Bugged at Newark by train crew, sorta.

[user 1215]

The current policy is rather.. generous. I don't know how to approach a conductor with it though. I mean I would comply but in the back of my mind I'd always think "wait a second, I know more about this policy than you do?" I'd raise my eyebrow and wait until after the crew change to resume my photography, or move to a more public area like a sightseer. Nobody in their right mind would object in that car as long as it wasn't disturbing pax or crew.

Well I'd carry a printed copy of the policy with me, preferably one with the Amtrak logo and URL at the bottom of the page, and politely present it to him/her with a statement like, "Well here's the current Amtrak policy from the website that I printed just before leaving home. Can you please point out to me or explain to me what section I'm violating?" Above all, remain calm and polite. Don't call them names, don't insist that they are wrong and you're right, or accuse them of anything, and certainly don't touch them or make an moves that could be considered threatening.

If they get mad and/or refuse to discuss it or even read it, then just be sure to remember their name and comply with their request, regardless of how you feel about them being right or wrong. As soon as they've moved on, immediately write down their name, train #, car # (if you know it), date, time, nearest station, and a description of what you were doing, what was said by both of you. You can even ask around after the employee has moved on, if any fellow passengers would agree to be a witness.

When you get home, use that information to report them. Send a polite email/letter to Amtrak with that info and request that they please properly educate that employee on the photography policy. I don't recommend the phone, as you're more likely to get emotional and you're also relying on the person on the other end of the phone to get things right. With a printed letter or email, it can properly make it's way through the inter-offices of Amtrak to reach the offending employee's supervisor's.

Most cell phones have a function to record voice conversations (where you don't have to be talking into the phone). I wonder if they would get more upset if you said "One moment, please," turned on the recorder, then showed them their own policy.

Recording somebody's conversations without knowledge is a crime in some (but to my knowledge not all) states/jurisdictions.

New Jersey is a one-party-consent state. I don't know if these laws apply to just telephone calls or to personal conversations as well, but here's a list of which states allow recording with only one party's consent (it's actually most states):

http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

I tried to imply that the cop knew that I would be recording our conversation. Not a phone conversation, but using the phone to record the conversation between cop and suspect. No cop should be upset with you collecting evidence. My point is, most folks carry a personal recording device on their cell phone. If confronted by the authorities, be super kind, respectful and compliant, and let the officer know that you're recording the conversation.

And, yes, in most states, only one person involved in a conversation needs to know the coversation is being recorded (anti wiretapping laws), but I don't think that even applies when not recording a phone call.

 

[frj1983]

Apologies if this story has already been discussed?
Amtrak police arrest Amtrak photo contestant!

Ed B)

I think it has, but it is still being discussed. I understand the confusion about photography for a contest, but if you reread the 2nd paragraph of the rules, you will find that the policy appliees to contests as well.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServe...&ssid=11134

At least it's consistant, even if you don't agree with the policy. I can understand why there are certain areas that should not be photographed. But I also realize many of these areas have already been photographed many times over the years.

That's my point exactly,

Most of this stuff has been photographed "ad naseum" over the years and can be found plastered all over the internet. You can even look at how trackage is set up when you use Google Map or any other mapping type function. This whole policy thing is silly and reminds me of "closing the barn door after the horses have already gotten out!"

Perhaps Amtrak should just simply be honest and stop the contest for "security reasons!" h34r:

 

[had8ley]

GML. What you do is a common practice in the UK. It is called train spotting. When I was over there, I saw people with notebooks writing stuff down. Usually they focus on the engine numbers, and try to see if they can record all of the numbers of a certain class of engine. In England, they have something called platform tickets, which for a few pounds one could by a ticket for the day.
When I was on the OTOL railfest in Tampa last year, we got a tour of the streetcar line shops. While there, I saw a sign explaining behaviors that could help one profile a terrorist. I forgot the exact wording, but I could clearly see that some rail fanning activities fit the profile. The one phrase that caught my attention said something like, "showing unusual interest in operations . . ." I think photographing was in there too.

Later in the day, I was on the silver star headed to Miami with our group of wanted the car number of the baggage car which was in front of my sleeper. He texted me to see if I could do this. I agreed, walked up to the front of the car, and looked through the window at the end of the car for the car number of the baggage car. I got the info, and stood there and texted it back to my friend. I turned around to walk back my room. The HC room was righ there, with the AC or Conductor sitting right there watching me the whole time. I remembered the sign from the tour of the street car place, and was somewhat embarrassed. I explained what I was doing, and apologized for not asking her permission first. She stared at me for a moment, and then I went on my way.

