far cry from the current method (the "current method" being the one where people try to sneak dogs and hamsters on the train). First of all, people with allergies can actually research & find out what might be on their train and when. Secondly, the new policy would require pets to be in a carrier and under the seat, and not up on the seats and other surfaces where their dander, fur, and other effluent might cause more problems.

As for allowing pets at all - I don't think it's always an issue of people being unwilling to leave their pets at home. Oftentimes, it's the other way around - it's often harder for the pet to be away from the people. Kennels and pet sitters are extraordinarily expensive: paying Amtrak $25 each way is a bargain when compared to what I pay for a pet sitter. Plus, many pets do not adapt well to being in a kennel, or to strange pet sitters. They can develop severe behavior problems or even serious health issues. Nothing can ruin a vacation faster than getting a call from your sitter telling you about your pet's illness or problems.


----------



## FriskyFL (Apr 28, 2014)

How quickly we (and Amtrak and ILDOT) forget:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/59567-illini-392-accident-in-savoy-il-april-24/&do=findComment&comment=521792

How'd you like to be a pet on THAT train? When Fluffy or Fido starts peeing and crapping in your space, leaving them at home won't seem quite so bad.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Apr 28, 2014)

FriskyFL said:


> How quickly we (and Amtrak and ILDOT) forget:
> 
> http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/59567-illini-392-accident-in-savoy-il-april-24/&do=findComment&comment=521792
> 
> How'd you like to be a pet on THAT train? When Fluffy or Fido starts peeing and crapping in your space, leaving them at home won't seem quite so bad.


Well, now that you know which trains (in IL) allow pets, you can make a decision to not travel on those trains. Nobody is forcing you to take the trains.


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 28, 2014)

MikefromCrete said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > tonys96 said:
> ...


Why? Because they're both living, breathing things that depend on us to take care of them?

I wouldn't put my kid in the baggage car, and that means I wouldn't put my pet back there either. If it isn't safe for humans, it isn't safe for animals. *That's* my point. I'm not trying to say pets are exactly like children or that I know what it's like to be a parent.


----------



## jim55 (Apr 28, 2014)

What a can of worms. Does this mean that soon there may be a snake, spider, lizard etc in a flimsy cage under the seat in front of me? What about people allergic to pet hair? Amtrak will lose more Pax than gain.


----------



## FriskyFL (Apr 28, 2014)

jim55 said:


> What a can of worms. Does this mean that soon there may be a snake, spider, lizard etc in a flimsy cage under the seat in front of me? What about people allergic to pet hair? Amtrak will lose more Pax than gain.


Nothing quite like a Pets on Amtrak thread to get the fur and hyperbole flying?


----------



## fairviewroad (Apr 28, 2014)

jim55 said:


> What a can of worms. Does this mean that soon there may be a snake, spider, lizard etc in a flimsy cage under the seat in front of me? What about people allergic to pet hair? Amtrak will lose more Pax than gain.


Cans of worms still not permitted, by the way.


----------



## MattW (Apr 28, 2014)

FriskyFL said:


> How quickly we (and Amtrak and ILDOT) forget:
> 
> http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/59567-illini-392-accident-in-savoy-il-april-24/&do=findComment&comment=521792
> 
> How'd you like to be a pet on THAT train? When Fluffy or Fido starts peeing and crapping in your space, leaving them at home won't seem quite so bad.


Well how do the airlines handle it? How do the local transit services handle it?



jim55 said:


> What a can of worms. Does this mean that soon there may be a snake, spider, lizard etc in a flimsy cage under the seat in front of me? What about people allergic to pet hair? Amtrak will lose more Pax than gain.


I hope so. I don't think it's right to limit the type of animal as long as it fits in the weight and size standards. Though I can see a ban on spiders, scorpions, and poisonous snakes, and constrictor snakes over a certain size. As well as any animal needing an "open" cage with liquid (turtles, fish?, frogs). Frankly, Hamsters, Mice, Guinea Pigs would have less of a potential environmental impact than a dog or cat would. Their waste products are miniscule compared to a dog or cat. As to the allergies. As was already mentioned, there are far more potential allergens from humans already on board. What do the people allergic to perfume? or certain fabrics do?


----------



## FriskyFL (Apr 28, 2014)

MattW said:


> FriskyFL said:
> 
> 
> > How quickly we (and Amtrak and ILDOT) forget:
> ...


Well, there's always the baggage car...


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 28, 2014)

jim55 said:


> What a can of worms. Does this mean that soon there may be a snake, spider, lizard etc in a flimsy cage under the seat in front of me? *What about people allergic to pet hair? *Amtrak will lose more Pax than gain.


What about them? Service dogs already travel on Amtrak. It's not like Amtrak has ever been completely animal-free.


----------



## the Other Mike (Apr 28, 2014)

Well after reading this thread: :giggle:

Thought 1 ) Great, now we will have idiots trying to transport drugs inside of dogs

Thought 2 ) 25 dogs in a baggage car all fighting for the crack in the door to hang their heads in the breeze

Thought 3 ) Before we let dogs on the trains, can't we get rid of the lounge lizards FIRST ? 

Thought 4 ) Well this brings a new meaning to " the great unwashed in coach"


----------



## tp49 (Apr 28, 2014)

the Other Mike said:


> Well after reading this thread: :giggle:
> 
> Thought 1 ) Great, now we will have idiots trying to transport drugs inside of dogs
> 
> ...


Well, we could always use the dogs to get rid of the lounge lizards. :giggle:


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 28, 2014)

rusty spike said:


> FriskyFL said:
> 
> 
> > CaliforniaMom said:
> ...


LOL


----------



## afigg (Apr 28, 2014)

MattW said:


> I hope so. I don't think it's right to limit the type of animal as long as it fits in the weight and size standards. Though I can see a ban on spiders, scorpions, and poisonous snakes, and constrictor snakes over a certain size. As well as any animal needing an "open" cage with liquid (turtles, fish?, frogs). Frankly, Hamsters, Mice, Guinea Pigs would have less of a potential environmental impact than a dog or cat would. Their waste products are miniscule compared to a dog or cat. As to the allergies. As was already mentioned, there are far more potential allergens from humans already on board. What do the people allergic to perfume? or certain fabrics do?


I can understand why Amtrak is officially limiting the pets to cats and dogs. If they also allow hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, then why not a raccoon, ferret, or other less tame animals? Cats and dogs are likely to have rabies shots and be screened for rabies and other diseases. But what about a "pet" raccoon? Or any number of possible pathogens from rodent species, birds, reptiles, snakes?
If the new pet policy goes wide, I'm sure people will bring along the occasional hamster, rabbit with a yea, ok, from the station staff. But a formal rule limiting the carry-on pets to cats and dogs will keep the range and size of carry-on pets under control.


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 28, 2014)

If I was moving from one city to another, I would figure out a way to get my dog and/or cat there without infringing on the travel of others with possible noise, odor and potential allergens/parasites (fleas. ticks) that may cause a lessened travel experience for my fellow pax.

Evidently there are many here who feel that to be too cumbersome a burden. Their own travel experience and selfishness is paramount to them. *C'est la vie.*

So, I would suppose that these folks would not mind a bit if they were assigned a coach seat next to someone with a yapping chihuahua, or a cat with a bladder problem, or in a roomette across from a pooch that likes to howl in the darkness. Good for them. On the other hand, I doubt many pax would.

Perhaps the conductors/attendants should ask pax when boarding if they agree with this policy change, and if so, seat them next to the pax with the animals in one area of the train, so they can share with those who agree with them, and let them bask in the sounds and odors. And get to scratch themselves a bit if there are parasites.

Leaving the rest of the train for the rest of us.

I sincerely hope this experiment fails loudly.


----------



## Karl1459 (Apr 28, 2014)

I think this trial is a good start... what works/does not work for Amtrak and the passenger.

From a practical aspect, a 20 lb limit is about the maximum for under a seat or on a lap (while in a carrier)... about what you would expect to be practical for a child. If service expands the purchase of an adjoining seat for the larger (or multiple) pet would be reasonable.

The potential issues with allergies should not be a problem as long as the pet is in a carrier, and especially if the pet does not come into touch contact with the person with an allergy. It does not seem to be an issue with the legitimate service animals already using Amtrak.

The big issue is to how to enforce good pet stewardship in feeding, watering, and policing after pets, especially on the longest allowed trips. If the policy becomes unrestricted length system wide I can visualize pet friendly motels in places like Havre having a booming business both from responsible overnight respite stay, and those passengers whose pets are invited off the train.

As to a can of worms... if they are pets they might not be allowed, but if they are fish bait would they be?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 28, 2014)

I can probably put up with a barking dog or a meowing cat for a couple hours but two days seems a bit excessive. I'm not sure this will make any sense outside of corridor routes unless and until the baggage cars can carry the pets. Maybe have "visit your pet" stops where we currently allow smoking or something.


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 28, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> I can probably put up with a barking dog or a meowing cat for a couple hours but two days seems a bit excessive. I'm not sure this will make any sense outside of corridor routes unless and until the baggage cars can carry the pets. Maybe have "visit your pet" stops where we currently allow smoking or something.


I seem to recall that, even if pets are allowed on all trains, there will be a mileage or time limit. It wouldn't be a two-day journey. (And honestly, I wouldn't want to keep my pet in a carrier for that long anyway.) I believe it was something like 500 miles?


----------



## afigg (Apr 28, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> I can probably put up with a barking dog or a meowing cat for a couple hours but two days seems a bit excessive. I'm not sure this will make any sense outside of corridor routes unless and until the baggage cars can carry the pets. Maybe have "visit your pet" stops where we currently allow smoking or something.


