# Exceptions to the 13-15 YO rule?



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jun 13, 2017)

I was looking at booking a ticket from MSP to CBS (Columbus, WI), and as I am 14, Amtrak rules state I must board and deboard the train at staffed stations. Since I last took this trip, the CBS station has since lost its attendant, so I can't travel there. I feel more than capable traveling by myself, are there any ways to get exceptions to the 13-15 unattended children rule? I know for the general public the rules are just fine, but I don't find myself as the general public. I am even writing a guide on traveling on Amtrak (I'll announce it here when I publish it). If there are any ways to travel unacompanied, I would love to hear them

Henry


----------



## niemi24s (Jun 13, 2017)

Some info here may be useful: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/70681-unaccompanied-minor-policy-flexibility/


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 13, 2017)

The only exception I'm aware of is to intentionally lie about your age and/or situation. Even then you might be prevented from boarding or kicked off at some unexpected location down the line. I happen to think Amtrak's rules about handling UM's are silly and impractical, but it's clear that Amtrak staff consider unescorted children to be a major trip-ending problem. The risk of being forcibly removed and handed over to station staff or local authorities is real. Even if you think nothing will happen to you imagine what might happen to your parents or guardians? They could be end up being publicly humiliated or barred from future travel or even charged with a crime. Maybe nothing happens but a phone call and a quiet drive back home, but you just never know where these sorts of mistakes and misunderstandings might end up, especially if the right person happens to get the wrong idea about who allowed what and why.


----------



## DisgustedinDC (Jun 13, 2017)

Many years ago, as a child, I took at least one (maybe two) airplane flights by myself. I would have been 9 or 10 years old. One from Raleigh-Durham to, I believe, Chattanooga, and possibly another flight to Boston where I would have been picked up by relatives. I believe a stewardess escorted me on and off the plane and they checked up on me periodically during the flight. It seems clear to me that it was all arranged by my parents in advance. While the opportunity for trouble I guess is higher on a train than a plane, it seems silly to me that there are such restrictions on 14 year olds on Amtrak.


----------



## Hal (Jun 13, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> I was looking at booking a ticket from MSP to CBS (Columbus, WI), and as I am 14, Amtrak rules state I must board and deboard the train at staffed stations. Since I last took this trip, the CBS station has since lost its attendant, so I can't travel there. I feel more than capable traveling by myself, are there any ways to get exceptions to the 13-15 unattended children rule? I know for the general public the rules are just fine, but I don't find myself as the general public. I am even writing a guide on traveling on Amtrak (I'll announce it here when I publish it). If there are any ways to travel unacompanied, I would love to hear them
> 
> Henry


There are no exceptions.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jun 13, 2017)

Why do you think you should get an exception? Just because you know a lot about trains? Sorry, the world the doesn't work that way.


----------



## Karl1459 (Jun 13, 2017)

Write your senators and congressperson. If the law will change to require a (more relaxed) change to the unaccompanied minor policy Amtrak will follow it. Be prepared to justify why it is important for the entire system, not just you. It worked for guns and dogs, should work for kids too.


----------



## KmH (Jun 13, 2017)

Karl1459 said:


> Write your senators and congressperson. If the law will change to require a (more relaxed) change to the unaccompanied minor policy Amtrak will follow it. Be prepared to justify why it is important for the entire system, not just you. It worked for guns and dogs, should work for kids too.


In what part of the US Federal code is that a law?

Or is it just an Amtrak policy?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jun 14, 2017)

KmH said:


> Karl1459 said:
> 
> 
> > Write your senators and congressperson. If the law will change to require a (more relaxed) change to the unaccompanied minor policy Amtrak will follow it. Be prepared to justify why it is important for the entire system, not just you. It worked for guns and dogs, should work for kids too.
> ...


There is no federal code for minors in Amtrak. The post was most likely referring to a potential future code that could be caused by avocation from the public that would require Amtrak to allow those between a certain age and 16 to ride Amtrak alone unrestricted.


----------



## BCL (Jun 14, 2017)

KmH said:


> Karl1459 said:
> 
> 
> > Write your senators and congressperson. If the law will change to require a (more relaxed) change to the unaccompanied minor policy Amtrak will follow it. Be prepared to justify why it is important for the entire system, not just you. It worked for guns and dogs, should work for kids too.
> ...


I think the reference was to the way that guns were allowed on Amtrak. Weren't they specifically disallowed by federal law, then specifically allowed by a federal transportation funding law?

I'm not sure that they're going to do anything specifically about unaccompanied minors on Amtrak. There's no specific law about airlines and unaccompanied minors - just specific airline policy that is fairly similar among different airlines.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 14, 2017)

Two different threads here:

1. Is the current policy appropriate? Maybe? Probably not? That said, I'm going going to trash a company too much for erring on the side of "avoid the lawyers and bad press" at the expense of providing a useful service.

2. Is there a way around the current policy, can you get away with breaking it? No. Just no. If you want to ride their trains, you get to play by their rules.


----------



## Karl1459 (Jun 14, 2017)

Karl1459 said:


> Write your senators and congressperson. If the law will change to require a (more relaxed) change to the unaccompanied minor policy Amtrak will follow it. Be prepared to justify why it is important for the entire system, not just you. It worked for guns and dogs, should work for kids too.


Sorry if I was not clear. IIRC there was a rider attached to an Amtrak funding bill to require Amtrak to create a policy to carry guns (becoming unloaded in locked storage in checked baggage), Also IIRC there was another rider to another bill requiring Amtrak to handle certain pets.


----------



## BCL (Jun 14, 2017)

Karl1459 said:


> Karl1459 said:
> 
> 
> > Write your senators and congressperson. If the law will change to require a (more relaxed) change to the unaccompanied minor policy Amtrak will follow it. Be prepared to justify why it is important for the entire system, not just you. It worked for guns and dogs, should work for kids too.
> ...


A lot of these riders get thrown in because someone either wants to kill the bill or actually wants the rider. The current requirement that the National Park Service allows personal carrying of firearms came from a rider inserted into a credit card protection bill.


----------



## BCL (Jun 14, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> I was looking at booking a ticket from MSP to CBS (Columbus, WI), and as I am 14, Amtrak rules state I must board and deboard the train at staffed stations. Since I last took this trip, the CBS station has since lost its attendant, so I can't travel there. I feel more than capable traveling by myself, are there any ways to get exceptions to the 13-15 unattended children rule? I know for the general public the rules are just fine, but I don't find myself as the general public. I am even writing a guide on traveling on Amtrak (I'll announce it here when I publish it). If there are any ways to travel unacompanied, I would love to hear them
> 
> Henry


You have no options within Amtrak's rules. None. Zero. I would point out that the founder of this forum was younger than you, but as far as I know he didn't ask for any special dispensation from Amtrak. In fact, Amtrak sued him.

Your only option would be to lie about your age, but once you're 16, theoretically Amtrak can ask to see ID with date of birth at any time.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jun 14, 2017)

BCL said:


> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> > I was looking at booking a ticket from MSP to CBS (Columbus, WI), and as I am 14, Amtrak rules state I must board and deboard the train at staffed stations. Since I last took this trip, the CBS station has since lost its attendant, so I can't travel there. I feel more than capable traveling by myself, are there any ways to get exceptions to the 13-15 unattended children rule? I know for the general public the rules are just fine, but I don't find myself as the general public. I am even writing a guide on traveling on Amtrak (I'll announce it here when I publish it). If there are any ways to travel unacompanied, I would love to hear them
> ...


Actually, I don't believe any passengers are required to have ID that shows date of birth. In fact, I think that passengers who are 16 and 17 don't need any ID whatsoever if they come with tickets and don't check bags.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Jun 14, 2017)

Those 18 and over riding Amtrak are required to carry TSA approved ID. Amtrak may randomly check passenger ID for security reasons. Those minors under 18 should carry a TSA approved ID which can be their official High School or College ID which does not have their DOB, but does officially identify them with a photo and is approved by the TSA.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jun 14, 2017)

If the trend is more stations being unattended this is going to be a bigger issue in general (of course if the LD system gets shut down most of those unattended stations will be closed anyway).


----------



## Lonestar648 (Jun 14, 2017)

With more and more stations unstaffed and with the policy of no over night travel or change of trains, it is unlikely minors under the age of 16 will be able to travel unaccompanied. Less liability for Amtrak to manage, so with more and more trigger happy parents filing law suits against anyone gets that near their children.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 14, 2017)

Lonestar648 said:


> With more and more stations unstaffed and with the policy of no over night travel or change of trains, it is unlikely minors under the age of 16 will be able to travel unaccompanied. Less liability for Amtrak to manage, so with more and more trigger happy parents filing law suits against anyone gets that near their children.


Does anyone have an example of an actual parent suing Amtrak over someone approaching their child? I know it's fun and easy to just assume everyone in the country is a raving lunatic, especially in the current climate of alternative facts and fake news, but I've asked for some sort of evidence of this problem multiple times, and so far as I am aware nobody has ever been able to produce anything verifiable.