So after reading that sign, I have been discrete about my interests. I usually take pictures, carry a scanner, and use employee timetables to determine the location of the train. But I only do this in my room. Though I have taken pictures from other parts of the train in the past.

The new policy gives the on board crew a lot of discretion. Hopefullly, they will not be too pesky this summer when I am on 1 and 19, because I want some good pics of the Huey P Long bridge, and the one across Lake Pontchartrain.

The Huey Long bridge is an easy one. I like to take pictures from the lower level of the lounge car at the table just forward of the bathroom. You can always end of train because all the cars are open. The Crescent is a different story. They have been shutting down the last two cars between Atlanta and New Orleans since the mail contract was lost (they would cut the two coaches off and tacked them back on at night to #20 with the loaded mail cars.) If you are a good diplomat you may be able to coach the conductor into letting you get to the rear of the train. I have seen a couple of conductors get pretty nasty to some pax about wanting to go to the rear "just to take pix."

 

[ns4eva]

For on board issues you might run into with the crew about photography, you might tell them that Amtrak even made suggestions on how to photograph from in the train.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServe...d=1178293990840

 

[wayman]

Newark is totally open platformed. There are no valid ticket requirements, although I have never stood on their platforms without my very valid ticket home, and a charged and valid Metrocard which I can validly use to enter PATH platforms. I might not have a valid ticket for the train currently sitting on the platforms, but during some times of the day, 5 different minutes at Newark can see 5 different trains occupying the Tracks 3+4 platform.

Oh, relatedly... So I took 66 last week from NWK, which meant wandering from one of the lower platforms (Track 4?) to one of the upper platforms (Track 1?), which in a nearly deserted station at 1:00am entailed a bit of wandering and getting lost before I got to the correct place

I didn't see any security.

Then, having half an hour before 66 arrived and having an empty platform on which I wouldn't be disturbing anybody, I did what any morris dancer would naturally do: I pulled out my accordion and started to play.

The sound apparently carried: five minutes later three uniformed police came up the stairs, wandered up the platform to look at me, smiled and laughed and left after a minute without saying anything I kept playing, since they pretty clearly didn't mind :lol: I suppose they might have cared if I were busking (asking for money), but it was extremely clear I wasn't (I mean, there was nobody around, and I didn't have a hat or instrument case open in front of me).

I was a little surprised that, having bothered to come up to Track 1 platform, they didn't actually say anything or ask me to show a ticket, but obviously I could have shown them I was exactly where I was supposed to be (for 66) had they asked, and if they'd told me to stop I would have.

I'm sure the situation would have been very different at 1:00pm than at 1:00am.

 

[GG-1]

Seconds after reading the prior message I opend mail from the History Channel.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union establish Justice, insure Domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

To Bad they don't include the instruction on how to read this for most people. The people of this country are forgetting about what we stand for.

I have been annoyed by an uninformed security guard in Fort Worth, Texas. What I did was tell her she was wrong and just walked away from her. She tried to escalate this, but several other passengers and I on the Platform just ignored her and continued to take pictures, in full view our car attendant, who also offered to take some pictures of his passengers in front of their train.

Wish I knew what else to say but I intend to enjoy my life, and not let those uninformed/uncaring bother me.

Aloha/Mahalo

Eric

 

[Neil_M]

I have been annoyed by an uninformed security guard in Fort Worth, Texas. What I did was tell her she was wrong and just walked away from her. She tried to escalate this, but several other passengers and I on the Platform just ignored her and continued to take pictures, in full view our car attendant, who also offered to take some pictures of his passengers in front of their train.
Wish I knew what else to say but I intend to enjoy my life, and not let those uninformed/uncaring bother me.

Aloha/Mahalo

Eric

Fair play to you. These minimum wage security monkies deserve to be ignored and ridiculed at all opportunity.

Despite the nonsense they come out with, taking photos of trains is not a bad thing and is not a crime.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Seconds after reading the prior message I opend mail from the History Channel.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union establish Justice, insure Domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

To Bad they don't include the instruction on how to read this for most people. The people of this country are forgetting about what we stand for.

I have been annoyed by an uninformed security guard in Fort Worth, Texas.

Aloha/Mahalo

Eric

I hate to say this...

