amtrak train stranded 16 hours

[JAChooChoo]

BTW, an action plan can be more than one option; removing passengers from the train. It could also be "get supplies to the train", being extra food, potable water, etc, even diesel fuel to keep the loco running. Honestly, being a stranded passenger, I don't care if that means using row boats or dog sleds.

I am amazed that the Amtrak Department of Nationwide 24 Hour On Call One-Hour Substitute Bus, Row Boat, Dog Sled, Ski Patrol, Helicopter, Catering, Mounted Cavalry, and Fully-Qualified Extra Crew dropped the ball on this.

 

[RRrich]

Can anyone explain to me why a train crew cannot rest on the train even if they rest in special areas that are dedicated resting (roomettes)?

I like the idea that crew be allowed to work even though they are outlawed if their working a SHORT time (to be clearly defined) would prevent major discomfort to the pax. This does NOT apply in this situation in which the train/pax had heat, light, water, food ,,,,,

 

[Guest]

Can anyone explain to me why a train crew cannot rest on the train even if they rest in special areas that are dedicated resting (roomettes)?

This train has no sleepers. So you just curl up on a table in the lounge car? :blink: :blink:

 

[haolerider]

Can anyone explain to me why a train crew cannot rest on the train even if they rest in special areas that are dedicated resting (roomettes)?
I like the idea that crew be allowed to work even though they are outlawed if their working a SHORT time (to be clearly defined) would prevent major discomfort to the pax. This does NOT apply in this situation in which the train/pax had heat, light, water, food ,,,,,

Quite simple - this is a coach only train! You are somewhat confused about hours of service. The on-board crew - in this case the Lounge car attendant worked all the way through. Hours of service generally refers to the Conductors and Engineers - commonly referred to as the T&E crew. In this case everyone worked all the way through.

 

[haolerider]

but thanks to the good ol FRA the crews cannot rest on a train. so there for even if the crew got 12 hours sleep they still outlawed which means the pax are screwed untill a new crew can arrive. the host RR should have in place a plan for things like this like providing a engineer and conductor(they would know the route driving freight) so the train could get to the closest station were pax could be let off so they can get to some place besides a train that has run out of food and water. do they not care about the pax. screw the outlaw rule they should be allowed to at least move the train to the closest station even if that means backing up. then give the crew 48 hours rest. or have the host RR hook up there loco with there engineer and conductor and move the train. its a emergency they should be allowed to go over to get the pax to safety.

I can't help but reply. You really need to get all your facts straight and then make your prouncements. At least then you would know a bit about the topic. They had food, they had water, they had heat, they had an engine with a broken windshield from a fallen tree, they had frozen switches and a derailed freight train and they were in a location that was not easily accesible. Buses on a Sunday evening in a blizzard are also not the easist things to find. The passengers were safe, albeit inconvenienced. As I understand it, the food was comped until they ran out and Snack paks and water were provided.

 

[AlanB]

Can anyone explain to me why a train crew cannot rest on the train even if they rest in special areas that are dedicated resting (roomettes)?

In addition to the fact that guest mentioned, the lack of sleeper, the FRA does not consider resting on the train to be sufficient. Perhaps because they were worried that employers might try some interesting things to force workers to rest on the train. And of course while I'm one person who usually doesn't have too much trouble sleeping on a train, I'm sure that there are plenty of people who don't sleep well on a train, even if they do have a sleeper.

But regardless of why it may or may not be a good idea to do it, the simple fact remains that at least at present, the FRA doesn't allow it. Therefore it is illegal.

 

[RRrich]

I was going beyond the present situation - it is my understanding that a crew can only work a certain number of hours (12?) without resting, and that the rest cannot be on the train. It is further my understanding that the crew CANNOT rest on the train even if the train has sleepers. Am I correct? If so, why can't the T&E crew evict the On Board crew from their roomettes (in an emergency) and rest there?

Similarly, my comments about the T&E crew working while outlawed does NOT apply in this 16 hour stranding - but wasn't there a stranding in Michigan?