The bill that was submitted in Congress to force Amtrak to enact a pets carry-on policy applied only to short to medium distance services of less than 750 miles. The LD trains were exempt. Since this experiment is clearly in response to the pressure (aka threat) from Congress to allow carry-on pets, I doubt there will be a change to allow pets on the LD trains.
If the carry-on pets option expands to more trains, Amtrak may add restrictions to limit pets to trips of a maximum of so many hours or miles for the corridor trains. NYP to Charlotte on the Carolinian is a pretty long haul for a dog in a cage.

There is an additional question of whether all the states would go along with allowing carry-on pets on their state supported train service. If Missouri says no, they are not going to allow pets on the River runner, but IL allows pets on the Lincoln service, that could result in confusion for connections in STL.


----------



## neroden (Apr 28, 2014)

MattW said:


> As to the allergies. As was already mentioned, there are far more potential allergens from humans already on board. What do the people allergic to perfume? or certain fabrics do?


Well, I have to take allergy pills during my entire trip and I still end up somewhat sick. The people who are allergic to pets can just stay away from the "pet car", so they're better off than that.



tonys96 said:


> If I was moving from one city to another, I would figure out a way to get my dog and/or cat there without infringing on the travel of others with possible noise, odor and potential allergens/parasites (fleas. ticks) that may cause a lessened travel experience for my fellow pax.


Humans create noise, odor, and frequently carry parasites and infectious diseases. Perhaps we should have human-free railroads. The Class I freight railroads would like that.


----------



## neroden (Apr 28, 2014)

afigg said:


> I can understand why Amtrak is officially limiting the pets to cats and dogs. If they also allow hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, then why not a raccoon, ferret, or other less tame animals? Cats and dogs are likely to have rabies shots and be screened for rabies and other diseases. But what about a "pet" raccoon? Or any number of possible pathogens from rodent species, birds, reptiles, snakes?


Your main pathogen risk is from creatures closely related to humans. (Mammals are closely related, and rodents are particularly closely related.) It's very unusual to catch anything from reptiles and birds, let alone fish.


----------



## amamba (Apr 28, 2014)

While I am all for corridor pet travel, I would like to add that I don't think its a good idea to bring a pet on a LD trip. I am all for reasonable accomodations like pets under a seat (like a PLANE!!!) for a short trip in the realms of 4-6 hoursish.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 28, 2014)

Maybe in exchange for allowing pets on trains we stop allowing babies? To be fair half the time it's not even the baby itself that's making noise but all the fawning adults who start shouting moronic gibberish the moment they notice a baby is nearby.



amamba said:


> While I am all for corridor pet travel, I would like to add that I don't think its a good idea to bring a pet on a LD trip. I am all for reasonable accomodations like pets under a seat (like a PLANE!!!) for a short trip in the realms of 4-6 hoursish.


How do airlines handle flights above six hours?


----------



## andersone (Apr 28, 2014)

Short haul with these rules is OK by me,,,, LD is a different banana,, water, food, excrement all become much more glaring issues,,, whoever wanted to put babies in the baggage car,,, i didn't bother to look who it was, should take that as their permanent seat,,, and if the conductor can say by by to anyone at any time for Fido or ****'s indiscretion I am cool with that because in my world, the conductor is ALWAYS right


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 28, 2014)

andersone said:


> Short haul with these rules is OK by me,,,, LD is a different banana,, water, food, excrement all become much more glaring issues,,, *whoever wanted to put babies in the baggage car,,, i didn't bother to look who it was, should take that as their permanent seat,*,, and if the conductor can say by by to anyone at any time for Fido or ****'s indiscretion I am cool with that because in my world, the conductor is ALWAYS right


I think you misread my comment.  I said we don't put people/babies in the baggage car, for a plethora of health and safety reasons, so pets don't belong there either.


----------



## amamba (Apr 28, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Maybe in exchange for allowing pets on trains we stop allowing babies? To be fair half the time it's not even the baby itself that's making noise but all the fawning adults who start shouting moronic gibberish the moment they notice a baby is nearby.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I actually don't know but you are welcome to search and report back. 

I checked at it looks like the american legacy carriers (delta, american, etc) only allow pets in the cabin for domestic flights so transatlantic and flights to hawaii are banned. So for a cross country flight we are looking at 6-7 hourish, right?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 28, 2014)

Nobody is advocating babies in a baggage car.

I don't want my quiet and well behaved baggage exposed to something like that.


----------



## TinCan782 (Apr 28, 2014)

Will give new meaning to the term "'smoke' stop"!


----------



## Paulus (Apr 28, 2014)

Am I the only one who is honestly disturbed by those proclaiming some sort of equivalence between human infants and pet animals?


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 28, 2014)

Paulus said:


> Am I the only one who is honestly disturbed by those proclaiming some sort of equivalence between human infants and pet animals?


Ok, look. I've said it once, and I'll say it again. *I realize animals are not human babies.* When I compare them, I mean:

-Animals are sensitive to temperature, just like humans

-Animals can get severely injured, or die, if a load shifts and something falls on their crate and breaks it, just like a human would if something fell on us

-Animals require water and food, just like humans

The reason I compare them as such is to make the point that a human in a baggage compartment would be neither comfortable nor safe. Therefore, why would we put animals back there? They aren't cargo, so why treat them as such? They are living creatures, just *like* humans. I didn't say they *ARE* humans.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Apr 28, 2014)

This trial is still for short distances only. The proposed bill was for short distances only. I think we're all in agreement that especially with this issue, LD trains are an entirely different animal than short distance trains.

As for airlines, AFAIK they only allow domestic animals on domestic flights, so they are by definition shorter flights. Animals are rarely (if ever) allowed on longer flights, because those will all be international, and very few countries allow you to bring in live animals.


----------



## the Other Mike (Apr 29, 2014)

I wonder where the boxcars that had A/C and high speed trucks on them that were tagged on the end of hurricane evacuation trains are in the off season ?

Oh wait, that would be using sense.


----------



## Henry Kisor (Apr 29, 2014)

Quite a few of the participants in this thread are objecting to the idea of philosophical equivalence between humans and animals.

But both science and society are advancing the argument that many animals are far more sapient than we had earlier thought. I.e., Fido knows what you're thinking and behaves accordingly toward you. Naturally this trend is helping fuel the idea that Fido is indeed a loved and valued member of your family and ought to be accommodated.

I hope the experiment is successful and that Amtrak allows transport of pets with their owners. Of course there still will be problems about allergies and with people who dislike the presence of animals. Perhaps a pet-free car could be designated on every train to accommodate that—say, one of the three coaches on the Zephyr. Wouldn't cost a dime, would it?


----------



## Cina (Apr 29, 2014)

So what I'm getting from this thread is, even after I've checked my baby I STILL can't take my seeing eye horse on board?

www.guidehorse.com


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2014)

The Amtrak experiment is limited to cats and dogs, but guide horses certainly are a possibility. They're miniature horses, dog-sized, not Budweiser Clydesdales, for cryin' out loud.


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 29, 2014)

Paulus said:


> Am I the only one who is honestly disturbed by those proclaiming some sort of equivalence between human infants and pet animals?


No.


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 29, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one who is honestly disturbed by those proclaiming some sort of equivalence between human infants and pet animals?
> ...


Then you guys are reading _way_ too much into what I'm saying. Read my last response. Again. Read it a few times, actually. Then look up "analogies" in the dictionary.


----------



## fillyjonk (Apr 29, 2014)

I have many concerns with this, because it seems that people often don't know how to behave in public any more:

1. People letting their pets out "for air" or "to see the scenery" and pet gets loose in the train. ("If anyone sees a hamster running around in car 333, please alert the conductor")

2. Barking dogs or howling cats. All night long.

3. People whose pets have fleas, and those fleas get transferred to other passengers. Or other passengers' pets. Or disease transmission.

4. Someone who brings on an ill-behaved pet, takes them out of the carrier (even if it's against the rules - people break "the rules" all the time), it bites someone. I know someone who lost part of a pinky finger to their own chihuahua.

5. Allergies. I have cat allergies, not bad, but on top of the other things I'm sensitive to (like cleaning fluids), it would be just another discomfort on the train. This would probably be lessened by their being a designated "pet car," but I remember back when there were smoking cars, a couple times I got PUT in the car with the smoking lounge because "that's the one the doors will open from at your stop" and my explaining I had allergies cut no ice.

6. People bringing snakes or something and winding up sitting next to a severe snakephobe. Even on a "pet car," that could happen.

7. The snake getting out and meeting up with the hamster that got out!


----------



## dlagrua (Apr 29, 2014)

Our pet cat was close to 30lbs when we got her and now she's about 20 lbs. just at the Amtrak weight limit.

If "small" pets are allowed on Amtrak it will bring the service to airline standards. My son often travels with his pet Yorkie Winston Beauregard LaGrua but those trips are under 5 hours. Amtrak can easily follow this policy


----------



## Eyegor (Apr 29, 2014)

FriskyFL said:


> Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.
> 
> Bona fide service animals are most definitely not PETS.
> 
> ...


Well said. That somes up my feelings as well. I'm all in favor of being able to travel with your critters; be they furry, finned, or scaly. However, they are not people. Pets belong in a climate controlled baggage car and bonafide service animals (which again are working, and not pets) belong with their human. I will go so far as to say, that even traveling with pets in a baggage car, make the passengers responsible for their care. On LD routes, this means access for walking, feeding, etc. And yes, it is reasonable to think an additional fee is appropriate.

As an alternative, if you want to bring a pet, you cannot travel in coach and you are responsible for keeping the animal in the roomette/bedroom and the condition of said space.

Lastly, I agree that this trial seems too limited to obtain truly pertinent data. Oddly enough, I also think places with the heaviest pax volumes (like the NEC) may be the worst routes to effectively gather data. Something in between seems like a beter alternative.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Apr 29, 2014)

rusty spike said:


> ...the Hamdog. :giggle: ...


What a brilliant idea as something to serve in the dining car! 

I'll bet it would taste like scrapple, h34r: but hey, it could help with the bottom line! 

And THAT is all that matters these daze!