----------



## BCL (Jun 14, 2017)

Lonestar648 said:


> Those 18 and over riding Amtrak are required to carry TSA approved ID. Amtrak may randomly check passenger ID for security reasons. Those minors under 18 should carry a TSA approved ID which can be their official High School or College ID which does not have their DOB, but does officially identify them with a photo and is approved by the TSA.


I looked up the rule, and Amtrak says that ID is needed to purchase tickets, check in baggage, or pick up tickets. I guess using a credit card gets around that, but most kids can't get their own credit cards.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jun 14, 2017)

BCL said:


> Lonestar648 said:
> 
> 
> > Those 18 and over riding Amtrak are required to carry TSA approved ID. Amtrak may randomly check passenger ID for security reasons. Those minors under 18 should carry a TSA approved ID which can be their official High School or College ID which does not have their DOB, but does officially identify them with a photo and is approved by the TSA.
> ...


But, their parents have credit cards and can buy the tickets for them. They can carry the eTicket printout. From a practical standpoint, there is no ID required for passengers under 18 to ride Amtrak.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jun 14, 2017)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Lonestar648 said:
> 
> 
> > With more and more stations unstaffed and with the policy of no over night travel or change of trains, it is unlikely minors under the age of 16 will be able to travel unaccompanied. Less liability for Amtrak to manage, so with more and more trigger happy parents filing law suits against anyone gets that near their children.
> ...


Sorry we don't have access to Amtrak's legal department records. But this is America and if something did happen to a minor traveling alone on Amtrak you can bet your ass they would sue.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jun 14, 2017)

https://www.amtrak.com/unaccompanied-minors-policy

The idea of avoiding lawsuits is the reason for policies against minors traveling alone (or to make sure they are being adequately supervised). If Amtrak says they don't allow it, parents can't sue Amtrak then.

I think the wristband policy is just putting a bigger target on them though.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Jun 14, 2017)

*Quote from the AMTRAK Web Site*

Photo ID Required

Amtrak customers 18 years of age and older must produce valid photo identification when:



Obtaining, exchanging or refunding tickets

Storing baggage at stations


Checking baggage
Sending Amtrak Express shipments
Onboard trains, in response to a request by an Amtrak employee
Please note that unaccompanied children 16 - 17 must also produce valid photo ID when purchasing tickets, obtaining travel documents and checking baggage.

Random Ticket/ID Checks

Following federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA) guidelines, we regularly conduct random ticket verification checks onboard trains to ensure that passengers are properly ticketed. Please be prepared to show valid photo identification to a member of the onboard crew upon request.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jun 14, 2017)

Lonestar648 said:


> Those 18 and over riding Amtrak are required to carry TSA approved ID. Amtrak may randomly check passenger ID for security reasons. Those minors under 18 should carry a TSA approved ID which can be their official High School or College ID which does not have their DOB, but does officially identify them with a photo and is approved by the TSA.


School or college ID cards are not TSA approved for travel.

TSA does not require passengers under 18 to have ID. Airlines may have their own ID requirements for passengers under 18. Technically, TSA does not "require" ID. They have a procedure to identify passengers who do not have ID.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Jun 14, 2017)

According to Amtrak, technically, those under 18 do not have to have photo ID, but if the TSA and Amtrak did a random ID check on the train, having the Official School District issued ID's constitutes an Amtrak/TSA approved form of photo ID even though it does not display the DOB.


----------



## BCL (Jun 15, 2017)

Lonestar648 said:


> According to Amtrak, technically, those under 18 do not have to have photo ID, but if the TSA and Amtrak did a random ID check on the train, having the Official School District issued ID's constitutes an Amtrak/TSA approved form of photo ID even though it does not display the DOB.


Some school IDs might have DOB, but there's never been anything terribly consistent about school IDs since there's never really been any standards.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jun 15, 2017)

Lonestar648 said:


> According to Amtrak, technically, those under 18 do not have to have photo ID, but if the TSA and Amtrak did a random ID check on the train, having the Official School District issued ID's constitutes an Amtrak/TSA approved form of photo ID even though it does not display the DOB.


As I said previously, ID is not required for passengers under 18 if subject to on board checks, and school ID's are not "TSA approved."


----------



## Lonestar648 (Jun 15, 2017)

According to Amtrak: Examples of acceptable forms of ID include:

State or provincial driver's license

Passport

Official government-issued identification (federal, state, city or county government or foreign government)

Canadian provincial health card ID card with photo

Military photo ID

Student identification (university, college or high school photo ID)


----------



## PRR 60 (Jun 15, 2017)

Lonestar648 said:


> According to Amtrak: Examples of acceptable forms of ID include:
> 
> State or provincial driver's license
> 
> ...


School ID's are OK for Amtrak, but not for TSA. That was my issue. You said (twice) that school ID's are "TSA approved," They are not.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jun 16, 2017)

MikefromCrete said:


> Why do you think you should get an exception? Just because you know a lot about trains? Sorry, the world the doesn't work that way.


 I feel like I am able to travel alone on Amtrak. I handle all Amtrak travel for over 100 family members, I'm even writing a book about traveling on Amtrak. I think there should be an interview to see if a child is capable of traveling on their own. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm not capable, but since I'm in charge of everything when traveling with family on a train, and never once have I booked the wrong ticket, station, been on the wrong train, or been left behind.


----------



## tricia (Jun 16, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think you should get an exception? Just because you know a lot about trains? Sorry, the world the doesn't work that way.
> ...


I don't think anyone here thinks you're incapable. But for you to travel alone breaks a rule. Responses in this thread have outlined what the consequences are likely to be if you're caught breaking that rule. That folks here think it's not a good idea for you to break that rule doesn't mean they think you're incompetent to ride alone.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jun 16, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think you should get an exception? Just because you know a lot about trains? Sorry, the world the doesn't work that way.
> ...


Sorry, Henry. It isn't about you and I am sure you are perfectly capable. I myself rode from Los Angeles to Chicago on the Super Chief by myself when I was 15. Santa Fe had no policy against it, so it was perfectly all right then.

But the corporate policy is the corporate policy, and, as others have pointed out, it is probably primarily for legal and liability reasons. There don't appear to be any exceptions to the policy. Don't take it personally, it isn't a reflection on you. I don't think Mike was saying you were not capable, but rather that exceptions aren't made.

With that said, if you are willing to take the possible consequences, that is your decision. But bear in mind, no one is going to risk their job to let you ride. Policies around minors tend to get a lot of attention because the consequences of something happening to a minor are pretty severe in terms of publicity. So, unlike some other policies, this one is likely to be enforced.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 16, 2017)

What's the history of the Amtrak unaccompanied minors policy? I was 17 in 1971 on A-Day, and I think I rode an Amtrak train at least once before I turned 18. I was riding PRR and Penn Central trains by myself since I was 10. For that matter, when I was 14, my parents put me on a plane to visit my grandmother in Florida, and I don't remember all the bureaucratic ringamorole that I went through when I put my 14 year old daughter on a plane to visit a friend in California. And to this day, I see unaccompanied grade-school age minors riding the Washington Metro and Metrobus. Was there some sort of incident on Amtrak involving an unaccompanied minor?


----------



## BCL (Jun 16, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think you should get an exception? Just because you know a lot about trains? Sorry, the world the doesn't work that way.
> ...


But they're not going to make an exception for you or anyone else. Like others said, don't take it personally. Nobody in Amtrak is judging you by denying you the option to ride alone outside the standard policy. You're going to be old enough to ride alone anywhere on Amtrak in short order anyways. Why are you sweating it now?

I'm sure I was ready to ride Amtrak alone at age 12, but I wouldn't have violated the policy for fear of the consequences. At your age I was taking public transportation and spending all day by myself, so a scheduled railroad would have been easy. However, I was allowed to ride alone without needing any adult supervision or escorts at either end. Amtrak doesn't give you that option. That's the way it works.


----------



## A Voice (Jun 16, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think you should get an exception? Just because you know a lot about trains? Sorry, the world the doesn't work that way.
> ...


To be effective, a policy must be short, simple, and easy to understand and implement with little room for misinterpretation (an interview would be both impractical and much too subjective). It cannot allow for every contingency, but that means some persons such as yourself - who may very well be able to travel alone - cannot get an exception.

Theme parks often set height requirements for attractions, even though some six year old kids are taller than some eight year old children.

You must be 18 to vote, even if you know more about the issues than most adults.

The unaccompanied minor restriction is in place for a reason; Not because of your ability to travel alone, but because many persons your age should not.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 16, 2017)

MARC Rider said:


> What's the history of the Amtrak unaccompanied minors policy? I was 17 in 1971 on A-Day, and I think I rode an Amtrak train at least once before I turned 18. I was riding PRR and Penn Central trains by myself since I was 10. For that matter, when I was 14, my parents put me on a plane to visit my grandmother in Florida, and I don't remember all the bureaucratic ringamorole that I went through when I put my 14 year old daughter on a plane to visit a friend in California. And to this day, I see unaccompanied grade-school age minors riding the Washington Metro and Metrobus. Was there some sort of incident on Amtrak involving an unaccompanied minor?