 

[haolerider]

I was going beyond the present situation - it is my understanding that a crew can only work a certain number of hours (12?) without resting, and that the rest cannot be on the train. It is further my understanding that the crew CANNOT rest on the train even if the train has sleepers. Am I correct? If so, why can't the T&E crew evict the On Board crew from their roomettes (in an emergency) and rest there?
Similarly, my comments about the T&E crew working while outlawed does NOT apply in this 16 hour stranding - but wasn't there a stranding in Michigan?

In your case, are you suggesting that a stranded train with a T&E crew that has gone over their hours of service sleep on the train to get their required rest? If so, who is going to be responsible for the train and communication with the host railroad and others communicating with the train? The Conductors are responsible for the safety of the passengers and the train and are not going to be "evicting" the on-board crew from their sleepers - and as a reminder, the on-board crew is going to be tending to the passengers - much as the lounge attendant did in the most recent case.

 

[AlanB]

And since we're going on and on with this topic, which is a bit like what happened in Michigan a few months back and note that I said a bit like it as there are major differences, one of the things that doesn't seem to have happened here is that no one called 911. But that was a big part of the Michigan experience and we were talking about that quite a bit back then, the fact that people would actually call 911 from a train that was stopped, as if the police could do anything about it.

Well today I found this story about a women who called 911 because McDonalds ran out of Chicken McNuggets. Go figure!

 

[AlanB]

I was going beyond the present situation - it is my understanding that a crew can only work a certain number of hours (12?) without resting, and that the rest cannot be on the train. It is further my understanding that the crew CANNOT rest on the train even if the train has sleepers. Am I correct? If so, why can't the T&E crew evict the On Board crew from their roomettes (in an emergency) and rest there?
Similarly, my comments about the T&E crew working while outlawed does NOT apply in this 16 hour stranding - but wasn't there a stranding in Michigan?

Rich,

See my more detailed post directly above yours, made even as you were busy posting this one as to why they can't do that, but the simple answer is that the FRA doesn't allow it.

 

[RRrich]

Rich,
See my more detailed post directly above yours, made even as you were busy posting this one as to why they can't do that, but the simple answer is that the FRA doesn't allow it.

The answer "FRA doesn't allow it." makes me ask why not - and your earlier post answers that question. Thank You

I guess I was thinking of myself prior to my retirement, when I was short and not taking much from the bosses.

 

[PRR 60]

...I guess I was thinking of myself prior to my retirement, when I was short and not taking much from the bosses.

It's a great situation, isn't it. At my office, we call it "bulletproof"! You can speak your mind, and have that "make my day" look on your face. Sweet.

 

[RRrich]

...I guess I was thinking of myself prior to my retirement, when I was short and not taking much from the bosses.

It's a great situation, isn't it. At my office, we call it "bulletproof"! You can speak your mind, and have that "make my day" look on your face. Sweet.

AND I was licensed to do required things that few others were licensed to do

 

[AlanB]

Rich,
See my more detailed post directly above yours, made even as you were busy posting this one as to why they can't do that, but the simple answer is that the FRA doesn't allow it.

The answer "FRA doesn't allow it." makes me ask why not - and your earlier post answers that question. Thank You

I guess I was thinking of myself prior to my retirement, when I was short and not taking much from the bosses.

Rich,

I probably also should have mentioned that the FRA didn't make this rule up just for Amtrak, it applies to all conductors and engineers, be they Amtrak, freight, or commuter. The latter two of course would not have any facilities to allow the crew to rest, since there would be no sleepers attached.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Can anyone explain to me why a train crew cannot rest on the train even if they rest in special areas that are dedicated resting (roomettes)?

In addition to the fact that guest mentioned, the lack of sleeper, the FRA does not consider resting on the train to be sufficient. Perhaps because they were worried that employers might try some interesting things to force workers to rest on the train. And of course while I'm one person who usually doesn't have too much trouble sleeping on a train, I'm sure that there are plenty of people who don't sleep well on a train, even if they do have a sleeper.

