Questions from a reporter

[AlanB]

They wouldn't have to say they were a reporter at all, just ask some questions and see where it goes.

Which I would regard totally unethical and a shame to my profession.

What's the difference in the reporter asking Anthony and then Anthony asking us. Anthony could have asked the questions without telling us why.

The report should come to the source, announced or unannounced as a reporter.

I think that Ruukeulers point was simply that it shouldn't be unannounced. I don't think he cared so much about whether the reporter went through Anthony or came here directly, only that he not hide his purpose behind the questions.

 

[ruudkeulers]

They wouldn't have to say they were a reporter at all, just ask some questions and see where it goes.

Which I would regard totally unethical and a shame to my profession.

What's the difference in the reporter asking Anthony and then Anthony asking us. Anthony could have asked the questions without telling us why.

The report should come to the source, announced or unannounced as a reporter.

I think that Ruukeulers point was simply that it shouldn't be unannounced. I don't think he cared so much about whether the reporter went through Anthony or came here directly, only that he not hide his purpose behind the questions.

You're absolutely right, Alan!

 

[Anthony]

OTOH, given the fact that Amtrak is a semi-governmental institution, and given both the recent (over years) climate of secrecy and of highly spinned government-generated propaganda that was then dished out for public consumption, this reporter may be making a genuine effort through internet research to understand the subject matter enough to have a chance of "finding the truth" and then to report it, rather than to simply regurgitate a highly polished and spinned response that he or she expects to receive from the organization itself. I would be inclined to give him or her the benefit of the doubt and try to provide both a source location at Amtrak AND our collective take and background info on the questions provided. If nothing else, if the reporter has our responses when he or she contacts Amtrak, it would give the reporter a little insight going in, to possibly use as ammunition with Amtrak if all he or she gets in response is obviously spin. Ultimately, what the public reads of what the reporter ends up writing is at least partially in our hands. Amtrak will probably tell him/her what the rules are. We can tell him/her, from experience, what typically actually happens. And the reading public will be better informed and prepared from that. And the pols are more likely to take corrective action if warranted, if they get both sides of the story.

Folks, AmtrakWPK couldn't have put it better. On the other hand, please don't treat this thread differently just because I posted it. The reporter already tried contacting Media Relations, and apparently found them unhelpful. To those who have suggested that nobody but Amtrak can answer the questions, please remember that this is not an official resource and is not being represented as such. If we happen to give our opinions on the matter, all they can do is help inform a story and fill in the blanks for whatever polished and processed statement Amtrak will (or won't) give. At the very least, my hope was that the thread would spark some interesting dialogue for the benefit of the forum audience at large.

I would expect that if a reporter approached an Amtrak employee in his or her official capacity to ask such questions, he or she would clam up and direct the reporter to Media Relations, as that is company policy and not adhering to it could result in discipline. We are under no such obligation here, as long as we do not misrepresent the truth or opine recklessly.

 

[Rail Freak]

OTOH, given the fact that Amtrak is a semi-governmental institution, and given both the recent (over years) climate of secrecy and of highly spinned government-generated propaganda that was then dished out for public consumption, this reporter may be making a genuine effort through internet research to understand the subject matter enough to have a chance of "finding the truth" and then to report it, rather than to simply regurgitate a highly polished and spinned response that he or she expects to receive from the organization itself. I would be inclined to give him or her the benefit of the doubt and try to provide both a source location at Amtrak AND our collective take and background info on the questions provided. If nothing else, if the reporter has our responses when he or she contacts Amtrak, it would give the reporter a little insight going in, to possibly use as ammunition with Amtrak if all he or she gets in response is obviously spin. Ultimately, what the public reads of what the reporter ends up writing is at least partially in our hands. Amtrak will probably tell him/her what the rules are. We can tell him/her, from experience, what typically actually happens. And the reading public will be better informed and prepared from that. And the pols are more likely to take corrective action if warranted, if they get both sides of the story.

Folks, AmtrakWPK couldn't have put it better. On the other hand, please don't treat this thread differently just because I posted it. The reporter already tried contacting Media Relations, and apparently found them unhelpful. To those who have suggested that nobody but Amtrak can answer the questions, please remember that this is not an official resource and is not being represented as such. If we happen to give our opinions on the matter, all they can do is help inform a story and fill in the blanks for whatever polished and processed statement Amtrak will (or won't) give. At the very least, my hope was that the thread would spark some interesting dialogue for the benefit of the forum audience at large.