MARC Rider said:


> What's the history of the Amtrak unaccompanied minors policy? I was 17 in 1971 on A-Day, and I think I rode an Amtrak train at least once before I turned 18. I was riding PRR and Penn Central trains by myself since I was 10. For that matter, when I was 14, my parents put me on a plane to visit my grandmother in Florida, and I don't remember all the bureaucratic ringamorole that I went through when I put my 14 year old daughter on a plane to visit a friend in California. And to this day, I see unaccompanied grade-school age minors riding the Washington Metro and Metrobus. Was there some sort of incident on Amtrak involving an unaccompanied minor?



Actually, Amtrak had a pretty liberal policy at one point. Up until 2011, children from 8 to 14 were covered under the unaccompanied minor policy and qualifed for restricted travel. Once a child turned 15, they were clear and free to navigate the system as long as they didn't cross the border.

It wasn't one specific incident that brought the change and not unlike Devil's Advocate, I don't recall any attempts to run off with the minors. What I DO recall is the game of finances and a few games of hide and go seek. This change came when they started reducing available staff members on the trains. Typically, it isn't that big of a deal on the long distance trains nor is it that big of a deal with NEC trains. It became an issue during disruptions involving some of the state supported trains or if a train short staffed. There were times that unaccompanied minors became completely unattended minors. I recall occasions where some of the younger children became frightened and inconsolable. I recall occasions where the children were....children. They hid from the crews, attempted to get off early, play and sometimes, wouldn't listen. That's what some children do.

I suppose someone took a good look and decided to raise the age, hoping that a child may have reached a certain level of maturity and could realize what is occurring. Hopefully, they could also respond to instructions and if necessary, take appropriate action, particularly if the crew has to leave the train.

Personally, most of the unaccompanied behaved better than the adults! ^_^


----------



## Lonestar648 (Jun 16, 2017)

I suspect that the legal department was reviewing Amtrak policies for legal updating to be covered with how legal interprets the company's legal liability. Probably nothing happened, just that legal advised management that there was an opportunity for legal action with the current policy at that time, for minors traveling alone. Based on legal advice to protect Amtrak from those who are looking for their lawsuit to "win the lottery" the policy was changed. Interesting that a legal team is hired to protect their company from others in their profession. Unfortunately, many minors, like yourself, who are very experienced and very mature are hurt by those people in our society who are looking for a way to sue. Also, parents are far too quick to file a law suit over nothing.


----------



## SubwayNut (Jun 16, 2017)

Yup I remember that policy well. It wasn't as well enforced either.

I traveled as an unaccompanied minor quite a few times (year 2000ish) including when I was 10 on a then called Acela Regional to Westerly, RI on a weekend when no station agent was on duty. It wasn't a problem, I remember being "upgraded" to Buissiness Class so the staff could keep a better eye on me.

I think I also got on and off at a few unstaffed stations in Vermont when I was 12 and 13.

The funniest moment I remember in about 2006 was making a reservation by phone for the Vermonter for a 15 year old cousin and her friend (also 15) one of them was allowed to get the Child discount with the other traveling as the adult on the same reservation.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jun 16, 2017)

A Voice said:


> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> > MikefromCrete said:
> ...


 thats why I started the thread, to see if there was some way to interview to get a sort of pass to travel unaccompanied, by proving my abilities to travel.


----------



## BCL (Jun 16, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> > norfolkwesternhenry said:
> ...


There already is an interview required for Amtrak's existing unaccompanied minor policy between two staffed stations. They've determined that this is the way they're going to operate, even if both stations are staffed Also - I was reading somewhere that the designated wristband might have been discontinued because it might mark out minors without guardians.

Again - nothing personal about you. Like many things in like (driving age, drinking age, voting age) these age limits are more or less arbitrary but try to find a point where it can work out with as little fuss as possible.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jun 17, 2017)

I was thinking much more in depth, like an hour long interview to determine the capability of the traveler. Or perhaps an executive order of some sort


----------



## Ryan (Jun 17, 2017)

You were thinking wrong.


----------



## NTL1991 (Jun 17, 2017)

Liability is the major factor here, I believe. Here on the NEC, minors are typically placed in the Cafe at reserved tables to themselves. The LSA and Conductor will keep an eye on the minor.

I have seen dozens of cases of parents purchasing Adult tickets online for their minor children, dropping them off at the curbside, and taking off, apparently because their demanding schedule doesn't provide enough time to see their minor child onto the train.

When these children speak with station agents or present their ticket to the conductor and reveal their age when asked for Photo ID, CNOC is notified, who then explains the UMNR policy to the parents, and if on board, the train crew may turn the minor over to Amtrak Police or the local authorities at the next staffed station.

When the parent is notified they usually claim how "independent" and "mature" their 13-15 year old is, and how "they've done it before." But when something doesn't go quite right, it's suddenly "My Baby!"

In this litigious society, the risk to Amtrak is all too real. There would absolutely be grounds for severe discipline, likely termination, if an agent of Amtrak knowingly allowed a 13-15 year old to travel against policy.

Can you have an adult travel with you? Soon enough you'll be able to travel freely.


----------



## BCL (Jun 17, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> I was thinking much more in depth, like an hour long interview to determine the capability of the traveler. Or perhaps an executive order of some sort


Now you're just being silly or perhaps stubborn. Perhaps you're not trying to be, but do you understand how strange that sounds to anyone who has dealt with real world customer service? That's just naive to think that Amtrak is going to devote an hour of an employee's time interviewing a 15 year old. With their current policy it's probably just a few questions asking if the minors knows where they're going, who is meeting them, and if they can follow/remember directions.


----------



## Chessie (Jun 17, 2017)

I am curious, does anyone in Amtrak have the authority to grant executive orders?


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jun 17, 2017)

Norfolk, I know you're a guy who knows a lot about trains and seems to be very responsible, but do you really think a big corporation would assign an employee to listen to your plea -- or take some kind of a test -- for an hour or so? Using this thinking, perhaps a local barkeep could interview every underage kid interested in buying a drink and see if they are "responsible" enough to down a beer or two.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 17, 2017)

Chessie said:


> I am curious, does anyone in Amtrak have the authority to grant executive orders?


The CEO and his executive staff can grant executive orders.


----------



## BCL (Jun 17, 2017)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Chessie said:
> 
> 
> > I am curious, does anyone in Amtrak have the authority to grant executive orders?
> ...


Sure. I'm sure an executive order was probably what set the current Amtrak unaccompanied minors policy as well as what set the previous one. However, it's a really, really long stretch to think that they're going to implement an executive order to grant one minor (who can wait less than a year for that right) the right to ride alone.


----------



## BCL (Jun 17, 2017)

MikefromCrete said:


> Norfolk, I know you're a guy who knows a lot about trains and seems to be very responsible, but do you really think a big corporation would assign an employee to listen to your plea -- or take some kind of a test -- for an hour or so? Using this thinking, perhaps a local barkeep could interview every underage kid interested in buying a drink and see if they are "responsible" enough to down a beer or two.


I guess it is technically different, as alcoholic beverage sales/consumption age is regulated by law, and one could easily get a license suspended or even revoked for deliberately serving alcohol to a minor.

There is no particular law that sets unaccompanied minor policies. That's merely a corporate policy with airlines, bus companies, and railroads. That being said, the idea that they're going to interview kids for an hour to see what makes the kid tick just seems strange on its face. They're understaffed as it is. Part of the rationale for eliminating the 8-12 unaccompanied minor policy was that they're lacking the staff already. So they're going to be tying up an hour of a station employee's time that could be spent selling tickets, moving baggage, helping passengers, etc. And so a 15 year old can get to an unstaffed station?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 17, 2017)

BCL said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > Chessie said:
> ...



I was merely answering a question. I wasn't suggesting a course of action, although it would be entertaining to see. Perhaps he should contact Lenore Skenazy and ask her to put the matter front and center in her Free-Range Kids initiative.

I can see the entry now: "Teenager isn't allowed to disembark on his own! Why not??"


----------



## Lonestar648 (Jun 17, 2017)

The headline would have Lawyers drooling, looking for anything where there could be a lawsuit and the publicity for their practice that accompanies any case involving a minor. The possibility that Amtrak would set a precedent by allowing a subjective interview to open a door for portential lawsuits should the minor receive the exemption and then have some incident occur. The Amtrak individual who signed off on the exception would have to be terminated in disgrace in a big media frenzy. $100,000's would be spent on legal fees by Amtrak.

I am not saying that something would happen, but we do not control the future and the uncontrollable circumstances. This is why corporations try to plan for as many "what ifs" with their legal teams as seems reasonable and affordable.