But regardless of why it may or may not be a good idea to do it, the simple fact remains that at least at present, the FRA doesn't allow it. Therefore it is illegal.

How does this compare to other modes of transportation?

I'm pretty sure pilots on long international flights which are scheduled to exceed the time a pilot is allowed to work allow resting on the plane, but that's a slightly different situation because swapping crews onto and off of the plane would be far more inconvenient than swapping crews onto and off a train, and some of the flights I'm thinking about may not need to follow those FAA rules anyway since they're nominally operated in some other country. (The FAA also has been requiring pilots to retire a little bit younger than pilots flying for airlines in some other countries, so sometimes US pilots after the retire from a US-based airline will go work for a foreign airline that just so happens to fly to the US.)

My understanding is that truck drivers are allowed to sleep in their trucks while the trucks are parked. I'm not sure if resting in the truck while someone else is driving it is also legal.

But I'm also not sure I can construct a good argument that in general there'd be much benefit to getting the rules changed to allow a conductor to sleep in a roomette. On a route as long as the California Zephyr, if you start doing that, the conductor now has to be qualified on a lot more territory to make that at all useful on days when things are mostly going well, and that increases training costs. It's extremely rare for a train to be stuck without a replacement crew for so long that having the one conductor and one engineer rest and then start moving the train again would actually be faster than waiting for some other crew to reach the train.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Well today I found this story about a women who called 911 because McDonalds ran out of Chicken McNuggets. Go figure!

That story also claims they failed to give her a refund for the McNuggets she'd paid for that they didn't have. While 911 might be overkill, it seems to me that if you want to get the police involved at all, trying to communicate with the police sooner rather than later about the details of the problem is helpful for establishing the facts.

 

[AlanB]

Well today I found this story about a women who called 911 because McDonalds ran out of Chicken McNuggets. Go figure!

That story also claims they failed to give her a refund for the McNuggets she'd paid for that they didn't have. While 911 might be overkill, it seems to me that if you want to get the police involved at all, trying to communicate with the police sooner rather than later about the details of the problem is helpful for establishing the facts.

It's illegal to call 911 for anything that's not an emergency. Not getting your McNuggets or a refund isn't an emergency. And she called 911 three times too!

 

[wayman]

Well today I found this story about a women who called 911 because McDonalds ran out of Chicken McNuggets. Go figure!

That story also claims they failed to give her a refund for the McNuggets she'd paid for that they didn't have. While 911 might be overkill, it seems to me that if you want to get the police involved at all, trying to communicate with the police sooner rather than later about the details of the problem is helpful for establishing the facts.

It's illegal to call 911 for anything that's not an emergency. Not getting your McNuggets or a refund isn't an emergency. And she called 911 three times too!

I think this must vary by municipality, as in Philadelphia the only way to contact the police is to call 911. If you need to file a report for an accident after you've left the scene of the accident and long after the situation ceased to be an emergency of any sort, you call 911 to schedule it. You can't even walk into a police station to schedule it--I tried that, and the police instructed me to call 911! :blink: :blink: :blink: (In my case, I was hit-and-run struck by a car while on a bicycle and went straight to the emergency room. The police never came to the scene--911 was never called because I was quite conveniently struck two blocks from the hospital and able to walk there on my own with only a lacerated chin and a lot of cuts on my hands. A day later, I tried filing a police report, and ... the above exchange took place.)

I personally think this is absolutely nuts and a huge misallocation of resources desperately needed for actual emergencies, but ... that's Philadelphia. :blink: <_< :angry: The new 311 service they're bringing online now may take some of this burden, but I'm not entirely sure what its intended functions are. And it's been such a boondoggle that I'm not sure anyone knows what it's supposed to do at this point, or whether it's actually doing it :unsure:

That doesn't mean the woman who called 911 about the McNugget "emergency" was right. If she were in Philadelphia and wanted police on the scene, that would have been her only option, but the only reason I can see for wanting the police on the scene is if the woman felt threatened by a McDonald's employee. And that quite clearly was not the case here.