I would expect that if a reporter approached an Amtrak employee in his or her official capacity to ask such questions, he or she would clam up and direct the reporter to Media Relations, as that is company policy and not adhering to it could result in discipline. We are under no such obligation here, as long as we do not misrepresent the truth or opine recklessly.

The best way to find out the truth of a question, no matter what it might be, is not to announce your reason ( inquiry/inspection ) Think, cover your ..... theory . On the other hand, there is nothing wrong in taking a survey of knowledgeable/ UNBIASED people that you may have access to, in order to answer such a question as to get the most honest and reliable answers!!!

Hope that made a little sense!

RF

 

[jackal]

You would think that if this reporter wanted un-biased (or maybe biased) opinions from folks on this forum they would register and join and begin asking questions the way all of us did when we first came here. They wouldn't have to say they were a reporter at all, just ask some questions and see where it goes.

Actually, there's precedent for what Anthony did. This sort of thing happens on FlyerTalk all the time--a reporter wants to know about people's experiences with some kind of situation or something, and the FT admins post a banner announcement at the top of the forum saying "Reporter wants to know..." So it's not an unusual thing to have this kind of a request.

Usually, though, they do mention that if you'd be interested in speaking with the reporter to email them at an actual email address. They'll usually then ask you your name and a brief relevant description of yourself (i.e. "frequent flyer with Delta for 15 years") so they can use you as a non-anonymous source in their news story and then proceed to ask you a few interview questions. They may also request to call you to do a phone interview. All of this is because reporters (and their editors and generally the public) don't like anonymous sources.

In this case, however, the reporter doesn't appear to be looking for any specific incidents to interview about--he/she already has that (the incident he/she mentioned). It looks like this reporter is just looking for some background and/or, as has already been mentioned, ideas for where to start in order to press Amtrak further or seek out further information. I for one am GLAD this reporter is making an effort to understand the truth rather than making half-baked assumptions (as many reporters do, some because they're on deadline and others because they just don't know better) that turn out to be false, making those of us who read those stories roll our eyes and say, "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about!"

Today, I received an email from a reporter at the Herald and News in Klamath Falls, Oregon, looking for answers to the following questions for a news story. If anyone would like to take these on, feel free to reply here and I'll forward the link to the reporter.

—What's the policy if the train is overbooked? Some students who boarded were told to go sit in the lounge car because there weren't enough despite them having tickets. While it's great they didn't get "bumped" because of overbooking, can they received a rebate because they didn't technically have seats?
—The train was three hours late to the station because of an accident involving a farm trailer on the tracks. This is obviously not the fault of Amtrak, but how often do delays occur as the result of collisions with vehicles on the tracks? Or for other reasons? Are there any protocols being adopted to reduce accidents and delays?

—Down in the club car, about five men who had obviously had too many drinks were yelling obscene and sometimes sexist remarks at the tables across the hall. I would not have wanted children to hear. No attendants stepped in to say anything, though three were right there. How are disturbances with drunken passengers supposed to be dealt with?

—I noticed a fair amount of food scraps and other assorted garbage in various spots of the passenger car I was in. How often are passenger cars cleaned?

1.I believe I've seen it said around here that, especially on the Regionals (Washington-Boston), if there is standing-room or cafe-seating-room only, the conductor will often not "lift" the ticket (tear the ticket from the stub), thereby not marking it as used and allowing you to submit it for a refund or exchange voucher. In the event the conductor does lift your ticket despite you not having an actual seat to sit in, I believe I have seen some people here mention reporting that to customer service after the fact and receiving, if not some sort of apology voucher, the value of their ticket back. These are general impressions, though, and I can't provide definitive sources.