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Apr 29, 2014)

AmtrakBlue said:


> I better make sure my big kitty stays under 20 lbs. He generally weighs about 19 lbs.
> 
> Wonder if the 20 lbs includes the weight of the carrier.


And who at Amtrak would be brave/stupid enough to try and find out what a cat that size weighs? :unsure:

On second thought, based on some experiences I've had... :help:

^_^


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 29, 2014)

fillyjonk said:


> 6. People bringing snakes or something and winding up sitting next to a severe snakephobe. Even on a "pet car," that could happen.
> 
> 7. The snake getting out and meeting up with the hamster that got out!


Snakes are not allowed. Per the article, it's cats and dogs only.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Apr 29, 2014)

The Davy Crockett said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> > I better make sure my big kitty stays under 20 lbs. He generally weighs about 19 lbs.
> ...


He's a gentle giant. He's 99% Maine Coon. If I get him a summer/lion cut he'll weigh less.

But I have no intention of taking him on any train rides.


----------



## FriskyFL (Apr 29, 2014)

So when your 3 hour corridor trip turns into a 12 hour trip from hell because some bozo decided to play "beat the train", who gets the pleasure of cleaning up the mess? The overflowing human lavatories are bad enough.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 29, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > Paulus said:
> ...


Sorry, made up controversy is what we thrive on here.



SarahZ said:


> fillyjonk said:
> 
> 
> > 6. People bringing snakes or something and winding up sitting next to a severe snakephobe. Even on a "pet car," that could happen.
> ...


As is not reading the article and just spewing forth the first thing that comes to mind no matter how disconnected from reality it actually is.

I've argued against pets onboard in the past. Other peoples pets annoy me, particularly dogs.

But this is probably a good thing for Amtrak, opening up the pool of possible passengers. People with allergies will just have to learn to live with it the way people with allergies to other things have to. It's a part of life.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 29, 2014)

Pets are not people. My rats are not nearly as stupid as most people I meet on the internet, that's for sure. I resent people suggesting that such a high class of life as a rat could ever be compared with the menace that is the human infant.

But seriously (and I'm not kidding about the relatively high intelligence of rodents compared to a cat or a dog, by the way) this policy is ridiculous. I can bring a small dog- an animal with insane amounts of dander, the capability to generate a lot of noise, and a basic dislike of being cooped up. But I can't bring my rats, which are basically silent, are cooped up all day long anyway, and produce far less dander. Why?


----------



## andersone (Apr 29, 2014)

great line DP "LD trains are an entirely different animal than short distance trains"

I think it is important to remember as well that how you feel about fido or kitty may not be the way someone else feels about fido or kitty, but the same could be said about my ex wife


----------



## CaliforniaMom (Apr 29, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Nobody is advocating babies in a baggage car.
> 
> I don't want my quiet and well behaved baggage exposed to something like that.


Funny!


----------



## CaliforniaMom (Apr 29, 2014)

The Davy Crockett said:


> rusty spike said:
> 
> 
> > ...the Hamdog. :giggle: ...
> ...


With a can of worms as an appetizer...


----------



## CalifMomX5 (Apr 29, 2014)

Eyegor said:


> FriskyFL said:
> 
> 
> > Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.
> ...


I would not want to be in the roomette/bedroom after an animal has been in it. There is no way that there would be time to clean it between one person getting off and another getting on. There is barely enough time now for the rooms to be cleaned after humans have gotten off. If they want to have a car completely for pets, that had that specific car door opened at every stop and they were required to stay at a distance from the other passengers then that might work. But to expect others to adapt to someone's whim of needing their pet with them all the time in the general public cars is not acceptable. What are they going to do when they decide to go eat a meal? Is Fido going to be happy being left all alone underneath the seat? Who is going to be responsible for the animal if someone decides to let it out while the owner is in the restroom or in the cafe car? Too many variables to worry about.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Apr 29, 2014)

Maybe Amtrak should have a climate controlled car on one of the busier routes.

99 on NER maybe?


----------



## Michigan Mom (Apr 29, 2014)

The problem I have with most analyses of these types of travel situations is that they only consider what works, if everything is on schedule, for a particular plan. But the inherent nature of travel is that things often don't go that way. "Emotional service animals" is a legal concept that is freely abused. Should people have to sit next to a minature horse with a poop bag, in flight? It's not hard to get that psychiatrist letter if the person is determined enough. Would most people's pets be able to "hold it" for a specified time on the train? Sure, and what happens when the train runs into one of the common delays for freight traffic? Where does this impact the cost equation for other passengers? Cause many customers will find other options if need be. I can't see comparing to Europe either where the distances are relatively compressed. I'm not only not an animal hater, in fact prefer them to people much of the time. But if I get a dog he or she will be my responsibility. The early Pioneers traversed this country with all their animals - but they didn't depend on others or inconvenience others in doing so. I think there should be a weighing of personal rights with other people's rights.


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 29, 2014)

Read. The. Article. Nobody is going to bring a horse, a snake, a spider, a dog over 20 pounds, a giraffe, a baboon, or a meerkat. Do you know why? Because, *according to the article*, these animals are not allowed.

For pets that weigh under 20 pounds, which is the rule (read the article) they can get absorbent pads for the crates. Airlines require them. They absorb liquid and smells. Solids can be flushed down the toilet, just like you would with a cloth diaper. Then, the soiled pad is wrapped in a plastic baggie, tied off, and put in the bathroom waste bin, just like a dirty diaper.

When I've moved to a new city with my cats, they never used their pad on those 3-4 hour trips (the test run is 4.5 hours at the longest, traveling from Chicago to Quincy, according to the article everyone should have read by now). But for animals that might, there are those pads, and I imagine Amtrak will require them just like the airlines do.

If we're going to talk personal rights versus other people's rights, then let me enter Exhibit A (shrieking babies), Exhibit B (people who wear a gallon of perfume), and Exhibit C (people who eat peanuts). Let's not forget Exhibit D (cell phone talkers) and Exhibit E (people who are drunk but not drunk enough to get kicked off the train). Oh, and Exhibit F (people who get on the train smelling like a dirty ashtray).

Amtrak allows all of these things, and now they are *testing* the idea of allowing animals under 20 pounds. If Amtrak didn't allow anything that infringed on another traveler's happiness and/or allergies, those would be some pretty empty trains.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 29, 2014)

I think they should test ban exhibits A through F, instead of allowing pets.


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 29, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I think they should test ban exhibits A through F, instead of allowing pets.


Haha.  I'm that hermit in the roomette with earplugs and headphones (at the same time) and my curtain drawn. It's my hamster ball of solitude.







I only come out when they announce that it's my turn to be fed. Oh, and to use the restroom and bathe. Other than that, it's Hamster Ball a Go-Go.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 29, 2014)

You'll be singing a different tune when your hamster ball is filled with zebra crap.


----------



## Jimmy (Apr 29, 2014)

RyanS said:


> You'll be singing a different tune when your hamster ball is filled with zebra crap.


I don't think there should be any singing at all. Especially those clowns that sing with their guitar thinking everyone wants a show in the SSL. Terrible!


----------



## Cina (Apr 29, 2014)

RyanS said:


> You'll be singing a different tune when your hamster ball is filled with zebra crap.


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 29, 2014)

I find that fun. And I love singing Allan Sherman songs in the lounge car.

Salesmen come and salesmen go,

But I have lost the best, I know,

And If I can't get him back to me,

I'll have to sell the factory!

Gimmee Jack Cohen, I don't care,

Gimmee Jack Cohen, I don't care,

Gimmee Jack Cohen, I don't care,

Cuz the bahstid's gone away!


----------



## TinCan782 (Apr 29, 2014)

Some pretty serious discussion back and forth. Good to see the hamster pop up once in a while to lighten the discussion.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Apr 30, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> Oh, and Exhibit F (people who get on the train smelling like a dirty ashtray).


I saw someone get kicked off a train for this, more or less. The passenger's definition of "finished my cigarette" differed substantially from the car attendant's definition. The dude threw a fit, and got thrown off. I didn't write to Amtrak, but I did make it a point to tell the conductor how appropriate and professional the attendant had been, and what an obnoxious jerk the passenger had been.

Also, airlines allow penguins. I wonder if Amtrak will?



Jimmy said:


> I don't think there should be any singing at all. Especially those clowns that sing with their guitar thinking everyone wants a show in the SSL. Terrible!


I agree with this wholeheartedly. All those guitarists say "But everyone always says that they love my guitar playing!" Yeah, and everyone always tells your aunt that they love her fruitcake. It doesn't mean that it's true.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Apr 30, 2014)

Aside from a true service animal leave the things at home. We have three cats and a dog they are fine with someone at home.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 30, 2014)

Since service animals are already allowed, the issues relative to allergies to dogs/cats/whatever is not really valid. The animals can already be there. Most service animals are well above the 20 pound animal as well. Just because Fido stayed home does not mean the Fido-owner did not have some quality lap time with Mutsky for a goodly time before leaving or give the hound a good hug and experience a good face licking just before walking out the door. Since exposure to an animal that sets off the allergy can be and probably usually is unexpected, the person must always be prepared with an epi-pen or whatever their short acting anti-allergy medicine is. And as noted, the exposure could be second hand, not direct exposure.