 

[Tony]

It's illegal to call 911 for anything that's not an emergency. Not getting your McNuggets or a refund isn't an emergency. And she called 911 three times too!

McD's took her money. After taking her money, McD's confessed they didn't have any McNuggets, and then flatly refused to refund her money.

Isn't that some kind of robbery or fraud? That, IMHO, does warrant a report to the police.

However, I have to agree with you. Its illegal to call 911 unless life or property is in jeopardy. Too many people wrongly think that 911 is some kind of free auto club. and you call it to request repairs or directions.

 

[Cascadia]

Its illegal to call 911 unless life or property is in jeopardy. Too many people wrongly think that 911 is some kind of free auto club. and you call it to request repairs or directions.

Where I have lived, in Minneapolis, and here in Bellingham, if you call the police headquarters for a non-emergency call, they will just tell you to hang up and call 911. If you insist that it isn't an emergency, they will say, 911 is the only way squad cars are dispatched.

 

[George Harris]

It's illegal to call 911 for anything that's not an emergency. Not getting your McNuggets or a refund isn't an emergency. And she called 911 three times too!

McD's took her money. After taking her money, McD's confessed they didn't have any McNuggets, and then flatly refused to refund her money.

Isn't that some kind of robbery or fraud? That, IMHO, does warrant a report to the police.

How do we know we have the real story?

 

[sportbiker]

Getting back on topic...

Over the time I've been on this board I've read of a number of instances of trains stopping in the middle of bumf**k because the crew timed out. Being in the middle of bumf**k makes it harder to bring in a fresh crew, in addition to inconvenience to pax (not being able to detrain). Since, under normal circumstances, it's not rocket science to calculate the time from one station to the next, why not have a timed-out train stop at the closest prior station? Or, in the case where stations are waaaaaay far apart, at least stop at the closest prior built-up area? It would be more convenient for both pax and crews.

In other situations, it seems there could be an urgency exception to the time-out rules themselves, allowing crews to work overtime just long enough to get the train and its passengers to a better area, that area TBD by the circumstances.

 

[George Harris]

In other situations, it seems there could be an urgency exception to the time-out rules themselves, allowing crews to work overtime just long enough to get the train and its passengers to a better area, that area TBD by the circumstances.

There is, but the usual legal standard of innocent until proven guilty is turned on its head. You must convince the Feds that the situation would have been made worse by you not stopping at 11:59:59.99. That is not easy.

 

[PRR 60]

In other situations, it seems there could be an urgency exception to the time-out rules themselves, allowing crews to work overtime just long enough to get the train and its passengers to a better area, that area TBD by the circumstances.

There is, but the usual legal standard of innocent until proven guilty is turned on its head. You must convince the Feds that the situation would have been made worse by you not stopping at 11:59:59.99. That is not easy.

Just about the only exception is when there are lives at stake. Inconvenience, even to the extreme, is not an acceptable excuse for a crew to work past 12 hours. And if a railroad willfully violates the hours of service law and does not prove an valid reason to do so, then the penalties are hefty, to say the least.

 

[Ryan]

Getting back on topic...
Over the time I've been on this board I've read of a number of instances of trains stopping in the middle of bumf**k because the crew timed out. Being in the middle of bumf**k makes it harder to bring in a fresh crew, in addition to inconvenience to pax (not being able to detrain). Since, under normal circumstances, it's not rocket science to calculate the time from one station to the next, why not have a timed-out train stop at the closest prior station? Or, in the case where stations are waaaaaay far apart, at least stop at the closest prior built-up area? It would be more convenient for both pax and crews.

In other situations, it seems there could be an urgency exception to the time-out rules themselves, allowing crews to work overtime just long enough to get the train and its passengers to a better area, that area TBD by the circumstances.

In many of the cases (like the recent case in MI), stopping at a station means blocking the tracks for everyone else trying to get through (potentially causing cascading delays and crews out of time everywhere) and proceeding to a yard lessens the impact on other trains.