2. Collisions with vehicles on the tracks are not a regular thing (I don't have exact numbers, but if I were to throw a dart, I'd peg it somewhere on the order of one nationwide per month--there may be more, but it's still on the order of a handful per year, not dozens per week), and most collisions with vehicles involve freight trains (since that's probably 95% of the rail traffic in the U.S.). I'd say it's just a few times per year--or less--that an Amtrak train collides with a vehicle at a grade crossing. Of course, even if another (non-Amtrak) train hits a vehicle, an Amtrak train in the vicinity may still be delayed if the rescue operation closes the tracks and the Amtrak train can't get through the area. Yes, there is a nationwide program called "Operation Lifesaver," which is a partnership between railroads, the US DOT, and local police and sheriffs' offices, that attempts to educate the public about the dangers of railroad crossings and the necessity to always stop for lights and crossing gates and never play around the tracks. Google says you can find out more info at http://www.oli.org. Also, four-quadrant gates, make it harder for drivers to drive around a lowered gate, and concrete barriers, which force drivers to stay in their lane and not drive around a lowered gate, are among the safety devices being implemented to help prevent incursions onto the tracks. Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done to reduce the delay once an incident happens, as the rescue operation and the investigation the police have to do all take time. Amtrak does try to get moving ASAP, but unfortunately, they are often at the mercy of the authorities (and, of course, any inspections to ensure their equipment is still safe to move).

3. The car attendants have limited enforcement power over their rules. However, I would expect them to immediately notify the conductor, who has authority over his or her train, and if with whom a passenger does not cooperate has the right to remove that person from the train and to charge that person with interference with the crew (similar to an unruly passenger on an aircraft refusing to obey a flight attendant or pilot). I'm not sure of official policy on what the attendant should do, though, so I can't confirm if this attendant should be retrained or disciplined for his/her lack of action.

4. I believe passenger cars are given a quick cleaning (trash, vacuuming, etc.) at their routes' endpoints (i.e. where they are turned around--Los Angeles and Seattle for the Coast Starlight, Los Angeles and Chicago for the Southwest Chief, etc.). I believe I've heard on here that they are given a much more thorough cleaning on a less-regular basis (monthly, perhaps?), which involves steam cleaning, pressurized air blasting, etc. If you see trash on the floor, it should have been dropped there relatively recently (since the last departure from the train's initial terminus). In my experience, if you board a train at its initial terminus, it's almost spotless.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The points OBS and OKJ made about directing these to corporate make sense, but let me answer these as a customer and rider:

—What’s the policy if the train is overbooked? Some students who boarded were told to go sit in the lounge car because there weren’t enough despite them having tickets. While it’s great they didn’t get “bumped” because of overbooking, can they received a rebate because they didn’t technically have seats?

My experience is that overbooked passengers are asked to sit in the lounge car. Typically, the overbooking problem is only temporary- for example, between TRE and PHL. When seats are vacated at stops, such passengers can, and are sometimes encouraged to, sit in the coach cars. Amtrak is very fast to dole out "travel vouchers". Make a strongly worded complaint about a dirty restroom and you may well get them. If you complain to Amtrak about a more serious faux pas- and being bumped out of your seat is surely an example - you will get a travel voucher. The formulae behind calculating them would confound Einstein, so I sure as hell don't know them.

—The train was three hours late to the station because of an accident involving a farm trailer on the tracks. This is obviously not the fault of Amtrak, but how often do delays occur as the result of collisions with vehicles on the tracks? Or for other reasons? Are there any protocols being adopted to reduce accidents and delays?

They happen with some frequency. Way back in the 90s I was on a historically star-crossed Cardinal that hit five grade crossings and a suicide, plus a hog-lawed crew, to send it into Chicago Union Station some 16 hours late. That being said, while I have been in 8 such accidents- 5 of them on that Cardinal - most members on this board have not been involved in any such things, and many of them have much more mileage on Amtrak than I do.

As for what's being done about it, there have been educational and safety programs detailing this problem since as long as cars and trains have started contesting who has right of way. Amtrak and other railroads try to educate the public at large as to the stupidity of trying to cross in front of a train, which can weigh up to 30,000 tons, going 70 miles an hour. It seems to fall on deaf ears for the most part.

Grade crossings are increasingly being protected by flashing lights and/or crossing gates. Amtrak wants them almost universally, although they do not stop people from getting hit by trains with full success- some people just go around them. Railroads want them for the most part, but do not want to pay to maintain them, and must have the town's permission to put them up. People living in said towns want them put up in such a way that trains have to stop and wait for their cars- which isn't going to happen and would be stupid on so many levels I don't know where to start.

—Down in the club car, about five men who had obviously had too many drinks were yelling obscene and sometimes sexist remarks at the tables across the hall. I would not have wanted children to hear. No attendants stepped in to say anything, though three were right there. How are disturbances with drunken passengers supposed to be dealt with?

The attendant has no authority to do this other than to politely complain and to cut off the passenger from any additional liquor. The conductor does have the authority, but often prefers to wait until he gets a complaint from a passenger to act. The conductor can, and will if warranted, stop the train in the middle of nowhere and dump the passenger off the train. He can call the police who must, acting on his orders, remove the people from the train whether the police agree with the concept or not.