The reason that pet carrying ended was two fold: One, the SPCA and others got regulations put in force requiring climate control and other features not practical on trains. The other was slob pet owners. The restrictions on carrying animals in baggage cars is close to being an example of the saying that, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Sarah, as to not subjecting a pet to carriage in airport baggage compartments, that is not as simple a decision as it may seem. We did it three times. First, was a transpacific move. Our 16 year old dog had never know life with anybody else and was thoroughly bonded with the family. The final decision was that bringing her with us was the better choice. It took here a couple of weeks to forgive us, but she ultimately did. The other was a four hour trip each way after a not so happy for her experience at a pet motel, and not a cheap one, either. Being able to carry her in a cage or on a leash for a 4 hour trip would have saved several weekends of car rental.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Apr 30, 2014)

This is another congressional mandate gone awry. Most people travel without pets,those that do can fight TSA or stop for hotels all along the trip.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Apr 30, 2014)

George Harris said:


> Since service animals are already allowed, the issues relative to allergies to dogs/cats/whatever is not really valid. The animals can already be there. Most service animals are well above the 20 pound animal as well. Just because Fido stayed home does not mean the Fido-owner did not have some quality lap time with Mutsky for a goodly time before leaving or give the hound a good hug and experience a good face licking just before walking out the door. Since exposure to an animal that sets off the allergy can be and probably usually is unexpected, the person must always be prepared with an epi-pen or whatever their short acting anti-allergy medicine is. And as noted, the exposure could be second hand, not direct exposure.
> 
> The reason that pet carrying ended was two fold: One, the SPCA and others got regulations put in force requiring climate control and other features not practical on trains. The other was slob pet owners. The restrictions on carrying animals in baggage cars is close to being an example of the saying that, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
> 
> Sarah, as to not subjecting a pet to carriage in airport baggage compartments, that is not as simple a decision as it may seem. We did it three times. First, was a transpacific move. Our 16 year old dog had never know life with anybody else and was thoroughly bonded with the family. The final decision was that bringing her with us was the better choice. It took here a couple of weeks to forgive us, but she ultimately did. The other was a four hour trip each way after a not so happy for her experience at a pet motel, and not a cheap one, either. Being able to carry her in a cage or on a leash for a 4 hour trip would have saved several weekends of car rental.


 Having to stab your self with an epi pen all throughout a trip is a joke.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Apr 30, 2014)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> Aside from a true service animal leave the things at home. We have three cats and a dog they are fine with someone at home.


Not everyone has someone to stay home with their pets & not everyone can afford to pay for care.I don't think people should take their pets on trips just for the fun of it, but I do understand there are times pets need to travel with their owners.

I'm neutral on the pets issue.


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 30, 2014)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> Having to stab your self with an epi pen all throughout a trip is a joke.


I could say the same thing about having to cover my nose and mouth with a scarf and use my rescue inhaler every hour because some idiot thinks their perfume should be shared with everyone on the train. I've seen people spritzing it in the air because they don't like the smell of the train. :angry:


----------



## Cina (Apr 30, 2014)

Epi - pens are single- or sometimes double-use only, and usually have to be followed up by another dose of epinephrine at the hospital (in other words, they're for use in life-threatening cases only). So they're not really applicable to this (ridiculous) debate.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 30, 2014)

This discussion isn't ridiculous. It's ludicrous and preposterous, but not ridiculous.


----------



## Cina (Apr 30, 2014)

Ludicrous and preposterous are both synonyms for ridiculous, so we both win.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 30, 2014)

...?

Very few words are directly synonymous.

Ridiculous: deserving mockery

Ludicrous: so foolish as to be amusing

Preposterous: contrary to reason or common sense.


----------



## Paulus (Apr 30, 2014)

D.P. Roberts said:


> Also, airlines allow penguins. I wonder if Amtrak will?


I am in full favor of Amtrak allowing penguins simply for the sheer awesome.


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Since service animals are already allowed, the issues relative to allergies to dogs/cats/whatever is not really valid. The animals can already be there. Most service animals are well above the 20 pound animal as well. Just because Fido stayed home does not mean the Fido-owner did not have some quality lap time with Mutsky for a goodly time before leaving or give the hound a good hug and experience a good face licking just before walking out the door. Since exposure to an animal that sets off the allergy can be and probably usually is unexpected, the person must always be prepared with an epi-pen or whatever their short acting anti-allergy medicine is. And as noted, the exposure could be second hand, not direct exposure.
> ...


And a ridiculous, ludicrous and preposterous requirement for anyone to have to go through just so Fluffy can be close to Mommy.


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Crescent ATN & TCL said:
> 
> 
> > Aside from a true service animal leave the things at home. We have three cats and a dog they are fine with someone at home.
> ...


If you cannot afford to pay for pet care, you have two options:

1. Get rid of the pet

2. Stay home with the pet.


----------



## andersone (Apr 30, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> ...?
> 
> Very few words are directly synonymous.
> 
> ...


semantics, I love it,,, we need more of it in our morose and mundane world


----------



## Cina (Apr 30, 2014)

All of those definitions can mean the same thing, but if you can't handle both of us winning I'll just concede


----------



## Ryan (Apr 30, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> > Crescent ATN & TCL said:
> ...


3. Drive.

4. Take a plane.

5. Take Amtrak (traveling Chicago and Quincy).


----------



## Eyegor (Apr 30, 2014)

Allow me to start with 2 assumptions:

1) The members of this forum are some of the most ardent supporters of Amtrak to be found anywhere.

2) Other than that fact, the membership here mirrors in all respects the demographics of society at large. (I know that is most likely not the case, but let's pretend).

Given the amount of digital ink and emotions that have already been spilled on a trial that most of us won't even experience 1st hand, then I think Amtrak may be barking up the wrong tree here. If we, the self-appointed Amtrak fan club are this divided on the issue, I can only imagine what the larger traveling public will have to say. Fraught with danger this proposal is.

I have had the pleasure of traveling with a crated, well behaved canine of my seatmate's while flying. I've also been on a Guatemalan bus with the farmer and his at least a half dozen live chickens. New meaning of toture that one. I've traveled with my dogs. I've left my dogs home. I've changed travel plans because of my pets. This is a long winded way of me saying while I'm in favor of Amtrak allowing crated critters (their arbitrary weight limit seems about right), it isn't enough for me to get too worked up aboout one way or the other.

PS. I'll 2nd the vote for the penguins.


----------



## jis (Apr 30, 2014)

I think the only reason that Amtrak can get away with prohibiting pets is because of its relative insignificance in the big transportation picture in the US. AFAIK in every country where passenger rail plays a significant role in transportation pets are allowed in some way, shape or form. The details vary, but in all cases reasonable accommodation is made for pets a AFAICT.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 30, 2014)

Eyegor said:


> If we, the self-appointed Amtrak fan club are this divided on the issue, I can only imagine what the larger traveling public will have to say.


The traveling public isn't going to care one whit, much like 90% of the other topics we was millions of bits on daily.


----------



## MattW (Apr 30, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> Crescent ATN & TCL said:
> 
> 
> > George Harris said:
> ...


So we should ban pets from being outside at all? People with allergies might encounter them anywhere so if they were that allergic, they would have their epi-pens with them anyways!


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

RyanS said:


> Eyegor said:
> 
> 
> > If we, the self-appointed Amtrak fan club are this divided on the issue, I can only imagine what the larger traveling public will have to say.
> ...


Unless they happen to be assigned seating next to a yapping chihuahua.


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

RyanS said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > AmtrakBlue said:
> ...


Correct. And I hope option #5 ceases to be an option soon, and never expands to any other Amtrak routes.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 30, 2014)

At any given moment a chihuahua is so close to death that the simple act of respiration causes it to shiver in fright.


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

MattW said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > Crescent ATN & TCL said:
> ...


And then they get away from the allergen as quickly as possible, after the one time use of the pen. If you are boxed into a moving steel tube, it is difficult to get away from the allergen, especially on a sold out train where there is no alternative seating in a car without pets traveling. Would you be happy to give up your seat by a window to move to an aisle seat nest to a yapping dog with dander/ fleas all around it?


----------



## Ryan (Apr 30, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > Eyegor said:
> ...


You can get up and move if it bothers you that much.
No different than if you find yourself sitting next to a smelly person, or one that talks to much, or (god forbid!) a KID, or anything else that one might find annoying. We're not going to ban any of those from the train, so banning pets makes no sense.


----------



## MattW (Apr 30, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > tonys96 said:
> ...


When someone uses that pen, they have to go to the hospital anyways so guess what? That means they are moving away from the allergen.


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

RyanS said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > RyanS said:
> ...


You can? On a sold out train? Even if the conductor assigned your seat before boarding? You can just get up and move anywhere you want to? In whatever car you wish?

I do not think so..........


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

MattW said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > MattW said:
> ...


Seen any hospitals inside an Amtrak train lately?


----------



## MattW (Apr 30, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > tonys96 said:
> ...


The ambulance will meet the train at the next grade crossing. *facepalm*


----------



## Ryan (Apr 30, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> You can? On a sold out train? Even if the conductor assigned your seat before boarding? You can just get up and move anywhere you want to? In whatever car you wish?
> 
> I do not think so..........


There's always the lounge car, and 100% sold out trains aren't all that common.
You're bitching about and edge case of an edge case.


----------



## neroden (Apr 30, 2014)

jis said:


> I think the only reason that Amtrak can get away with prohibiting pets is because of its relative insignificance in the big transportation picture in the US. AFAIK in every country where passenger rail plays a significant role in transportation pets are allowed in some way, shape or form. The details vary, but in all cases reasonable accommodation is made for pets a AFAICT.


Yep. No real, serious mode of transportation bans pets outright. The pet ban is a sign of the irrelevance of Amtrak, and its repeal is a sign of the growing relevance of Amtrak.


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

RyanS said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > You can? On a sold out train? Even if the conductor assigned your seat before boarding? You can just get up and move anywhere you want to? In whatever car you wish?I do not think so..........
> ...


So, you are promoting the position that paying pax should relinquish their paid for seats, and move to the lounge, so Fluffy can ride with Mommy? And stay there for the entire ride, taking up space that other pax might want to use, becoming a "lounge lizard" ?

So it has come to cats and dogs taking precedence over pax now?


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

MattW said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > MattW said:
> ...


That' s great. Lets delay the train making all pax late, so little Fluffy gets to ride the train. Not to mention the person who has to get off the train in the middle of BFE, because Mommy can't bear to leave little Fluffy at home.

I hope this experiment is an epic failure.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Apr 30, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > tonys96 said:
> ...