But were they uniformed or uninformed? Or does it really make a difference... h34r:

 

[p&sr]

I have been annoyed by an uninformed security guard in Fort Worth, Texas. What I did was tell her she was wrong and just walked away from her. She tried to escalate this, but several other passengers and I on the Platform just ignored her and continued to take pictures, in full view our car attendant, who also offered to take some pictures of his passengers in front of their train.

Excellent! Strength in numbers. That's how we won our Rights in the first place, and that's how we'll keep them. Everybody take a stand, and everybody stand together.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Newark is totally open platformed. There are no valid ticket requirements, although I have never stood on their platforms without my very valid ticket home, and a charged and valid Metrocard which I can validly use to enter PATH platforms. I might not have a valid ticket for the train currently sitting on the platforms, but during some times of the day, 5 different minutes at Newark can see 5 different trains occupying the Tracks 3+4 platform.

Oh, relatedly... So I took 66 last week from NWK, which meant wandering from one of the lower platforms (Track 4?) to one of the upper platforms (Track 1?), which in a nearly deserted station at 1:00am entailed a bit of wandering and getting lost before I got to the correct place

I didn't see any security.

Then, having half an hour before 66 arrived and having an empty platform on which I wouldn't be disturbing anybody, I did what any morris dancer would naturally do: I pulled out my accordion and started to play.

The sound apparently carried: five minutes later three uniformed police came up the stairs, wandered up the platform to look at me, smiled and laughed and left after a minute without saying anything I kept playing, since they pretty clearly didn't mind :lol: I suppose they might have cared if I were busking (asking for money), but it was extremely clear I wasn't (I mean, there was nobody around, and I didn't have a hat or instrument case open in front of me).

I was a little surprised that, having bothered to come up to Track 1 platform, they didn't actually say anything or ask me to show a ticket, but obviously I could have shown them I was exactly where I was supposed to be (for 66) had they asked, and if they'd told me to stop I would have.

I'm sure the situation would have been very different at 1:00pm than at 1:00am.

You're confusing me. All the intercity/Commuter platforms are on the same level. Then in the basement (below concourse level) run the Newark City Subway and Newark Light Rail trains (which don't run that late) and above 3/4 is platform "H" from which arriving PATH passengers disembark. The other tracks, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, P, and A are on the same level.

 

[wayman]

You're confusing me. All the intercity/Commuter platforms are on the same level. Then in the basement (below concourse level) run the Newark City Subway and Newark Light Rail trains (which don't run that late) and above 3/4 is platform "H" from which arriving PATH passengers disembark. The other tracks, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, P, and A are on the same level.

... Well, I toldja I got turned around! :unsure: Guess I came out on the same level as I started in the end

 

[jis]

You're confusing me. All the intercity/Commuter platforms are on the same level. Then in the basement (below concourse level) run the Newark City Subway and Newark Light Rail trains (which don't run that late) and above 3/4 is platform "H" from which arriving PATH passengers disembark. The other tracks, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, P, and A are on the same level.

H is above 2 and P. There is a pedestrian ramp from H that goes down to 3,4. Other than that there is nothing significant above 3,4 or 5.

And yes, I am confused by the mention of 1 being higher than 3,4 too.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

Since earlier on there was a discussion of "assault", and since the Media insists on using the word incorrectly, here are the definitions of "assault" and "battery" (which are NOT the same thing):

Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.

So when you are threatened with being touched in a manner which is offensive to you, coupled with the apparent current capability to do so, you have been "assaulted". You have not actually been touched in an offensive manner. When you HAVE been touched, grabbed, shoved, hit, punched, whatever, including having had someone grab one of your possessions that you are holding on to or is attached to you by a strap or belt, in any manner that you found offensive, and was without your prior consent, you have been battered. Assault and Battery are two separate things, usually confused and lumped together by the Media, when they say someone was, for instance, "assaulted". What they almost always meant, and should have said, was "battered".

Generally speaking, each of these is both a crime, for which the State may prosecute them, and a "tort", a tort being a "civil" crime, which means the victim may have the ability to sue the offender for damages in civil court. There are obvious defenses in the situations we have been discussing, where to one extent or another the "authorities", police or Amtrak employees, may have the authority under some circumstances to do what otherwise would not be allowed.

Personally I would rather not have my camera confiscated or destroyed, and be black and blue, and /or be left even for a short time in a jail cell in the middle of nowhere, even if I were later vindicated, simply because I knew that my behavior was in fact lawful ,simply on principle. A photo is not worth a major disruption of my life, and a record of an arrest, and likely several thousand dollars' of legal bills.