If the conductor gets passenger complaints about a specific passenger, they are quite likely to act. In general, the following occurs, in order of escalation:

1) The conductor politely reminds the passenger to behave in a reasonable manner.

2) The conductor orders the passenger to behave in a reasonable manner, coupled with a threat of being thrown off the train.

3) The conductor informs the passenger that the passenger will be detraining at the next stop.

Depending on distance to the next stop, and the anger of the conductor in question,

4a) The conductor calls the local police to remove the passenger from the train at the next stop.

4b) The conductor asks the engineer to stop at the next grade crossing corresponding to the car the problem passenger is in and orders them off the train, possibly calling the police to help in the issue.

5) In extreme situations, the conductor will simply halt the train and remove the passenger, with police intervention if needed. Sometimes they might also solve the immediate problem by locking the passenger in an empty coach- or cafe.

—I noticed a fair amount of food scraps and other assorted garbage in various spots of the passenger car I was in. How often are passenger cars cleaned?

Unless there is some problem, the cars are given a mild cleaning at each terminal. The cars are given a thorough cleaning at their mandated inspection periods- I think its every 45 days. By thorough, I mean the car is hooked up to blowing devices and all kinda such things. Certain trains will receive mid-run cleanings, particularly of the restrooms. The problem is, the main body of the car will not be cleaned mid-run, and a train can be in service for up to 80 hours in a revenue run (that would be the through cars on the Texas Eagle coupled to a Sunset Limited running about 8 hours late) before it will receive its next cleaning. People are slobs, especially people who are getting off the train mid-run.

 

[wayman]

They happen with some frequency. Way back in the 90s I was on a historically star-crossed Cardinal that hit five grade crossings and a suicide, plus a hog-lawed crew, to send it into Chicago Union Station some 16 hours late. That being said, while I have been in 8 such accidents- 5 of them on that Cardinal - most members on this board have not been involved in any such things, and many of them have much more mileage on Amtrak than I do.

All that, and you were only 16 hours late?! The only grade-crossing incident I've been through resulted in a 6 hour delay all by itself, and no cars left the tracks, nobody on the train was seriously injured or required medical attention. We needed replacement engines, but I can't imagine that part of things is unusual--a single cracked windshield is enough for them to have to replace an engine.

Grade crossings are increasingly being protected by flashing lights and/or crossing gates. Amtrak wants them almost universally, although they do not stop people from getting hit by trains with full success- some people just go around them. Railroads want them for the most part, but do not want to pay to maintain them, and must have the town's permission to put them up. People living in said towns want them put up in such a way that trains have to stop and wait for their cars- which isn't going to happen and would be stupid on so many levels I don't know where to start.

What I've seen more of is municipalities telling the railroads that the gates aren't allowed to make noise during certain times of the day or night. So you'll have a nice full gate-light-bell crossing gate with a small sign saying "this gate is silent from 6pm to 8am". Big help, that.

 

[AlanB]

2. Collisions with vehicles on the tracks are not a regular thing (I don't have exact numbers, but if I were to throw a dart, I'd peg it somewhere on the order of one nationwide per month--there may be more, but it's still on the order of a handful per year, not dozens per week), and most collisions with vehicles involve freight trains (since that's probably 95% of the rail traffic in the U.S.).

Boy I'd love to play darts with you for money with aim like that. :lol: On average in 2008 in the US there were 6.5 grade crossing accidents each day of the year between a car/truck and a train.

 

[AlanB]

The cars are given a thorough cleaning at their mandated inspection periods- I think its every 45 days. By thorough, I mean the car is hooked up to blowing devices and all kinda such things.

Mandated FRA inspections are every 92 days and I don't think that the cars go through the intense cleaning each time. I think that it's once every 6 months, although maybe someone else from the LA Gathering remembers what our host told us as we walked down that cleaning line.

 

[MrFSS]

The cars are given a thorough cleaning at their mandated inspection periods- I think its every 45 days. By thorough, I mean the car is hooked up to blowing devices and all kinda such things.

Mandated FRA inspections are every 92 days and I don't think that the cars go through the intense cleaning each time. I think that it's once every 6 months, although maybe someone else from the LA Gathering remembers what our host told us as we walked down that cleaning line.