Where is BFE? I am not familiar with that station code, & it's not listed anywhere on Amtrak's site.


----------



## FriskyFL (Apr 30, 2014)

BFE is the stop right before SOL...ROTFLMAO!


----------



## jebr (Apr 30, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > When someone uses that pen, they have to go to the hospital anyways so guess what? That means they are moving away from the allergen.
> ...


How do the airlines make it work? After all, those are more routinely sold out, an even more confined space, and nowhere to move. Plus, they're up in the air, and there's no hospitals there.

Yet they allow animals the same as Amtrak's new policies do.


----------



## MattW (Apr 30, 2014)

It's nothing more than a numbers game. How many people are going to be so badly affected by the pets that they *MIGHT* can't travel? How many pet owners currently can't use Amtrak because of the no-pets policy? Though I have no data to back it up, I'm willing to believe that the latter is the far greater number.


----------



## afigg (Apr 30, 2014)

jis said:


> I think the only reason that Amtrak can get away with prohibiting pets is because of its relative insignificance in the big transportation picture in the US. AFAIK in every country where passenger rail plays a significant role in transportation pets are allowed in some way, shape or form. The details vary, but in all cases reasonable accommodation is made for pets a AFAICT.


Agreed. If the NEC and the connecting corridors are to be regarded as a primary means of travel in the Northeast, then Amtrak will have to accomodate people bringing their (small) pets with them.

What is forcing Amtrak's hand on the pets policy are the members of Congress and their staffers who travel between DC and their home districts on a weekly basis on the NEC. In short, those who use the NEC as a primary means of travel. Unlike the rest of us, members of Congress have the option to submit a bill requiring Amtrak to carry small pets and try to get it passed. That in turn forces Amtrak to respond and implement - as an experiment - a policy to allow small pets in cages to preempt a possible bill or language inserted in an appropriations bill. Better for Amtrak to set the policy and rules than to take a risk that Congress will pass a bill with requirements or restrictions that limit Amtrak's flexibility in setting the rules on carry-on pets. There are already enough micro-management restrictions in the annual appropriations bill; don't need any more of those.

Something has not been discussed in this thread so far is if Amtrak charges $25 extra for people to bring a small pet on board is how much additional revenue that might generate. Could add up to a few million or more a year.


----------



## Karl1459 (Apr 30, 2014)

George Harris said:


> Since service animals are already allowed, the issues relative to allergies to dogs/cats/whatever is not really valid. The animals can already be there. Most service animals are well above the 20 pound animal as well. Just because Fido stayed home does not mean the Fido-owner did not have some quality lap time with Mutsky for a goodly time before leaving or give the hound a good hug and experience a good face licking just before walking out the door. Since exposure to an animal that sets off the allergy can be and probably usually is unexpected, the person must always be prepared with an epi-pen or whatever their short acting anti-allergy medicine is. And as noted, the exposure could be second hand, not direct exposure.
> 
> The reason that pet carrying ended was two fold: One, the SPCA and others got regulations put in force requiring climate control and other features not practical on trains. The other was slob pet owners. The restrictions on carrying animals in baggage cars is close to being an example of the saying that, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
> 
> Sarah, as to not subjecting a pet to carriage in airport baggage compartments, that is not as simple a decision as it may seem. We did it three times. First, was a transpacific move. Our 16 year old dog had never know life with anybody else and was thoroughly bonded with the family. The final decision was that bringing her with us was the better choice. It took here a couple of weeks to forgive us, but she ultimately did. The other was a four hour trip each way after a not so happy for her experience at a pet motel, and not a cheap one, either. Being able to carry her in a cage or on a leash for a 4 hour trip would have saved several weekends of car rental.


I have to take issue with the epi pen bit... Allergies to animals (dander etc) rarely cause anaphalaxis. Epinephrine is used to treat acute anaphalaxis when breathing is impared or there is vascullar collapse. If someone is so severely allergic to animals to where they are succeptable to anaphalaxis they will have to take severe precautions anyway... remember there are service animals and illicit animals on the trains already and we do not have significant instances of people falling and dying from allergies. That said, animal allergies do cause discomfort and can increase asthma, however exposure will be minimized by keeping the animal in a carrier.


----------



## Paulus (Apr 30, 2014)

For the love of all that is good and holy, can you folks please delete extraneous quoting? There is no reason to have more than two layers of quoting and it gets incredibly ridiculous for a single line response.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 30, 2014)

Cina said:


> All of those definitions can mean the same thing, but if you can't handle both of us winning I'll just concede


Don't you dare concede. I want to argue all day over the inane differences in similar words because I am REALLY bored!


----------



## Cina (Apr 30, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Cina said:
> 
> 
> > All of those definitions can mean the same thing, but if you can't handle both of us winning I'll just concede
> ...


Arguing makes my blood pressure go up! :unsure: :lol:


----------



## jis (Apr 30, 2014)

afigg said:


> Something has not been discussed in this thread so far is if Amtrak charges $25 extra for people to bring a small pet on board is how much additional revenue that might generate. Could add up to a few million or more a year.


I was talking to a friend of mine, who some who were on a past OTOL Fest to New Orleans have met on the platform of Birmingham AL, who is an ardent dog trainer. She actually has won many medals at dog shows. She shared an experience she had of taking a dog along in a carrier in the cabin of an airliner with her on a cross country flight.
She said that the dog carrier fit nicely under the seat in front of her and the well trained dog just slept through it all. It cost her more to have the dog on board than her own ticket. But she was happy that she was able to take the dog along with her.

This might give you some idea of the potential revenue opportunity that Amtrak is currently ignoring. A full additional passenger revenue potentially for not even providing any space other than that under a seat!


----------



## JayPea (Apr 30, 2014)

On the subject of chihuahuas, a few years ago while on the TE, a woman got on at Fort Worth with her boyfriend, a baby, a young boy of about 10 years old, and a service chihuahua. I'm sure it was a service dog, because as we all know that only service dogs are allowed on Amtrak, right??  At any rate, the entourage all boarded the same sleeper car I and my uncle were in. Oh great, I thought to myself, here comes the non-stop yapping.  I never heard so much as a yip out of the dog at all. Never seen a more calm, serene chihuahua in my life. Never a yip, as I said, from the time the train was held up at Fort Worth so she and her entourage could board the train with enough luggage to have serviced an entire Army platoon, until she got off in California (Ontario, I think). The dog was absolutely no problem The woman??? Well, she was a different case. One of the oddest people I've ever met. It will suffice to say she boarded the train with a man whom she obviously had great affection for, and got off the train with another man she'd meet onboard, with whom she had quickly added an equally great affection for. And that was the capper of a long list of nutty behavior on her part. I'd have kept the dog and booted the woman. :lol:

As for pets on Amtrak, I guess it's easy for me to say this from a neutral position, as I'm not allowed to have pets where I live, but I don't have much problem with small, crated animals for short distances. If I did have a pet, I'd never take it with me. That's what I have my mother for, for pet-sitting duties! :lol: I do know how much it can cost to board pets. My mom had cats, and she said oftentimes it cost her more to board them than it did to pay for plane tickets when she'd fly out to my uncle's from Spokane to Illinois. So that part I can sympathize with. For short distances, and for a trial basis, and for restrictions and added fees, why not? Of course, that's easy for me to say since I will probably never travel to Quincy from Chicago on Amtrak, either. :lol:


----------



## jis (Apr 30, 2014)

JR East, the master of handling huge crowds in frequent commuter and high speed trains allows pets that fit in carriers that are upto 90cm x70cm x70cm i.e. a bit larger than 3' x 2' x 2', and charge a hefty fee based on size of the carrier


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

JayPea said:


> On the subject of chihuahuas, a few years ago while on the TE, a woman got on at Fort Worth with her boyfriend, a baby, a young boy of about 10 years old, and a service chihuahua. I'm sure it was a service dog, because as we all know that only service dogs are allowed on Amtrak, right??


I had the great pleasure of seeing Tommy and Dick Smothers a year or so ago. Tommy told the story of being with a friend of his walking their dogs one day, when the friend said "Let's go in here for a drink". Tom told him they do not allow dogs in there, so the guy put on his sunglasses and told Tom to do the same and follow his lead. The guy went up to the door and when told dogs are not allowed said "This is my service dog, I cannot see" and was allowed to enter. Tom followed suit and told the doorman the same thing, the doorman replied "A chihuahua for a seeing-eye-dog?" Tom replied "They gave me a @#^%#*& CHIHUAHIA?!?!"

Then he started walking it around him on the leash.....the doorman asked "What the heck are you doing" to which he replied "Looking around".....

:giggle:


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

All of the folks here applauding this new service; I expect to see you volunteering to sit next to the folks who are bringing these pets on board, correct?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 30, 2014)

Don't be so childish, Tony, honestly.


----------



## MattW (Apr 30, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> All of the folks here applauding this new service; I expect to see you volunteering to sit next to the folks who are bringing these pets on board, correct?


Absolutely, I have no problems sitting next to a crated pet. Heck, I'd have no problems sitting next to a 100lb great dane, but I'm not going to even suggest that that be allowed.


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Don't be so childish, Tony, honestly.


I wonder whatever happened to the guy who said "_Disagree all you want but don't make a personal attack, amigo_."?

That must have been meant for *other people,* not him, I suppose. LOL


----------



## jebr (Apr 30, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> All of the folks here applauding this new service; I expect to see you volunteering to sit next to the folks who are bringing these pets on board, correct?


As long as you're volunteering to sit next to the kids.


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

MattW said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > All of the folks here applauding this new service; I expect to see you volunteering to sit next to the folks who are bringing these pets on board, correct?
> ...


Good for you! Maybe you will get that opportunity. Now you know the routes you can do this on, and I hope they remain the only routes.


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

jebr said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > All of the folks here applauding this new service; I expect to see you volunteering to sit next to the folks who are bringing these pets on board, correct?
> ...


Done!