----------



## BCL (Jun 17, 2017)

Thirdrail7 said:


> BCL said:
> 
> 
> > Thirdrail7 said:
> ...


I never got the sense of anyone on this topic (other than the OP) thinking it's a viable solution for the Amtrak executive staff to implement a one-off EO just to grant an exception.


----------



## BCL (Jun 17, 2017)

Lonestar648 said:


> The headline would have Lawyers drooling, looking for anything where there could be a lawsuit and the publicity for their practice that accompanies any case involving a minor. The possibility that Amtrak would set a precedent by allowing a subjective interview to open a door for portential lawsuits should the minor receive the exemption and then have some incident occur. The Amtrak individual who signed off on the exception would have to be terminated in disgrace in a big media frenzy. $100,000's would be spent on legal fees by Amtrak.
> 
> I am not saying that something would happen, but we do not control the future and the uncontrollable circumstances. This is why corporations try to plan for as many "what ifs" with their legal teams as seems reasonable and affordable.


Right now there is a subjective interview in the current unaccompanied minor policy, but I'm sure it's pretty basic and designed to be as reproducible as possible. Add to that they require staffed stations on both ends and a designated adult on the other end. They obviously require this to minimize their liability.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 17, 2017)

BCL said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > I was merely answering a question. I wasn't suggesting a course of action, although it would be entertaining to see. Perhaps he should contact Lenore Skenazy and ask her to put the matter front and center in her Free-Range Kids initiative.
> ...


I wish you'd stop ruining my fun, BCL. You're as bad as Lonestar648 who keeps interrupting with pertinent facts.

Norfolkwesternhenry,, remember that if you want something in life, you can't always wait for it to come to you. You have to be proactive. A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step. You should write a letter to the CEO and tell him about your book. Tell him you desire to be a "Free Range Kid," and tell him that you'd happily comply with the requirements except they keep closing stations and eliminating personnel! Take a page from NJT and LIRR. Turn the tables and blame Amtrak for your inability to travel to a staffed station and demand satisfaction! Blitz them with your past itineraries and show them how much revenue you've brought to Amtrak and ask them are they willing to chase away a constant rider, that has many future rides on the horizon?

Close your letter by saying you're as reliable as the West Palm Beach students...and you don't require an extra consist. Don't just sit there and take it like Greenville and Sebring passengers that lost their luggage service (and seemingly still haven't written letters!!) Go for it!! Nothing ventured, nothing gained!! You have nothing to lose!!


----------



## Triley (Jun 18, 2017)

Well that was an unusually inspiring talk coming from TR.


----------



## BCL (Jun 18, 2017)

Triley said:


> Well that was an unusually inspiring talk coming from TR.


Maybe they hire him like they did with Anthony. I doubt they make a policy exception for him though,


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jun 18, 2017)

BCL said:


> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> > I was thinking much more in depth, like an hour long interview to determine the capability of the traveler. Or perhaps an executive order of some sort
> ...


 I'm not trying to be stubborn, although sometimes it's hard to tell just from words on a screen. I have a picture on my wall, of a poster of the ten rules of business, and they all start with A CUSTOMER, and how the customer is the business, as without the customer, the business wouldn't exist. I feel like Amtrak should set up a program for that.


----------



## BCL (Jun 18, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> BCL said:
> 
> 
> > norfolkwesternhenry said:
> ...


I used to think like that - that if I was ever in business I would always put the customer first and foremost. However, in the real world it's not as simple as a motivational poster. Real customer service costs human resources and money. It's always a balancing act as to providing such service against costs. Just look at what's happening with Amtrak. They've cut food service to try to tighten the budget. They're removing staffing from stations to cut costs. Other businesses are moving customer service operators to India to save on costs. They changed the unaccompanied minor policy from 8-15 to 13-15 to reduce the need for Amtrak personnel to handle kids. They're constantly trying to justify their federal funding. Now supposed some Congress member finds out that Amtrak has changed its policy to allow an unaccompanied minor to go from a staffed station to an unstaffed station at the cost of an hour of a station agent's time spent interviewing the kid. Do you really think that won't be seen as a monumental waste of time, when it would be far easier to just keep the policy as is?

A business won't exist if they're putting their already limited resources into a money losing proposition serving a small customer base. And what you're asking for is for Amtrak to lose even more money than they do for their existing customer base. I haven't been involved in detailed business planning, but I did work at a smalishl company during all-hands meetings where customizing our product for potential customers were being discussed. The question inevitably devolved into "How much is this going to cost us, and how many people in this customer base might consider our product?"


----------



## jebr (Jun 18, 2017)

Putting the customer first doesn't necessarily mean putting each individual customer first - it can (and should) mean putting the customer base first. In Amtrak's case, that probably means having a fairly strict rule on minors to help lower costs; most customers (and even prospective customers) would see no advantage to the rule and would see their price for travel go up a disproportionate amount or have a worse customer service experience because of it. I don't think there's any fee that could be imposed for such a circumstance that would allow the costs of the program to be recovered - the employee time for the interview alone would probably be $40-$50 (or more) especially when benefits and overhead are included. Add in the start-up cost for creating the rules for such a program (how would you even measure if someone is capable enough to take a train alone with any sort of objectivity? I'm sure a consultant could figure it out for a nice chunk of change, but it doesn't seem simple), the administration cost (how do you make sure the person taking the interview is the one traveling both directions? What if someone wants to travel from an unstaffed station to a staffed station? Unstaffed station to unstaffed station?) and increased liability concerns (what if Amtrak leaves a child at an unstaffed station without a responsible adult and something happens to that child before they get into the responsible adult's custody?) and it makes any fee to try and recover the costs of the program higher than what the vast majority of people will pay - almost certainly not enough people would pay it to make the program cost-neutral.

It's much simpler for Amtrak to have a policy from staffed station to staffed station (paperwork filled out, have the child in Amtrak's custody until the responsible party arrives at the destination station and IDs can be checked, if no one comes after x time hand the child over to the local police) than to try and deal with all the variables and liability with having a child depart at an unstaffed station.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jun 18, 2017)

So is my best shot to get an executive order for an exception?


----------



## BCL (Jun 18, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> So is my best shot to get an executive order for an exception?


Now you're just being silly. You claim to be mature enough to do this, but then don't understand why the policy exists, why exceptions aren't made, and how much in resources you're asking of Amtrak just to make an exception for you? Do you think that they'd be willing to consider an executive order to allow pets because someone claims that their pet can handle it? Or that someone has a gun permit and wants to be able to carry a loaded weapon on board?

All the reasons for a uniform policy that is applied evenly without exceptions has been laid out here. A policy is very difficult to implement if executives can simply override it based on a letter written to Amtrak.

In short, you have no shot. Wait until you turn 16, and you'll be able to ride Amtrak anywhere you want without restriction. Perhaps you think that's unfair, but to Amtrak I'm not special, you're not special, and that's just the way it is. You can always try, but I can almost assure you that your response will be some form letter that they can't make any exceptions to their published policy.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Jun 19, 2017)

I fully agree. You are young, with decades of learning in front of you. As a mature young man, if you will step back a minute, separate yourself from the situation, then be objective and sit on the other side of the desk as the manager you are writing, who is working 10 - 12 hours a day with regular meetings that must be prepared in detail in advance,a flow of people wanting instant decisions, etc. If your letter made it past the manager's Executive Assistant, if you are the manager, be honest how would you handle this precedent setting request? Would you take valuable time to do the research, when you have a critical preparation that has a hard deadline. Would you take this to your boss requesting his support to set a precedent change to an existing approved corporate policy. And also his approval to pay the legal team to analyze the liability aspects at hundreds of dollars per hour to the department budget. Be the manager, find the pros and the cons for Amtrak. By the way, you should always find in any decision you make, at least three pros and three cons, if you don't you are not being objective.

I hope this helps you. The best of luck in everything you do.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 19, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> So is my best shot to get an executive order for an exception?


Your best shot is to realize the rules apply to you and forget it.

Your inability to do so indicates that you don't have the maturity you think you do and is making the case that in an alternative reality where such waivers exist that you wouldn't qualify.


----------



## jebr (Jun 19, 2017)

It seems like it'd be easier to rally community support to get the Columbus station re-staffed than it would be to try and convince Amtrak to loosen their underage child policy for unstaffed stations.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jun 19, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> So is my best shot to get an executive order for an exception?


Not...going...to...happen.


----------



## fairviewroad (Jun 19, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> I was thinking much more in depth, like an hour long interview to determine the capability of the traveler. Or perhaps an executive order of some sort



Great news! I pulled some strings, and ...


----------



## jis (Jun 19, 2017)

ROTFL!


----------



## JayPea (Jun 19, 2017)

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## BCL (Jun 19, 2017)

I started thinking about this, and there is basically one way to do this, and that's find someone at least 18 to go with you. Pretty simple. No rules are broken and no exceptions are needed.