And the sending of a complaint letter by Certified or Registered mail, return receipt, is a good idea because it will be taken more seriously to start with, and it can't as easily simply be tossed in the trash can and "What letter?" be said later. It is a paper trail that is documented. Even better is if you send it to at least two different offices at the company, like Legal, or the office of the President of the company, or whatever, as well as Customer Services, or whatever, and you prominently put, at the bottom, "cc:" (name and title of other recipients), "By Certified Mail #" (Certified mail document receipt #). This gives an incentive to the recipient to NOT just toss your letter for fear of a query from the other listed recipients possibly inquiring as to how the primary recipient responded to the query, especially since they will know, because it was sent Certified mail to everybody, that there is a record.

Completely OT, my other major beef with the Media on crime reporting is their insistence on referring to "the suspect(s)" when reporting a crime for which the police as yet have no particular person(s) that they believe are the likely perpetrators. A perpetrator is the person who has committed a crime. You may or may not know, or suspect, who that person(s) is/are. Until you have a particular party or parties identified that you suspect committed the crime(s), you don't have any suspects.

My two cents' worth.

 

[tp49]

Since earlier on there was a discussion of "assault", and since the Media insists on using the word incorrectly, here are the definitions of "assault" and "battery" (which are NOT the same thing):
Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.

You are correct in that assault and battery are not the same thing; however, your definition of assault is deficient. It is deficient in that you are missing the key element in any assault (or battery) either in tort or criminally. That element is intent. This is why in tort assault and battery are referred to as "intentional torts."

At common law Criminal Assault is "The intentional creation (other than by mere words) of a reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm." Crimainal assault can also be "An attempted battery." The former is a general intent crime while the latter is a specific intent crime. Of course these definitions can vary by state statute and there is no federal assault statute.

In both cases words alone are not sufficient there has to be conduct as well.

Criminal Battery is a bit different from it's tort counterpart in that criminally battery is "An unlawful application of force to the person of another resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching."

The term offensive touching is generally referred to as offensive to one of "normal" sensitivity and not offensive to one who is "overly" sensitive.

I took issue in the discussion with the use of the term "Attempted assault" as by it's very definition you cannot attempt an assault, though as previously stated an assault can be an "attempted battery."

So when you are threatened with being touched in a manner which is offensive to you, coupled with the apparent current capability to do so, you have been "assaulted". You have not actually been touched in an offensive manner. When you HAVE been touched, grabbed, shoved, hit, punched, whatever, including having had someone grab one of your possessions that you are holding on to or is attached to you by a strap or belt, in any manner that you found offensive, and was without your prior consent, you have been battered.

Your example lacks any showing of the key element of intent. In order for there to be an assault/battery the actor had to have intentionally committed the act.

Generally speaking, each of these is both a crime, for which the State may prosecute them, and a "tort", a tort being a "civil" crime, which means the victim may have the ability to sue the offender for damages in civil court.

There is no such thing as a civil "crime." Crimes are criminal. A tort is a civil wrong for which there is a remeday available at law. This is why people are guilty of crimes but civilly liable.

Completely OT, my other major beef with the Media on crime reporting is their insistence on referring to "the suspect(s)" when reporting a crime for which the police as yet have no particular person(s) that they believe are the likely perpetrators. A perpetrator is the person who has committed a crime. You may or may not know, or suspect, who that person(s) is/are. Until you have a particular party or parties identified that you suspect committed the crime(s), you don't have any suspects.

Sure you do. The suspect/perpetrator is an "unknown" person who fits a particular description. You can have general suspect descriptions and it happens a lot. You don't have a defendant until you have a named person in custody.

Though, my major beef with the media is when they say an indictment is handed down. Indictments are never handed down. They're handed up from the grand jury (jury box) to the bench.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

Intent is inferred from "threatened". I didn't say "imminent", "possible," or" likely". A threat carries with it the necessary element of intent. A threat to knock you into the middle of next week is certainly an intentional offer of physical violence sufficient to qualify.

While I suppose it may well vary from state to state, and certainly this is not intended as legal advise, as we are speaking hypothetically, not using anybody's actual facts, my Florida Civil Litigation Handbook gives as elements:

(1) (A)n intentional, unlawful offer of corporal injury to plaintiff by force, or force unlawfully directed toward plaintiff's person, (2) (T)hose actions created a fear of imminent peril, and (3) (T)here was the apparent present capability to carry out the threat.