----------



## amamba (Apr 30, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> All of the folks here applauding this new service; I expect to see you volunteering to sit next to the folks who are bringing these pets on board, correct?


Absolutely. And the pet will be in a carrier underneath a seat!!!! You might not even notice it is there - like you do on a plane.

And I would just like to ask if you have flown domestically recently? There was probably a pet on your plane, too.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 30, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Don't be so childish, Tony, honestly.
> ...


I don't call my statement a personal attack.


----------



## neroden (Apr 30, 2014)

jis said:


> It cost her more to have the dog on board than her own ticket.


Wow. That is a lot.



> But she was happy that she was able to take the dog along with her.
> 
> This might give you some idea of the potential revenue opportunity that Amtrak is currently ignoring. A full additional passenger revenue potentially for not even providing any space other than that under a seat!


From what I know of pet owners, she's not uncommon; people *will* pay more than double to have their pets travel. Practically every pet owner will pay the $25. Amtrak could probably charge more than $25 per pet, though I don't know how high the limit is -- $50 might be pushing it.

I'm sure my fiancee will selectively sit next to the dogs. I hope she doesn't decide that's nicer than sitting next to me.


----------



## Henry Kisor (Apr 30, 2014)

This is an enormously entertaining thread. Nobody takes animal issues as seriously as Americans do. (I'm one. An American, I mean, not an animal.)


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

amamba said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > All of the folks here applauding this new service; I expect to see you volunteering to sit next to the folks who are bringing these pets on board, correct?
> ...


I fly almost exclusively on SWA, when I have to fly, and no, there have not EVER been pets in the cabin of a plane I have ridden on. As severe as my ex's cat allergies were, she would have known if there were a cat in the cabin.

Just as an aside, while dogs and cats ARE allowed on most legacy air carriers, they are required to have a signed statement from a vet that the animal meets minimum health requirements (including no parasites) to fly. That does not seem to be the case for Amtrak's new experiment. It is up to the judgement of a conductor who has no animal health training.

Again, I hope this experiment is an epic failure.


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


You wouldn't, since you did it. It is only noticeable when it is done TO you, I suppose. Whatever..........the irony is palpable.............LOL


----------



## Ryan (Apr 30, 2014)

There's a difference between commenting on how someone is acting and attacking them personally.

I'm sure you're perfectly capable of holding a rational conversation, you're just not displaying it anywhere in the thread.

Whatever it takes to get a rise out of folks, I guess. I'm done with your trolling.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 30, 2014)

Don't be such a nebbish.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Apr 30, 2014)

Golly, who knew that a thread about hamsters could turn into such a fight?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Apr 30, 2014)

D.P. Roberts said:


> Golly, who knew that a thread about hamsters could turn into such a fight?


more like fighting like cats & dogs. Amtrak isn't allowing hamsters on board yet. ^-^

( * * )


----------



## amamba (Apr 30, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> > tonys96 said:
> ...


With allergies that bad, I'm surprised that they don't get set off by sitting next to someone that owns a cat. Pretty much everything I own is covered in dog hair, especially my winter coat. And Southwest does allow pets on board, I stand by my statement that you have probably flown on a plane with them and not even noticed it.


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

D.P. Roberts said:


> Golly, who knew that a thread about hamsters could turn into such a fight?


LOL! Thanks for the humor injection!

You are right. I apologize to the board for allowing myself to be dragged down to this tit-for-tat, from folks who have posted in this thread that they agree with my position, but just seem to enjoy trying to seem superior with "Don't be XXXXX" comments, and the like.

In post # 90 one said " I've argued against pets onboard in the past. Other peoples pets annoy me, particularly dogs." 

I agree!

In post # 15 one said "Frankly, if pet carrying is done it should be done in a special room in a baggage car. People are allergic to pets, you know. And what do you do if someone's dog won't stop barking? The babies are bad enough."

I also agree!

So, I suppose I will just thank them for agreeing with my position on this subject and appreciate that. Thanks, fellas, you're the best!


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

amamba said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > amamba said:
> ...


I am glad you know so much about my flying experiences, and my ex's allergies.


----------



## the Other Mike (Apr 30, 2014)

D.P. Roberts said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > MattW said:
> ...


Between Cairo and Centralia Il


----------



## The Journalist (Apr 30, 2014)

I wonder how involved Illinois was in getting this done. Another side effect of PRIIA giving the states more control over their short-distance routes? In any case, it's deeply silly that at least the short-distance trains don't allow pets. I imagine the results of this test will lead to the same policy being applied systemwide.

Something being missed, it seems: There'll be a specific "pet car" on these trains. If someone has an objection to (or an allergy) pets, they can avoid that car. I suspect this means everyone with a service animal will be placed in that car too. So this could actually be a net positive for people with allergies, since they can avoid where all the animals are.


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

The Journalist said:


> Something being missed, it seems: There'll be a specific "pet car" on these trains. If someone has an objection to (or an allergy) pets, they can avoid that car. I suspect this means everyone with a service animal will be placed in that car too. So this could actually be a net positive for people with allergies, since they can avoid where all the animals are.


If this is true, that is good, and a lot of this thread will be superfluous. I did not see that in the original post, though. Can you provide a link or clarification, please? Thanks !

*EDIT: *The Journalist is correct, the service notice DOES say that a specific car will be designated as a "pet car". This will alleviate most problems for those who have allergies and/or a predisposition to avoiding these animals. That makes this plan FAR more palatable to me.

I apologize to any and all who saw this notation and were basing their support on that, while I missed it. And a *HUGE thank you* to "The Journalist" for pointing it out.

I do, however, still hope it fails. That "slippery slope" thing, ya know.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 30, 2014)

You may want to try the link in the very first post of the thread.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 30, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> In post # 90 one said " I've argued against pets onboard in the past. Other peoples pets annoy me, particularly dogs."


The difference is I'm not trying to impose my likes on the traveling public. If faced with the unlikely situation where I'm stuck next to an annoying pet, I'll deal with it like a rational, mature adult.


----------



## The Journalist (Apr 30, 2014)

It's on the service update: "Each Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg train will have a designated pet car on the train."


----------



## the Other Mike (Apr 30, 2014)

And to think that once upon a time, most railroads allowed horses on their passenger trains. Yes, they had their own cars, How do you think racing horses got around ?


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

The Journalist said:


> It's on the service update: "Each Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg train will have a designated pet car on the train."


Thanks for pointing that out!


----------



## jebr (Apr 30, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> The Journalist said:
> 
> 
> > It's on the service update: "Each Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg train will have a designated pet car on the train."
> ...


You're still sitting next to the kids.


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 30, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> Just as an aside, while dogs and cats ARE allowed on most legacy air carriers, they are required to have a signed statement from a vet that the animal meets minimum health requirements (including no parasites) to fly. That does not seem to be the case for Amtrak's new experiment.* It is up to the judgement of a conductor who has no animal health training.*


No, but a vet does.

Also on the service notice:

"Passengers will be required to certify that pet is up to date on vaccinations and accepts liability for animal."


----------



## tonys96 (Apr 30, 2014)

jebr said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > The Journalist said:
> ...


Gladly!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 1, 2014)

Animals in the pet car, kids in the nursery car, and adults in the bar car. Everybody wins.


----------



## rickycourtney (May 1, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Animals in the pet car, kids in the nursery car, and adults in the bar car. Everybody wins.


Where do I sign the petition to get Amtrak to add a bar car?

I'd love to have a bar where liquor is served out of real bottles not those silly little "singles." Come to think of it, the bar is one of my favorite parts of the Pacific Parlour Cars!


----------



## Train person (May 1, 2014)

Devil said:


> Animals in the pet car, kids in the nursery car, and adults in the bar car. Everybody wins.


Bravo Sir....


----------



## NW cannonball (May 1, 2014)

Cina said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Cina said:
> ...


Oh, I like it I like it. Let's have a medical study on how arguing can counteract the pressure drop in anaphylaxis.

[medref-20134902] Study confirms that getting patient into an argument improves blood pressure and survival in early-stage anaphylactic shock.

Thanks for the smiles


----------



## NW cannonball (May 1, 2014)

Actually the allergy argument seems weak. Yeah, weak.

Why should Amtrak, or any other carrier, defend all passengers against sniffles and sneezes, and all allergens, which for some folks is many things.

"It's everywhere, it's everywhere" not possible.

For the pet haters - I sympathize - but the main problem is with the owners -- most pet owners are rational - some more so than their "pets".

Some pet-lovers are insane.

Hoping (and expecting) that the process results in reasonable rules.


----------



## Cina (May 1, 2014)

NW cannonball said:


> Oh, I like it I like it. Let's have a medical study on how arguing can counteract the pressure drop in anaphylaxis.
> 
> [medref-20134902] Study confirms that getting patient into an argument improves blood pressure and survival in early-stage anaphylactic shock.
> 
> Thanks for the smiles


This seems fitting for both this conversation AND this thread:

http://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y


----------



## Ryan (May 1, 2014)

No it isn't!

Sent from my iPhone


----------



## PRR 60 (May 1, 2014)

I have a rather significant cat allergy, which is a nasty problem because our daughter and son-in-law have three cats. About an hour after being in their home I start to feel the tightness, and about an hour later it is cough and wheeze city. Once stirred up, the cough and wheeze can hang on for several weeks. It a price worth paying to visit our kid.

Last year I boarded a transcon flight, and as I was settling in, here comes a gentleman on board with a cat in a carrier. Naturally, he and little Fluffy sit right next to me. Yikes! Nearly six hours next to a cat, and my rarely-used inhaler was in my bag in the overhead. Much to my surprise, I had no issues whatsoever. I'm not sure if it was the breed of cat or the fact that it was just the cat and not then entire environment that had the dander, but six hours later, I got off the plane and was fine.

Allergies vary all over the lot. In my case, just having a cat nearby turned out to not be an issue, and I thought it would be. Being in an environment that has cats 24/7 and dander everywhere is. One datapoint, for what it is worth. I'm sure others could have different reactions.