I started thinking about what it would be like if perhaps someone like the President's kid wanted to take Amtrak as an unaccompanied minor. That lasted about 10 seconds. The kid would have a Secret Service detail serving as the responsible adult. On top of that they would be considered on-duty law enforcement, so they would be allowed to carry their weapons. Didn't Biden ride Amtrak while he was VP? I know his trip back home after the inauguration was via Amtrak. I think he still gets a Secret Service detail for a few months. And I remember Chris Christie was on Amtrak, and I'm pretty sure he got his own protective detail.


----------



## daybeers (Jun 20, 2017)

BCL said:


> I started thinking about this, and there is basically one way to do this, and that's find someone at least 18 to go with you. Pretty simple. No rules are broken and no exceptions are needed.
> 
> I started thinking about what it would be like if perhaps someone like the President's kid wanted to take Amtrak as an unaccompanied minor. That lasted about 10 seconds. The kid would have a Secret Service detail serving as the responsible adult. On top of that they would be considered on-duty law enforcement, so they would be allowed to carry their weapons. Didn't Biden ride Amtrak while he was VP? I know his trip back home after the inauguration was via Amtrak. I think he still gets a Secret Service detail for a few months. And I remember Chris Christie was on Amtrak, and I'm pretty sure he got his own protective detail.


Oh yeah, one of Joe Biden's nicknames is 'Amtrak Joe!' They have even named the Wilmington, DE station (his home station) after him: it's now called the Joseph R. Biden Jr. Railroad Station.


----------



## BCL (Jun 20, 2017)

daybeers said:


> Oh yeah, one of Joe Biden's nicknames is 'Amtrak Joe!' They have even named the Wilmington, DE station (his home station) after him: it's now called the Joseph R. Biden Jr. Railroad Station.


I wasn't sure if he did that a whole lot while he was VP. I do remember that he was a huge Amtrak proponent, and that he rode Amtrak home after leaving office.


----------



## daybeers (Jun 20, 2017)

BCL said:


> daybeers said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yeah, one of Joe Biden's nicknames is 'Amtrak Joe!' They have even named the Wilmington, DE station (his home station) after him: it's now called the Joseph R. Biden Jr. Railroad Station.
> ...


I don't know if he used Amtrak a lot while VP, but he certainly did when he was a Senator.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jun 20, 2017)

BCL said:


> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> > So is my best shot to get an executive order for an exception?
> ...


 sorry if I seem silly, I try to find ways to get exceptions, when I don't like the rules. I've written papers and submitred them to my principle to request an exception to the phone policy, as I felt like I could handle having a phone. (I basically use my phone for AU, texting with parents and a few select friends, and music). If I don't like the rules, I try to change them. I fully acknowlege this may not work (it rarely does), but I always am willing to give it a shot.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jun 20, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> BCL said:
> 
> 
> > norfolkwesternhenry said:
> ...


Asking for an exception isn't trying to change the rules. It's asking for special privileges.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jun 20, 2017)

You should probably learn how to spell principal correctly before asking for any exceptions to the rules.


----------



## Johanna (Jun 20, 2017)

Out of curiosity, do you ever petition for rule changes for the benefit of anybody else, or do you stick to asking for special exceptions for yourself?


----------



## A Voice (Jun 20, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> BCL said:
> 
> 
> > norfolkwesternhenry said:
> ...


'Not liking a rule' is neither a valid nor a reasonable basis for seeking to change it, or for trying to get an exception. Rules exist for a reason; You and I - and the other members of this forum - are not special, where the rules only apply to everyone else but shouldn't for us. It is true that many times a specific regulation or law may be written like it is because a few people have ruined an opportunity for the rest of us, but we still have to live within the same guidelines.

Exceptions to rules should only exist when there is a specific and documented need, often a hardship case. While I admire your perseverance and enthusiasm, you really don't have a valid cause for seeking an exception. But you do have options to live within the rules - which apply to all of us - and still travel by rail. You can find an adult to go with you, stick to staffed stations, or just wait a matter of months until your next birthday and take a bigger trip then. I know having to wait seems like an eternity when you're young, but it really isn't (you'll realize this in 30 years or so). I realize this isn't the answer you want - but it is a solution, which is what you should be seeking.

As suggested by someone above, if a rule truly is unreasonable you should be seeking to change it for everyone, not just solve your own problem and leave everyone else out in the cold. But if the rule is not unreasonable, but rather just something you find inconvenient or don't like, then you have to find a way to live within the restriction just like the rest of us.


----------



## BCL (Jun 20, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> BCL said:
> 
> 
> > norfolkwesternhenry said:
> ...


Well, the one thing you don’t seem to understand very well is the predicament that such a request is going put someone in. You’re not asking for an exception or rule change back to the way things were. You’re asking for something that never was (an unaccompanied minor departing at an unstaffed station) under the previous policy. You’re suggesting that either the policy be changed (almost assuredly won’t happen), or that you be granted a one-off exception (absolutely won’t happen). And on top of that you seem to believe that someone at Amtrak might consider a detailed, time-sucking interview in order to make that exception - either for you personally or as part of a general policy update. Nobody has been trained as to how to conduct such an interview. So who is going to conduct it, where/when does it happens, and who fills in for someone tied up for an hour talking to you? You’re talking about a rail system where over 100,000 passengers ride every weekday and where station staffing levels already aren’t adequate.

Amtrak’s unaccompanied minor policy being restricted to travel between two staffed stations is a totally reasonable rule. Save the limitation for 13-15, it’s pretty similar to that of most airlines. Airports are by definition staffed, so there isn’t quite the equivalent of an unstaffed train station. It’s pretty easy to understand how this rule works and that liability concerns drive the policy. If you write your letter to Amtrak asking for either an exception or a policy change, I’d be surprised if the first person to read it wouldn’t be thinking “Well isn’t that cute?” before changing to "Is this kid for real?" Maybe you might even get a response that’s more than just a form letter. Maybe.

You started this topic by saying that you thought that you might deserve an exception because you don’t consider yourself part of the general public. Maybe they won’t respond as such, but it would be good for one heck of a laugh. Maybe even shared around the office for the sheer chutzpah. I can’t necessarily speak for others responding to you in this topic who are obviously mocking you, but just don’t embarrass yourself. Just don’t.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jun 20, 2017)

Ok, I won't. I have been relying on the EB to get to my grandma's, as my parents don't always have the time. We don't have money problems, but times problems are much bigger for them. As you can imagine I'm disapointed, and the fact that I can't get to my grandma's house means I can't help keep her house and property in good shape, as she is getting too old for upkeep on 7 acres. It's especially important now, because she's had surgery on both shoulders and is only cleared to lift an apple with her right arm. Also, it's another train ride, and who can't turn that down?


----------



## jebr (Jun 20, 2017)

It looks like Greyhound and Jefferson Lines have a policy that would allow you to travel on their networks. I'm not sure how close they get to Columbus, but I know they get to Madison and there's a northerly route that may also allow you to get there. That may allow you to get to your grandma's.

https://www.greyhound.com/en/help-and-info/travel-info/children-traveling

https://www.jeffersonlines.com/travel-information/traveling-with-kids/


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 20, 2017)

A Voice said:


> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> > BCL said:
> ...


 We need to be measured in our view of rules. The OP is tempted (as we all are) to see himself as above the rules. However, just because a rule exists is nothing special in and of itself. It doesn't mean it was created for better reasons than those for removing it. Taking a uncritical position toward rules and rulers can be needlessly subservient and invites manipulation to support bureaucratic abuse and authoritarianism.

Consider the dilemma created by automated traffic ticketing. In large low density cities police units can only be located in so many places at once. As a result of this practical limitation most of the time when you commit a moving violation nothing happens. To counteract this limitation the penalties are often severe and in those situations when you are caught you really feel it. If you're poor you can end up losing your car and even your ability to drive at all. Right or wrong we are taught that this is how things work and we need to respect it.

Later on a new company comes along with cameras that can catch 99% of infractions for a given intersection or area. Now 99% of drivers who commit a moving violation in that area are caught and given a fine intended for 1% of offenders. Some may have racked up several fines before they were even notified of the first infraction. Half or more of the total fine and penalties goes to the company who installed the cameras.

They use this income to lobby for more severe fines, aggressive light changes, and a larger number of billable infractions creating a self-exacerbating imbalance. The drivers and rules never changed, but the conditions the drivers and rules operate under have changed dramatically. That's why it's important to question the purpose and impact of rules even if the rules themselves have not changed and seem perfectly reasonable on the surface.

The OP may be misguided and unsuccessful in his plea for special consideration, but his post was still valuable for pointing out that the continuing loss of staffed stations has an even greater impact than many of us considered in the past.