A 400 lb 6'2" bouncer comes up, looks at you menacingly, and tells you he's going to kick your (deleted) into next week. That is an assault. He doesn't have to actually take a swing at you to qualify.

No, of course there is no such thing as a "civil crime". On the other hand, I think that conveys what it actually is with a higher likelihood of being understood by laypersons than to say it gives you a Cause of Action, or that it is an intentional tort, torts being, to laypersons, something you eat. Yes I know it's spelled differently.

As to "suspects", here are a couple of immediately available definitions, not made by me:

In criminal law, a suspect is someone who is under suspicion, often formally announced as being under investigation by law enforcement officials.

and from another source entirely,

someone who is under suspicion

somebody who might be guilty: somebody who is suspected of a wrongdoing

suspect (plural suspects)
1. A person who is suspected of something, in particular of committing a crime.

Round up the usual suspects. — Casablanca

murder suspect n.
1. Someone suspected of committing murder.

suspect n. ['sʌspɛkt] suspects
1. One who is under suspicion.

A suspect is a specific person. A "someone". Suspects are specific individuals. You can talk about a perpetrator, but not a "suspect" until you actually have at least one particular person you suspect committed the crime. Not that the Media takes any notice of the distinction. Although it would be interesting, after listening to a reporter talk about the suspect, to ask them point blank who that person is.

Another instance from the idiom (actually quoted from Casablanca, apparently), which I'm sure we've all heard: "Round up the usual suspects."

Hard to do that if you don't know who they are, isn't it? You can't "suspect" somebody committed a crime until you have a "somebody". You can believe that a crime was committed, and from witness reports, you can believe that a person of a particular description perpetrated the crime, but that in itself doesn't give you a suspect.

Agreed on True Bill or No True Bill. Indicted or not indicted is also more useful than up or down.

And yes, once arrested and charged, you have a defendant. They arrested the, or a, "suspect" in order to do that.

 

[tp49]

Intent is inferred from "threatened". I didn't say "imminent", "possible," or" likely". A threat carries with it the necessary element of intent. A threat to knock you into the middle of next week is certainly an intentional offer of physical violence sufficient to qualify.
While I suppose it may well vary from state to state, and certainly this is not intended as legal advise, as we are speaking hypothetically, not using anybody's actual facts, my Florida Civil Litigation Handbook gives as elements:

(1) (A)n intentional, unlawful offer of corporal injury to plaintiff by force, or force unlawfully directed toward plaintiff's person, (2) (T)hose actions created a fear of imminent peril, and (3) (T)here was the apparent present capability to carry out the threat.

A 400 lb 6'2" bouncer comes up, looks at you menacingly, and tells you he's going to kick your (deleted) into next week. That is an assault. He doesn't have to actually take a swing at you to qualify.

Absolutly, not legal advice just working in hypotheticals, and dealing with the flashbacks from being grilled in class B) .

It does vary from state to state. I pulled out my CACI (California civil jury instructions) book and California's instruction (CACI 1301) is a two part instruction. The first part is (1) That (defendant) acted, intending to cause harmful (or offensive) contact. (2) That (plaintiff) reasonably believed that (he/she) was about to be touched in a harmful (or offensive) manner. OR the part regarding threats is (1) That (defendant) threatened to touch (plaintiff) in a harmful (or an offensive) manner. (2) That it reasonably appeared to (plaintiff) that (defendant) was about to carry out the threat. (3) That (plaintiff) did not consent to (defendant's) conduct. (4) That (plaintiff) was harmed; and (5) That (defendant's) conduct was a substantial factor in causing (plaintiff's) harm. The instruction further states "A touching is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity." and "Words alone do not amount to an assault."

In California your example is an assault because the menacing look combined with the threat implies immediacy under the 2d part of the instruction. We come to the same conclusion with a different route to get there.

No, of course there is no such thing as a "civil crime". On the other hand, I think that conveys what it actually is with a higher likelihood of being understood by laypersons than to say it gives you a Cause of Action, or that it is an intentional tort, torts being, to laypersons, something you eat. Yes I know it's spelled differently.

After reading that I'm craving some dessert. Tortes are best when chocolate .

Agreed on True Bill or No True Bill. Indicted or not indicted is also more useful than up or down.