By the way, last year I needed a cat-scan. I mentioned to the tech that I was allergic to cats and wondered if that would be an issue. The tech looked at me like I was nuts until I smirked slightly (I can be very deadpan with my off-the-wall humor). My wife just shook her head (used to it). A little gallows humor.


----------



## jis (May 1, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> All of the folks here applauding this new service; I expect to see you volunteering to sit next to the folks who are bringing these pets on board, correct?


Frankly that could not be much worse than some of the humans that one get to sit next to at times.  Personally I'd have no problem sitting next to someone who has a dog in a carrier which is sitting under the seat any more than I'd have a problem sitting next to a person with a bag under the seat. Indeed it would be less disruptive on the whole than sitting next to a person with a baby yelling his/her heart out throughout the journey.


----------



## tonys96 (May 1, 2014)

PRR 60 said:


> By the way, last year I needed a cat-scan. I mentioned to the tech that I was allergic to cats and wondered if that would be an issue. The tech looked at me like I was nuts until I smirked slightly (I can be very deadpan with my off-the-wall humor). My wife just shook her head (used to it). A little gallows humor.


LOL


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 1, 2014)

What kind of dog can fit inside a carrier that can fit underneath an airline seat? I can barely get my laptop to fit down there.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 1, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> What kind of dog can fit inside a carrier that can fit underneath an airline seat? I can barely get my laptop to fit down there.


Next time leave the CRT monitor at home.


----------



## CaliforniaMom (May 1, 2014)

JayPea said:


> Never seen a more calm, serene chihuahua in my life. Never a yip, as I said, from the time the train was held up at Fort Worth so she and her entourage could board the train with enough luggage to have serviced an entire Army platoon, until she got off in California (Ontario, I think). The dog was absolutely no problem


Yellow labs are great service and rescue animals, used in all types of work. However, not ours. Buddy? So hyper, he jumps vertically about 4 feet in the air. If he were a guide dog he would have washed out in the first week, or pulled his handler straight into a bush while chasing a squirrel.

On the other hand, I don't like chihuahuas - too yappy and high strung. Till I found one wandering on our block (with tags but call to phone number didn't answer). I held him while going house to house, and he never wiggled or gave me any trouble. Louie is his name.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 1, 2014)

Just make sure the animals don't get into the dining car kitchen.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (May 1, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Just make sure the animals don't get into the dining car kitchen.





tonys96 said:


> That makes this plan FAR more palatable to me.


----------



## afigg (May 1, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> What kind of dog can fit inside a carrier that can fit underneath an airline seat? I can barely get my laptop to fit down there.


You must have a big laptop. There is space under the airline seat in front of you. But put a pet carrier under the seat and there is little room for your feet or laptop bag/briefcase.

The information sheet on the carry-on pet program states that maximum size of the pet carrier is 19" long x 14" wide x 10.5" high. Which appears to be a typical max size for airline carry-on pet carriers, if not a little larger. A search for airline pet carriers turns up a lot of models, including carriers with wheels.


----------



## JoeBas (May 1, 2014)

jis said:


> Personally I'd have no problem sitting next to someone who has a dog in a carrier which is sitting under the seat any more than I'd have a problem sitting next to a person with a bag under the seat. Indeed it would be less disruptive on the whole than sitting next to a person with a baby yelling his/her heart out throughout the journey.


Please let me know when you come across a barking, whining or howling bag. TIA.


----------



## jis (May 1, 2014)

afigg said:


> The information sheet on the carry-on pet program states that maximum size of the pet carrier is 19" long x 14" wide x 10.5" high. Which appears to be a typical max size for airline carry-on pet carriers, if not a little larger. A search for airline pet carriers turns up a lot of models, including carriers with wheels.


Are those for in cabin use? Airlines do have a pet carried in larger carriers in hold program too, and I have seen some pretty enormous carriers travel that way.


----------



## jis (May 1, 2014)

JoeBas said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I'd have no problem sitting next to someone who has a dog in a carrier which is sitting under the seat any more than I'd have a problem sitting next to a person with a bag under the seat. Indeed it would be less disruptive on the whole than sitting next to a person with a baby yelling his/her heart out throughout the journey.
> ...


That is an interesting point, since I have seen smallish dogs being surreptitiously carried on many Amtrak trains just tucked away out of the range of prying eyes of the staff. Things work fine as long as there is no commotion. I suspect the ones doing so perhaps medicate the pup to keep 'em quiet or something. I have never seen one get caught, and even if noticed, ever get removed from the train. So to some extent this is just going to make something that happens quite a bit anyway, just come under the fold of rules, thus adding an ability to charge for it, etc.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 1, 2014)

D.P. Roberts said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Just make sure the animals don't get into the dining car kitchen.
> ...


Dog isn't very tasty, admittedly. Cat is much gamier and tastier.


----------



## JoeBas (May 1, 2014)

jis said:


> That is an interesting point, since I have seen smallish dogs being surreptitiously carried on many Amtrak trains just tucked away out of the range of prying eyes of the staff. Things work fine as long as there is no commotion. I suspect the ones doing so perhaps medicate the pup to keep 'em quiet or something. I have never seen one get caught, and even if noticed, ever get removed from the train. So to some extent this is just going to make something that happens quite a bit anyway, just come under the fold of rules, thus adding an ability to charge for it, etc.


That's the thing about this policy - I'm sure it will work fine, when everything works fine.

But the propensity of "Everything working fine" is much less on AMTRAK than on other transportation mediums. And the potential for this is MUCH MUCH higher on Amtrak than on Airlines. Nobody takes their dog out of the crate on a plane to walk him because we're stopped for a crew change en route, and the dog gets away, etc. Of course, YMMV.

I just fail to see how big the reward is for the risk.


----------



## XHRTSP (May 1, 2014)

I've carried big dogs in aircraft cabins, not in crates but on leashes, before without any issue. That being said they were military working dogs with their highly trained handlers.

Relevance to this discussion: probably none, just thought I'd throw it out there though.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 1, 2014)

If the dog gets loose in a crew change, then I guess the pup and owner get left behind.


----------



## delicious (May 1, 2014)

JoeBas said:


> takes their dog out of the crate on a plane to walk him because we're stopped for a crew change en route, and the dog gets away, etc. Of course, YMMV.


I would think if the dog was left behind smoking a cigarette on a station stop that he would have to catch the next day's train.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 1, 2014)

Pre-Amtrak, our dog got loose at a stop while my sisters had him out for a break. The conductor came and told my mom that if she didn't catch him within xx minutes, the train would leave without him. My mom was able to get him back on the train before it left.

I have no problem with the train leaving dog (& owner) behind if the dog gets loose and cannot be caught/boarded before the train needs to leave.

This should not be a problem with the current pet policy as the pets are to be in carriers and would hopefully stay in their carriers for the duration just like they would need to in an airplane.


----------



## guest (May 1, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > SarahZ said:
> ...


+++++++ Thank you, Sarah!


----------



## Bob Dylan (May 1, 2014)

BFE is an Obscene abbreviation used by Some in thecMillitary,Athletes,People from New Jersey/New York and other uneducated types but not Texans! LOL

Bum F**** Egypt means in the Middle of Nowhere!(Sanderson, Texas would be a good example)


----------



## FriskyFL (May 1, 2014)

So are we all in agreement?


----------



## afigg (May 1, 2014)

Ok, so this thread is now up to 211 posts after only a couple of days. Pets and the AutoTrain are surefire hot topics! :lol:

Here is my fearless prediction. After the pilot trial, a policy of carry-on pets will be sequentially implemented to the NEC and across most state supported corridor trains over a period of months or a year with a new $25 surcharge option added to the on-line reservation system. The world will not end, people will adjust, people with allergies will not asphyxiate on the trains, the occasional pet will get loose resulting in entertaining views and stories of the owner trying to catch their cat or dog, and Amtrak will make some extra revenue. A year after carry-on pets are allowed, it will be considered routine and non-controversial.


----------



## MrFSS (May 1, 2014)

afigg said:


> Ok, so this thread is now up to 211 posts after only a couple of days. Pets and the AutoTrain are surefire hot topics! :lol:
> 
> A year after carry-on pets are allowed, it will be considered routine and non-controversial.


 Sort of like flowers on the tables!


----------



## The Davy Crockett (May 1, 2014)

afigg said:


> Amtrak will make some extra revenue.


What this is all about.

Boardman should start an annual 'yard' and bake sale at 60 Mass. Ave too, as this could bring in some additional revenue as well.


----------



## JoeBas (May 1, 2014)

AmtrakBlue said:


> This should not be a problem with the current pet policy as the pets are to be in carriers and would hopefully stay in their carriers for the duration just like they would need to in an airplane.


You know what they say, hope in one hand, [email protected]&t in the other, and see which fills up first. 

I just see people not equating "plane behavior" with "train behavior", and have nothing wrong with taking fluffy out for "a little loving" while sitting on a siding somewhere waiting for whatever, and all that having the cat out of the bag (so to speak) ensuing accordingly.


----------



## tp49 (May 1, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> What kind of dog can fit inside a carrier that can fit underneath an airline seat? I can barely get my laptop to fit down there.


With the IFE box under the seat in front of me on most of the flights I take I can barely get my feet and legs to fit under there.


----------



## JayPea (May 2, 2014)

afigg said:


> Ok, so this thread is now up to 211 posts after only a couple of days. Pets and the AutoTrain are surefire hot topics! :lol:


Imagine how many posts we'd have if someone started a topic about allowing pets on the Auto Train! :lol:


----------



## 7deuceman (May 3, 2014)

Actually, the Auto Train could be a target service to consider allowing the carriage of dogs and cats. People that would like to use Auto Train but don't because their pets aren't currently allowed, would very likely be interested to book a trip with Auto Train. Allowing pets on Auto Train could be a huge plus for many travelers and an increase in revenue, attracting new and repeat business for Amtrak.