----------



## BCL (Jun 20, 2017)

Your best option is probably to have a designated adult meet you in Milwaukee and then drive you to your grandma's place. Perhaps there's something like a car service that would be willing to serve in that capacity. It would be a lot more practical than trying to get a rule exception. It would also be expensive. Having a family member drive you there would be far more practical. And by the time you're of legal age to ride alone, you'll also be of legal driving age.

I guess you can tell that there's a lot of snark in this topic. I'm as guilty as anyone. I guess most of us were there at one time, thinking we knew more than most adults would give us credit for. And at least you're not asking how to break the rules, but rather how to function within the rules. I don't doubt that you can handle it, but there's a lot more to the rules than simply whether or not one 14 year old can handle traveling alone.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jun 20, 2017)

BCL said:


> Your best option is probably to have a designated adult meet you in Milwaukee and then drive you to your grandma's place. Perhaps there's something like a car service that would be willing to serve in that capacity. It would be a lot more practical than trying to get a rule exception. It would also be expensive. Having a family member drive you there would be far more practical. And by the time you're of legal age to ride alone, you'll also be of legal driving age.
> 
> I guess you can tell that there's a lot of snark in this topic. I'm as guilty as anyone. I guess most of us were there at one time, thinking we knew more than most adults would give us credit for. And at least you're not asking how to break the rules, but rather how to function within the rules. I don't doubt that you can handle it, but there's a lot more to the rules than simply whether or not one 14 year old can handle traveling alone.


 Milwaukee is way too far, my grandma lives in Stevens Point, WI. I think the best option would be for Amtrak to start passenger operations on the ex WC/Soo Line (now CN), as that passes right through, Stevens Point, but I can't see that happening any time soon


----------



## jebr (Jun 20, 2017)

There's a direct Jefferson Lines bus from St. Paul Union Depot to Wausau, WI, which looks significantly closer than Columbus. It's not a train, but it'd appear to work just as well if not better than Columbus for getting to your grandma, and Jefferson Lines appears to have a unaccompanied minor policy that would allow you to make the trip (although it's unstaffed on Sundays, but the next station down, Abbotsford, is staffed 24/7 so that might be another option.)


----------



## fairviewroad (Jun 20, 2017)

Devil's Advocate said:


> The OP may be misguided and unsuccessful in his plea for special consideration, but his post was still valuable for pointing out that the continuing loss of staffed stations has an even greater impact than many of us considered in the past.


Well said. For every person who shrugs at the de-staffing of a station because "I have a smart phone," there's another person who can no longer check a bag, and another person who can no longer travel on Amtrak at all.


----------



## neroden (Jun 20, 2017)

Amtrak's current rule for unaccompanied teenagers is straight-up stupid and should never have been implemented, as is true of many "cover your ass" bureaucratic rules made up by the lazy, irresponsible, and authoritarian. The most moral move is to fight to get it changed. I understand trying to get an exception.

And although it's not very ethical, sometimes the correct thing to do is actually to break it with plausible deniability; anyone living under the USSR learned this very quickly. I wouldn't have done it myself, but I wouldn't blame any kid who got a fake ID so they could *take the train*.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Jun 20, 2017)

I do not see the rule as stupid. There is a very good reason for the rule. Many at this age think that nothing can happen, but in their very limited years, most have not had enough life experiences to understand the potential for something bad to happen. I haven taken my children and now my grandchildren on trains so they know how much fun they are. Even though they have experienced several trips, I would never send them alone to arrive where no station personnel is meeting them in case family got delayed. Rules and policies are created for a good reason.


----------



## neroden (Jun 20, 2017)

Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah. You spouted a lot of cliches, but didn't actually say anything. No, rules are often not created for a good reason; I and my family have experience with this dating back probably longer than you've been alive.

There are good ways to write "unaccompanied minor" rules. This is not one of them. It was done casually, sloppily, and without thought. This is evident from the fact that every subway, commuter rail, and so forth in the country has *much much more generous* rules, despite having *far less staff* and being a much less supportive environment. They bothered to think through the rules and make rules which make sense. Amtrak didn't bother because some clerk figured "eh, who cares about unaccompanied minors, we don't need their business".

A notarized authorization letter from the minor's legal guardians and a special ID card should be sufficient to allow a 13-15 yo. to ride on a designated route (for instance, to attend college classes or such). I've seen this done at other agencies for *much younger* children.

A 13 year old can catch a taxicab by themselves. And that is right, proper, and extremely useful. Particularly in emergencies. Amtrak's policy actually can prevent minors from using Amtrak to *get home* in an emergency. It was simply written by someone who had not bothered to think things through at all.

But then, this is the country where idiots won't let their kids walk down the street to the neighborhood park, so I should expect this sort of lunatic imprison-the-kids attitude. It's not actually making kids safer.

Unstaffed stations are a problem in and of themselves, of course, but nobody cares on the commuter rails.

....actually, this rule is a lot like Amtrak's former blanket prohibition of pets. It was stupid, customer-hostile, revenue-hostile, ridership-hostile, and above all *lazy*. Could they do better? Sure they could. But Congress had to pass a law to force them to. Likewise, it may require Congressional action to get Amtrak to bother to create a *sensible* unaccompanied minor policy which doesn't leave furious parents swearing at Amtrak.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 20, 2017)

Lonestar648 said:


> I do not see the rule as stupid. There is a very good reason for the rule. Many at this age think that nothing can happen, but in their very limited years, most have not had enough life experiences to understand the potential for something bad to happen.


I'm not aware of another passenger rail network that is as restrictive and limited in their handling of UM's as Amtrak. So far as I can tell the rest of the world seems to be okay with hauling kids back and forth so why is Amtrak uniquely incapable?



Lonestar648 said:


> Rules and policies are created for a good reason.


Rules and policies are created for all sorts of reasons, both reasonable and irrational. If you don't believe me try reading up the convoluted history of drug and alcohol legislation.


----------



## BCL (Jun 20, 2017)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Lonestar648 said:
> 
> 
> > I do not see the rule as stupid. There is a very good reason for the rule. Many at this age think that nothing can happen, but in their very limited years, most have not had enough life experiences to understand the potential for something bad to happen.
> ...


Several rail systems around the world have their own unaccompanied minor policy. Eurostar does. SCNF in France apparently will allow for unaccompanied minors to travel with an escort, but that's only on weekends and school holidays.

http://help.en.voyages-sncf.com/en/travel-formalities-unaccompanied-minors

SNCF works hard to ensure its customers have a peaceful journey and reminds travellers that children are the responsibility of their parents.

For greater comfort, children aged between 4 to 14 years can travel safely by themselves with the Junior & Cie service during school holidays and weekends. Your children will be looked after throughout their journey by a trained, experienced accompanying adult.

I'm not sure how common is the "unstaffed station" elsewhere in the world.

I found Via's policy, which is pretty similar to Amtrak's except for the age definitions. They consider 12 old enough to ride without restrictions though.

http://www.viarail.ca/en/travel-info/special-needs/unaccompanied-minors

The child can travel only in Economy or Business class.

Travel only on direct trains (no connections or transfers), except if an adult can meet the child at the transfer point.

The child must not leave before 5:25 a.m. AND trains must arrive before midnight on the same day.

An unaccompanied child cannot board or detrain at an unstaffed station.

Unaccompanied minors travelling with VIA Rail must not suffer from any serious illness or allergies that can cause severe intoxication or death. If this is the case, VIA reserves the right to refuse carriage of an unaccompanied minor unless a medical authorization can be obtained prior to departure stating that despite her/his severe medical condition, the child can and is able to travel alone.

To ensure their safety, we limit the number of children travelling alone to four per train. We therefore recommend that you make arrangements as early as possible in order to secure your child's seat aboard.

We cannot allow an unaccompanied minor with severe allergies to travel alone. Please consult our allergy policy.


----------



## BCL (Jun 20, 2017)

neroden said:


> A 13 year old can catch a taxicab by themselves. And that is right, proper, and extremely useful. Particularly in emergencies. Amtrak's policy actually can prevent minors from using Amtrak to *get home* in an emergency. It was simply written by someone who had not bothered to think things through at all.


Depends on the driver. There's nothing that says that a driver can't turn down a minor as a passenger. Uber, Lyft, and other services don't allow a minor to be a passenger without an 18+ year old passenger present.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 20, 2017)

BCL said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar648 said:
> ...


Yeah, I know they all have policies, the point is that Amtrak appears to be uniquely restrictive with theirs.


----------



## Johanna (Jun 21, 2017)

I'm just speculating, but I wonder if the real reason behind the restrictive policy is Amtrak's fear of putting unaccompanied children in the care of an incompetent train crew that can't be trusted to ensure that they get off at the right stop. It's bad enough when adult passengers miss their stop (whether because the crew doesn't notify them or wake them up on time, or the PA system isn't working, or the passengers themselves are just being stupid) and have to travel far out of their way to get on a train going back the other way, which may not arrive until more than a day later (or worse, get put off the train in the middle of nowhere and told to walk back to the station). Imagine what the news stories would look like if that happened to a child.