It's easy to mix up lawyers who practice here with the terminology as in one building you deal with preliminary hearings and information while a couple of blocks away you have grand juries (true bill; no true bill) and indictments.

To make this germaine to trains and not hijack too much we do have a whole set of jury instructions pertaining to railroad crossings which I've never actually read but now think I will as it's raining and there's nothing to watch on tv.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

And to further buttress the link between this discussion and trains, there is always the reference about "having been railroaded". :lol:

and, again completely, OT, a Yogi-ism: "If you come to a fork in the road, take it." :lol: :blink:

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Enough with the legal technicalities!

 

[PetalumaLoco]

And to further buttress the link between this discussion and trains, there is always the reference about "having been railroaded". :lol:
and, again completely, OT, a Yogi-ism: "If you come to a fork in the road, take it." :lol: :blink:

2 guys out hunting come to a fork in the trail.

There stands a sign reading BEAR LEFT.

So they went home.

 

[sky12065]

And to further buttress the link between this discussion and trains, there is always the reference about "having been railroaded". :lol:
and, again completely, OT, a Yogi-ism: "If you come to a fork in the road, take it." :lol: :blink:

If there was also a spoon and a knife there, should you also take them? :huh:

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

I can't imagine any real trouble because I do follow general railfanning guidelines- 1) do not, at any time, trespass on non-public railroad property, 2) do not get in the way of any operating crews. But one never knows. Do any of you have suggestions on how I should CMA?

Were you and your girlfriend ticketed passengers for the train (the Silver) of which you were taking pictures? If I am reading your posting correctly, I think not.

IMHO, Amtrak's rules are pretty clear. You must be a ticketed passenger to take pictures on the platform. Anyone without a ticket is prohibited from restricted areas, which include platforms, right of way, and track areas

Plus, I think Amtrak's own corporate guidelines trump any railfanning guidelines.

 

[Long Train Runnin']

AmtrakWPK are you a lawyer?

 

[Ryan]

I can't imagine any real trouble because I do follow general railfanning guidelines- 1) do not, at any time, trespass on non-public railroad property, 2) do not get in the way of any operating crews. But one never knows. Do any of you have suggestions on how I should CMA?

Were you and your girlfriend ticketed passengers for the train (the Silver) of which you were taking pictures? If I am reading your posting correctly, I think not.

IMHO, Amtrak's rules are pretty clear. You must be a ticketed passenger to take pictures on the platform. Anyone without a ticket is prohibited from restricted areas, which include platforms, right of way, and track areas

Plus, I think Amtrak's own corporate guidelines trump any railfanning guidelines.

Not at Newark:

Just for my own knowledge how is platform access handled at Newark Penn? Is it the same as at NYP where platform access is restricted to tickethokders at the time the train is announced or is it open access in that let's say you had a ticket on NJT you could wait on the platform until the NJT train came in? I've only ridden through Newark and never been off the train or in the station.

Newark is totally open platformed. There are no valid ticket requirements, although I have never stood on their platforms without my very valid ticket home, and a charged and valid Metrocard which I can validly use to enter PATH platforms. I might not have a valid ticket for the train currently sitting on the platforms, but during some times of the day, 5 different minutes at Newark can see 5 different trains occupying the Tracks 3+4 platform.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Were you and your girlfriend ticketed passengers for the train (the Silver) of which you were taking pictures? If I am reading your posting correctly, I think not.
IMHO, Amtrak's rules are pretty clear. You must be a ticketed passenger to take pictures on the platform. Anyone without a ticket is prohibited from restricted areas, which include platforms, right of way, and track areas

Plus, I think Amtrak's own corporate guidelines trump any railfanning guidelines.

You didn't read my post correctly because you think I was taking pictures. I was writing down consist numbers. Thats number one.

Number two is, Newark is open platform. There are too many trains flying through there for too short a time to close platforms to anyone. I had a valid ticket Little Silver to Millburn changing at NWK via Path or Newark Light Rail, so I had justification to be there.

Number three is: Newark is not an Amtrak station. Newark is owned, operated, and policed by New Jersey Transit. That means that NJ Transit policy prevails there, and due to the highly unstaffed nature of many of their stations, everything in NJT's system is open platform, excluding only NYP and PHL. Even the big stations like Secaucus and Hoboken are open platform assuming you have a ticket for travel via Secaucus. (which has its own fee)

 

[Caboose]

Yes, strange...but I think you should just ignore it,