Snowbirds HATE to leave their pets at home and many don't want to drive from Virginia to Florida or other long distances IE: New York to Florida, in order to have a vehicle and pets at their destination,


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 3, 2014)

I hope they put all the pets on the AutoTrain. That would be great. Then I can avoid them by riding the Silvers.


----------



## CalifMomX5 (May 3, 2014)

Was in the LAUS Metro Lounge last night and someone had a dog on a leash in there (boxer/terrier type...don't know my breeds). When we got ready to catch the tram car he carried a large soft sided carrier that leaked some sort of liquid. He was in the lounge before we got there so don't know if anything got said. Thinking he must be planning on keeping the dog in a room. Feel sorry for persons coming after him in that room.


----------



## SarahZ (May 3, 2014)

It could have been a water dish. They make portable water bowls that fold up along with water dishes that hook to the inside of the door.


----------



## CalifMomX5 (May 3, 2014)

Why though was he getting on the SSL? I thought it was select SHORT runs they were trying.


----------



## SarahZ (May 3, 2014)

CalifMomX5 said:


> Why though was he getting on the SSL? I thought it was select SHORT runs they were trying.


That I'm not sure of. I was just speaking to the liquid.


----------



## CalifMomX5 (May 3, 2014)

Update: The dog was carried in arms into the dining car and was put under the table except when he would go out into the aisle.


----------



## SarahZ (May 3, 2014)

CalifMomX5 said:


> Update: The dog was carried in arms into the dining car and was put under the table except when he would go out into the aisle.


He could be a seizure dog. If the staff didn't say anything, especially when it was that obvious, then there's a good chance the passenger notified Amtrak during booking. Not all service animals wear special scarves/jackets.

There was a really great, informative post about this a while back, written by someone who trains service dogs. I'll have to see if I can find it.


----------



## CalifMomX5 (May 3, 2014)

Thanks for clarifying Sara.


----------



## CalifMomX5 (May 3, 2014)

Sorry SarahZ for misspelling your name.


----------



## SarahZ (May 3, 2014)

CalifMomX5 said:


> Sorry SarahZ for misspelling your name.


It's okay.  I'm used to it.

When people ask if it has an H or not, I sometimes say, "With an H. My parents paid extra." Sometimes they smile. Sometimes they look at me like I'm crazy.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 3, 2014)

Actually some dogs that don't look at all like service dogs are in fact service dogs. For instance, my sisters ex boyfriend had the weirdest problem I ever heard of- he either couldn't synthesize or couldn't break down properly potassium in his body.

When he got low on potassium, from forgetting to take pills or running out of them or even just a freak occurrence (he had gallon jars of hundreds of huge horse pills of potassium and would go through a jar in a day or two) he would become increasingly paralyzed. It could happen slowly, or it could happen very rapidly.

It prevented him from working, or even having energy in many cases. It was the primary cause of their eventual break up. Anyway, when they were together they had a fairly bright Corgi named Elvis who after some custody wrangling, when to him.

When he was alone, he was quite depressed and wasn't taking care of himself properly. Elvis learned to react to the symptoms before he even realized what was happening. After some brief training Elvis was taught to a) alert him early, 2) bring him an emergency tray of pills and help him take them, and 3) push an emergency button on the floor which called 911.

Besides those three items, he's just a very friendly, slightly doofy, extremely playful, overweight Corgi. But he is a certified service dog who has saved his masters life many times.


----------



## Bob Dylan (May 3, 2014)

Dogs are mans best friend (and cats are women's!LOL) and as service animals are fantastic! Its just that Pets don't belong on LD Trains! As we say, YMMV


----------



## tonys96 (May 3, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> Dogs are mans best friend (and cats are women's!LOL) and as service animals are fantastic! Its just that Pets don't belong on LD Trains! As we say, YMMV


Agreed. Just as some ppl have allergies to some pillow stuffing and should not be forced to use those pillows or go without, some people are allergic to cat/dog dander and should not be forced to be exposed to that allergen or go without, except in cases where another's health is also concerned (service animals).

Putting animals (service and pets alike) in a single car will alleviate a large portion of that problem, though. KUDOS to Amtrak for adding that to the experimental plan.

As Jim says, YMMV.


----------



## SarahZ (May 3, 2014)

Right, so just like I solved my pillow problem, Amtrak solved the "but the dander will get everywhere!!!" problem.

I actually have a strong dog allergy, but dogs in kennels don't bother me as long as I take my medicine and wash my hands after I pet them. I've been next to them on airplanes before, and I'd happily sit in the pet car on a train.

Now we just need a separate car for people who wear too much perfume.


----------



## tonys96 (May 3, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> Now we just need a separate car for people who wear too much perfume.


That would be nice!


----------



## Eris (May 3, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> Putting animals (service and pets alike) in a single car will alleviate a large portion of that problem, though. KUDOS to Amtrak for adding that to the experimental plan.


Just to clarify for you- service dogs cannot be limited to a single car- Amtrak "must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go."

http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 4, 2014)

Typical of the ADA's sledgehammer approach to conflict resolution.


----------



## Steve4031 (May 4, 2014)

Let's stick to the discussion of how this works on Amtrak and leave the personal preferences out of it.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## MattW (May 4, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Typical of the ADA's sledgehammer approach to conflict resolution.


It makes sense in this case. People don't just need a service animal while they're sitting in their coach seat, they may need also need them when they go to the cafe. The pet however can stay in the coach seat and does not need to accompany its owner to the cafe.

If you want to talk about sledgehammer approach, let's talk about the insistence on level boarding for all trains at all stations even when a wheelchair lift could work well at some stations.


----------



## tonys96 (May 4, 2014)

Eris said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > Putting animals (service and pets alike) in a single car will alleviate a large portion of that problem, though. KUDOS to Amtrak for adding that to the experimental plan.
> ...


That is just fine! No one I know of has a problem with a service animal going anywhere it's "master" goes!!

But there is absolutely NOTHING illegal or immoral about seating service animals in the same coach car as pets. Everyone buys a "seat" in a car. Amtrak chooses which car, even which sleeper car.

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/59658-assigned-seatscars/


----------



## TinCan782 (May 4, 2014)

tonys96 said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > Now we just need a separate car for people who wear too much perfume.
> ...


I'll vote for that too!


----------



## afigg (Aug 5, 2014)

The Pets on Board pilot project is being expanded to the Illini and Saluki and had been extended through April 2015. Press release: Amtrak and Illinois DOT to Expand Pets Program To A Second Downstate Route. What I find odd in the excerpt below is the statement that almost 20 pets have been carried on board since April. Only 20?



> CHICAGO -- Amtrak and the Illinois Department of Transportation (Illinois DOT) are adding the Chicago-Champaign-Carbondale route of the Illini and Saluki trains to a pilot project that allows travelers to bring their pets along on trips to and from Chicago and Downstate Illinois. Small pets have been carried between Chicago and Quincy on Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg trains since April, with almost 20 small animals safely transported.
> 
> Although the test was scheduled to end in November, Amtrak and Illinois jointly decided to give the idea an extended trial, through April 26, 2015.


----------



## neroden (Aug 5, 2014)

It does sound low. However: the initial trial only allowed people to take pets if they started their round trip at Galesburg, Naperville, or Chicago. And Naperville only allowed pets departing on one of the *westbounds*, which eliminates the possibility of Naperville-Chicago round trips! So most of the possible trip options were really unpopular ones, with the only likely one being Galesburg-Chicago. (People from Chicago could take round trips to anywhere on the line, but how often do they do that?)

The trial has only run for about three months. Since NARP just took down their detailed ridership statistics page, I'm not sure how many people ride between Galesburg and Chicago in a typical three-month period. I'm guessing it's a pretty small number of passengers to start with.

The expanded trial will include Champaign-Urbana / Chicago which should be substantially more popular.


----------



## MattW (Aug 5, 2014)

Well it's not exactly like Naperville would have a lot of pet traffic headed to Chicago. Since the pet trial was this one route, and 380 is the only train that even picks up at Naperville, and only carries passengers if they're connecting to another train at Chicago, it's kind of pointless to "accept" pets EB at Naperville. Though I just looked and METRA doesn't allow pets (except service animals) at all which is odd and hopefully something that will be changed as well.

I'm glad to see the expansion so soon though admittedly surprised. This seems to be a good 0-cost way of adding both revenue and riders!


----------



## amamba (Aug 5, 2014)

I think another good trial run for this would be the Downeaster.

It is tough to gauge effectiveness when it seems that the trial is limiting to who can utilize the service.


----------



## Paulus (Aug 5, 2014)

neroden said:


> The trial has only run for about three months. Since NARP just took down their detailed ridership statistics page, I'm not sure how many people ride between Galesburg and Chicago in a typical three-month period. I'm guessing it's a pretty small number of passengers to start with.


Luckily I downloaded it  66,938 boardings/alightings at Galesburg for 2013 that fit the range profile for Chicago, but there are at least two other stations that meet it as well (Naperville and La Grange). Chicago is the top city pair in terms of ridership however.


----------



## trainman74 (Aug 5, 2014)

afigg said:


> The Pets on Board pilot project is being expanded to the Illini and *Saluki*...


However, since the limit is 20 pounds, adult Salukis will not be allowed on the Saluki!


----------



## iggy (Aug 6, 2014)

Honestly didn't have time to read all the comments - excuse me in advance if this has been posted.

Amtrak expanding pets-on-trains project Illinois

"Amtrak and the Illinois Department of Transportation have announced they are adding the Chicago-Champaign-Carbondale route of the Illini and Saluki trains to a pilot project that allows people to bring pets with them"

"Small pets have been allowed on the Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg trains between Chicago and Quincy since April"


----------



## neroden (Aug 6, 2014)

OK, based on that ridership from Galesburg, roughly one in every 400 passengers wants to take their pet to Chicago. Actually, this sounds perfectly plausible.


----------