It's not a problem on subways and commuter rail, because passengers on those systems are usually locals who can recognize where they are and where they're going, and the stops are closer together and the trains are more frequent, so retracing your path isn't a big deal.

And it's not a problem on other countries' intercity rail systems, because (at least in my experience) they seem to have no difficulty hiring competent, courteous staff that can help out when something goes wrong or a passenger is confused. It seems like it's only Amtrak that's incapable of making sure that all of its staff do their jobs consistently and correctly.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (Jun 21, 2017)

Johanna said:


> I'm just speculating, but I wonder if the real reason behind the restrictive policy is Amtrak's fear of putting unaccompanied children in the care of an incompetent train crew that can't be trusted to ensure that they get off at the right stop. It's bad enough when adult passengers miss their stop (whether because the crew doesn't notify them or wake them up on time, or the PA system isn't working, or the passengers themselves are just being stupid) and have to travel far out of their way to get on a train going back the other way, which may not arrive until more than a day later (or worse, get put off the train in the middle of nowhere and told to walk back to the station). Imagine what the news stories would look like if that happened to a child.
> 
> It's not a problem on subways and commuter rail, because passengers on those systems are usually locals who can recognize where they are and where they're going, and the stops are closer together and the trains are more frequent, so retracing your path isn't a big deal.
> 
> And it's not a problem on other countries' intercity rail systems, because (at least in my experience) they seem to have no difficulty hiring competent, courteous staff that can help out when something goes wrong or a passenger is confused. It seems like it's only Amtrak that's incapable of making sure that all of its staff do their jobs consistently and correctly.


Nice, unwarranted slam at Amtrak staff.

I can assure you that "trusting train crews" is not the reason for this policy. If it were, they wouldn't allow UMs at all.

This really isn't that difficult of an issue to figure out.

For better or worse, our society is very litigious and if anything happens to a kid, it gets all over the news and lawsuits can happen. Therefore, minors must be in the care of a responsible adult party at all times. When on the train, that would be the train crew. At the station, a station staff person is responsible for receiving the passenger and ensuring the proper parent/guardian is there to pick up the child. If they are not there, then the station staff can deal with things while the train is on its way.

If it's an unstaffed station and the parent isn't there when the train arrives, then what? Hold the train for an hour while you figure out where they are? Keep the kid on the train and take him hundreds of miles away? Do either of those sound like reasonable options? They don't to me. But unfortunately, those occurrences (rare as they might potentially be), and the associated headaches, far outweigh (to Amtrak) the extra revenue of hauling kids around unattended.

My memory is vague, but I seem to recall the UM age being adjusted upwards years ago to avoid Amtrak possibly carrying runaways.

So, it is what it is.


----------



## Johanna (Jun 21, 2017)

Nope, a totally warranted slam against _some _Amtrak staff.

Most Amtrak staff are good. Some are great. But a select few are completely uninterested in doing their jobs. All it takes is one person like that, when the care of a child is concerned, to cause a very bad situation.

According to this, it was around five years ago that the minimum age to travel unaccompanied (with restrictions) was raised from 8 to 13. The explanation Amtrak gave at the time was clearly BS: "This is not in response to any incidents... but out of an abundance of concern for the comfort and safety of all our travelers.” So either they changed the policy for no reason at all, or it was in fact "in response to incidents" that they don't want anyone to know about because they reflect badly on Amtrak. I'm speculating about the latter case, and what they might be trying to hide.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (Jun 21, 2017)

Johanna said:


> Most Amtrak staff are good. Some are great. But a select few are completely uninterested in doing their jobs


Well, you've just described nearly 100% of every job category at nearly every company in this country.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jun 21, 2017)

Johanna said:


> Nope, a totally warranted slam against _some _Amtrak staff.
> 
> Most Amtrak staff are good. Some are great. But a select few are completely uninterested in doing their jobs. All it takes is one person like that, when the care of a child is concerned, to cause a very bad situation.
> 
> According to this, it was around five years ago that the minimum age to travel unaccompanied (with restrictions) was raised from 8 to 13. The explanation Amtrak gave at the time was clearly BS: "This is not in response to any incidents... but out of an abundance of concern for the comfort and safety of all our travelers.” So either they changed the policy for no reason at all, or it was in fact "in response to incidents" that they don't want anyone to know about because they reflect badly on Amtrak. I'm speculating about the latter case, and what they might be trying to hide.


Maybe they're talking about the safety and comfort of the other passengers, not the kids. I can see 8 - 12 year olds getting rambunctious, especially on a long train trip.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 21, 2017)

neroden said:


> There are good ways to write "unaccompanied minor" rules. This is not one of them. It was done casually, sloppily, and without thought. This is evident from the fact that every subway, commuter rail, and so forth in the country has *much much more generous* rules, despite having *far less staff* and being a much less supportive environment. They bothered to think through the rules and make rules which make sense. Amtrak didn't bother because some clerk figured "eh, who cares about unaccompanied minors, we don't need their business".
> 
> A notarized authorization letter from the minor's legal guardians and a special ID card should be sufficient to allow a 13-15 yo. to ride on a designated route (for instance, to attend college classes or such). I've seen this done at other agencies for *much younger* children.
> 
> ...


Neorden,

I'm pretty sure you're aware that Amtrak is far different than a commuter service or subway. Even the words Johanna spat affirm this:



Johanna said:


> I'm just speculating, but I wonder if the real reason behind the restrictive policy is Amtrak's fear of putting unaccompanied children in the care of an incompetent train crew that can't be trusted to ensure that they get off at the right stop. It's bad enough when adult passengers miss their stop (whether because the crew doesn't notify them or wake them up on time, or the PA system isn't working, or the passengers themselves are just being stupid) and have to travel far out of their way to get on a train going back the other way, which may not arrive until more than a day later (or worse, get put off the train in the middle of nowhere and told to walk back to the station). Imagine what the news stories would look like if that happened to a child.
> 
> It's not a problem on subways and commuter rail, because passengers on those systems are usually locals who can recognize where they are and where they're going, and the stops are closer together and the trains are more frequent, so retracing your path isn't a big deal.
> 
> And it's not a problem on other countries' intercity rail systems, because (at least in my experience) they seem to have no difficulty hiring competent, courteous staff that can help out when something goes wrong or a passenger is confused. It seems like it's only Amtrak that's incapable of making sure that all of its staff do their jobs consistently and correctly.


The trip this particular minor is taking is a scheduled 5 hour journey. Emphasis on the word "scheduled." It could take a lot longer. The previous policy would basically allows for an 8 year old to travel for 16 hours and passenger did utilize the option, particularly on trains like the Palmetto, where they'd board on the NEC and end up in the Carolina's.

That is a LONG time on train. You're not talking about jumping off after an hour or two. You're talking about 7 hours of what amounts to child care. If the child refuse to eat, nap, sleep, listen or in the one case where I had to temporarily look after a set of eight year twin girls while the crew tended to a seizure victim, starts physically fighting, there is only so much recourse. The one twin (the cuddler) wanted to nap on the other twin (the cuddlee). The cuddlee was less than enthused and stated "you fell asleep on me when I was six. It wasn't a good experience." Not to be deterred, the cuddlee cuddled up. The cuddler asked her to get off her. I suggested the cuddlee switch spots so she could be on the inside. They rebuffed my suggestion. Lo and behold, the cuddler puts her head against her sister' shoulder. Her sister sat there for a grand total of 4 minutes without comment and I was thinking the situation had resolved itself. Then, without a word, the cuddlee who had apparently reached her internal boiling point, grabbed a coke bottle and proceed to bop her sleeping sister right in the head. The kid HOWLED and every looked at me. I don't have any sort of maternal instinct. When I stated the to the cuddlee that she shouldn't hit her sister, she informed me that 'I told her not sleep on me and this is what she gets. I offered to separate them and the cuddlee informed me that she doesn't have to listen to me since I'm a stranger and not her parent."

Her point was taken. I couldn't wait for the crew to get back. Johanna may consider me incompetent for not having the foresight to realize that an attack was imminent but I wasn't a parent, they are not my kids and I had no idea of what they were capable of. Now, if this twin walked off the train with a knot on her blonde head and the babysitter (they were on a 4 hour trip to visit their former babysitter and I'm willing to bet the parents were happy to get rid of them for a week) complained, would the crew (who was busy dealing with an adult with issues) have taken the fall?

At the end of the day, these are your children and if you're ok shipping them through multiple states as if they were luggage and dropping them off at an unattended station when you can't even leave them unattended in a car at convenience store for 10 minutes, I say more power to you. I'm all for a policy change. My version would call for zero liability and tiered travel. In other words, at 8 years old, you can travel up to 4 hours. At 10 years old, you can travel up to 6 hours but if you travel multiple times throughout the year, you may travel up to 8 hours.

Something along those lines because as I indicated, some of the unattended minors are seasoned veterans, and often behave better than the adults.

I still think you should write the letter and flip the script. Tell them you'd happily comply with the policy (as you did in the past) except the station is now unstaffed.

Or, you can just sit here in a thread and rejoice in the whining of people that intend to do nothing.


----------



## BCL (Jun 21, 2017)

Thirdrail7 said:


> At the end of the day, these are your children and if you're ok shipping them through multiple states as if they were luggage and dropping them off at an unattended station when you can't even leave them unattended in a car at convenience store for 10 minutes, I say more power to you. I'm all for a policy change. My version would call for zero liability and tiered travel. In other words, at 8 years old, you can travel up to 4 hours. At 10 years old, you can travel up to 6 hours but if you travel multiple times throughout the year, you may travel up to 8 hours.
> 
> Something along those lines because as I indicated, some of the unattended minors are seasoned veterans, and often behave better than the adults.
> 
> ...


In the end, a lot of age restrictions are more or less arbitrary. We live in a litigious society, and a lot of the talk on this topic has been that the parents who think that their kid is ready might be the first to sue if something happens to their kid. Once a lost kid (14 actually) found me in an area with poor cell phone coverage, and asked me for help getting back to his high school group. I was a little freaked out about the possibility that someone sees a teenager with an solo unrelated adult male and takes it the wrong way. I actually helped him, but I did think about telling him to simply wait somewhere and I would call for help.

There's no particular reason why the typical age to smoke in the US is 18 and the drinking age is 21 other than it's going to be set somewhere.

For the OP this is more or less just an inconvenience. I believe it's likely going to be less than 4 hours drive to Grandma's place. If it's a family matter, then I don't see why a parent doesn't provide the transportation. The other thing I couldn't quite figure out what how he plans on getting back, unless it's a parent giving a ride.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jun 21, 2017)

Many times a year I get driven, but for the occasion, nobody is available or willing to go with me, or drive me. On the way back my mom can drive me, but the way there is the main concern.


----------



## BCL (Jun 22, 2017)

Sure the cutoff age is arbitrary, but there have been high profile cases where a kid under 16 has been removed from Amtrak. You don't sound as f you wish to try without an assurance that you'll be able to make it.

I take it that you've probably done the current "interview" yourself for travel between staffed stations. I understand it's pretty basic. Just asking if the kid knows where to ride on the train and to meet the station agent at the destination. I was reading one blog about a kid who ended up meeting the adult without checking in with the station agent, and the adult was called to make sure that the kid was with him. That's basically what the station agent is supposed to do.


----------



## Hal (Jun 22, 2017)

BCL said:


> Sure the cutoff age is arbitrary, but there have been high profile cases where a kid under 16 has been removed from Amtrak. You don't sound as f you wish to try without an assurance that you'll be able to make it.
> 
> I take it that you've probably done the current "interview" yourself for travel between staffed stations. I understand it's pretty basic. Just asking if the kid knows where to ride on the train and to meet the station agent at the destination. I was reading one blog about a kid who ended up meeting the adult without checking in with the station agent, and the adult was called to make sure that the kid was with him. That's basically what the station agent is supposed to do.


Maybe I missed it but I don't think he intimated any intention of violating the policy. He would like the policy changed to allow exceptions. At his age he doesn't understand why bureaucracy is going to win out in this situation and there won't be an exception for him no matter how mature he believes he is or how logical it seem to him that he should be an exception.

The interviews are pretty basic. Like telling them to follow the conductors instructions, sit where the conductor seats them, that at the destination station, station personnel will escort them from the train to the station. Do they know where they are going? Do they know the person picking them up? Tell the conductor if anyone bothers them.


----------



## neroden (Jun 23, 2017)

Thirdrail7 said:


> At the end of the day, these are your children and if you're ok shipping them through multiple states as if they were luggage and dropping them off at an unattended station when you can't even leave them unattended in a car at convenience store for 10 minutes, I say more power to you. I'm all for a policy change. My version would call for zero liability and tiered travel. In other words, at 8 years old, you can travel up to 4 hours. At 10 years old, you can travel up to 6 hours but if you travel multiple times throughout the year, you may travel up to 8 hours.


We agree.



> Something along those lines because as I indicated, some of the unattended minors are seasoned veterans, and often behave better than the adults.
> 
> I still think you should write the letter and flip the script. Tell them you'd happily comply with the policy (as you did in the past) except the station is now unstaffed.


Very good advice. Write to the top.


----------



## neroden (Jun 23, 2017)

BCL said:


> Once a lost kid (14 actually) found me in an area with poor cell phone coverage, and asked me for help getting back to his high school group. I was a little freaked out about the possibility that someone sees a teenager with an solo unrelated adult male and takes it the wrong way. I actually helped him, but I did think about telling him to simply wait somewhere and I would call for help


Isn't that completely and totally ****ed up? I mean, really. It needs to be OK for kids to ask strangers for help. What sort of society is this, anyway?


----------



## neroden (Jun 23, 2017)

For a contrast to Amtrak's crazy overbearing irrational policy, it appears that the majority of commuter railroads have literally NO policy restrictions on unaccompanied minors, although an old NY MTA policy (no longer present on the website) "discourages" unaccompanied children under the age of *8**. *

Some of Metro-North's stations (Metro-North is part of MTA) are literally one-car-door-wide wooden platforms in wilderness areas, without so much as a light or a road.

This is probably going too far in the other direction.

If you want to make a serious attempt to change policy, it might be worthwhile to look up the policies (or lack thereof) of the other railroads in the country and write up a comparison, showing how over-the-top unreasonable Amtrak's is. Then you can propose something measured and reasonable. Start a political campaign.


----------



## BCL (Jun 23, 2017)

neroden said:


> For a contrast to Amtrak's crazy overbearing irrational policy, it appears that the majority of commuter railroads have literally NO policy restrictions on unaccompanied minors, although an old NY MTA policy (no longer present on the website) "discourages" unaccompanied children under the age of *8**. *
> 
> Some of Metro-North's stations (Metro-North is part of MTA) are literally one-car-door-wide wooden platforms in wilderness areas, without so much as a light or a road.
> 
> ...


In other systems they'll probably just take it as they see an issues. If they see a six year old taking the train solo and getting lost, that's probably enough.



neroden said:


> BCL said:
> 
> 
> > Once a lost kid (14 actually) found me in an area with poor cell phone coverage, and asked me for help getting back to his high school group. I was a little freaked out about the possibility that someone sees a teenager with an solo unrelated adult male and takes it the wrong way. I actually helped him, but I did think about telling him to simply wait somewhere and I would call for help
> ...


One where adult males can be suspected of abducting children for sexual gratification.

I did end up helping him. He had no map or compass, and as I stated the cell phone coverage was poor. My preference would have been to call for help and just wait for someone to come by. However, there was no cell phone service and no pay phones. I gave him a ride in my car and tried to find some trusted person/place that could look after him. We actually found a fire station, but nobody was there. I later found out that it was a mostly volunteer department. We ended up getting to a place with a pay phone and I couldn't think of anything else but to call 911. He also barely got cell phone coverage and managed to contact his group leader. In the end someone from the fire department showed up, and I think they waited for the adults in his group to get him.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Jun 23, 2017)

Children have to ride trains everyday to and from school when their school is not in their public system. Many times these kids are coming home after school activities in the dark because it gets dark sooner during school months. Now the Conductors get to know these kids, also the kids will start sitting together as more get on. The parents have coached them on what to look out for, what to do when they feel something is wrong, etc. These are seasoned travelers, though their trip is never over 90 minutes, it could include the train then transfer to a bus. These children are very familiar with the area, verses a child traveling several hundred miles to a town or city with an unattended station, they may only have been to once or never. What if the train is late arriving very late at night and the person who is picking them up isn't there. This scenario is vastly different from the commuter 90 minute ride. In this society, where no one is responsible for their actions, that the companies, or others are suppose to be responsible, it sorta forces a tough stand that is being complicated by the reduction of staffed stations. Who could be responsible if no Amtrak personnel are at the station and it is very late at night? Should the police be called until the adult arrives? How do we protect the minors but also allow them the freedom to travel alone. I traveled alone several times from from New York to Pittsburgh by myself once I was 10, but I was looked out for by a Porter in a Roomette on the PRR. I also traveled daytime, not overnight.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (Jun 26, 2017)

neroden said:


> For a contrast to Amtrak's crazy overbearing irrational policy, it appears that the majority of commuter railroads have literally NO policy restrictions on unaccompanied minors, although an old NY MTA policy (no longer present on the website) "discourages" unaccompanied children under the age of *8**. *
> 
> Some of Metro-North's stations (Metro-North is part of MTA) are literally one-car-door-wide wooden platforms in wilderness areas, without so much as a light or a road.
> 
> ...



Obviously, there's a difference between trains that take you within a metropolitan region and one that can take you several hundred miles/multiple states away.

I mean, I thought it was obvious, but maybe not.


----------