I don't remember what Mr Cowan said in LA but I remember seeing that huge vacuum cleaner they hook up to the car and suck everything out of it that isn't nailed down.

 

[GG-1]

The cars are given a thorough cleaning at their mandated inspection periods- I think its every 45 days. By thorough, I mean the car is hooked up to blowing devices and all kinda such things.

Mandated FRA inspections are every 92 days and I don't think that the cars go through the intense cleaning each time. I think that it's once every 6 months, although maybe someone else from the LA Gathering remembers what our host told us as we walked down that cleaning line.

I don't remember what Mr Cowan said in LA but I remember seeing that huge vacuum cleaner they hook up to the car and suck everything out of it that isn't nailed down.

Aloha

I seem to think WhoozOn1ST took pictures of the contraption, but don't remember his gallery address.

 

[jackal]

2. Collisions with vehicles on the tracks are not a regular thing (I don't have exact numbers, but if I were to throw a dart, I'd peg it somewhere on the order of one nationwide per month--there may be more, but it's still on the order of a handful per year, not dozens per week), and most collisions with vehicles involve freight trains (since that's probably 95% of the rail traffic in the U.S.).

Boy I'd love to play darts with you for money with aim like that. :lol: On average in 2008 in the US there were 6.5 grade crossing accidents each day of the year between a car/truck and a train.

Wow. I honestly had no idea. I was going by what I hear in the news and on here, assuming that they're all newsworthy. Several each day?! I guess they're not news, then!

 

[AlanB]

2. Collisions with vehicles on the tracks are not a regular thing (I don't have exact numbers, but if I were to throw a dart, I'd peg it somewhere on the order of one nationwide per month--there may be more, but it's still on the order of a handful per year, not dozens per week), and most collisions with vehicles involve freight trains (since that's probably 95% of the rail traffic in the U.S.).

Boy I'd love to play darts with you for money with aim like that. :lol: On average in 2008 in the US there were 6.5 grade crossing accidents each day of the year between a car/truck and a train.

Wow. I honestly had no idea. I was going by what I hear in the news and on here, assuming that they're all newsworthy. Several each day?! I guess they're not news, then!

Yup, if you follow the link that you provided to OLI, click on Stats, and then click on Overview, you'll see that there were 2,391 train - vehicle accidents in 2008.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

All that, and you were only 16 hours late?! The only grade-crossing incident I've been through resulted in a 6 hour delay all by itself, and no cars left the tracks, nobody on the train was seriously injured or required medical attention. We needed replacement engines, but I can't imagine that part of things is unusual--a single cracked windshield is enough for them to have to replace an engine.

My experience, which is vaster than yours (apparently- I never knew how vast it was :unsure: ) is that each accident results in 1.5 to 3 hours delay if there are no fatalities and the engines are in good working order. If there is a fatality, that increases the time a hell of a lot. How much depends on the nature of the suicide, the obviousness of the cause, the presence of witnesses, and so on- according to the conductor on that Cardinal. They release the train directly the investigation no longer requires its presence. Its presence causes all kinds of problems- two times I remember that because of our location, the entire time we sat we were blocking a second crossing- one a 4-lane each-way arterial state highway.

On that Cardinal trip, amazingly, only two incidents were fatal- the second grade crossing collision and the suicide. We were delayed about 7 hours for the 4 non-fatals, 3.5 hours for the fatal grade collision, and 2.5 for the suicide- an eyewitness made the investigation quick, from what I was told. My dad wrote about it in his journal. The remaining 3 hours of delay were the result of a hog-lawed crew - about an hour - and the train being places at the wrong time.

 

[railiner]

OTOH, given the fact that Amtrak is a semi-governmental institution, and given both the recent (over years) climate of secrecy and of highly spinned government-generated propaganda that was then dished out for public consumption, this reporter may be making a genuine effort through internet research to understand the subject matter enough to have a chance of "finding the truth" and then to report it, rather than to simply regurgitate a highly polished and spinned response that he or she expects to receive from the organization itself. I would be inclined to give him or her the benefit of the doubt and try to provide both a source location at Amtrak AND our collective take and background info on the questions provided. If nothing else, if the reporter has our responses when he or she contacts Amtrak, it would give the reporter a little insight going in, to possibly use as ammunition with Amtrak if all he or she gets in response is obviously spin. Ultimately, what the public reads of what the reporter ends up writing is at least partially in our hands. Amtrak will probably tell him/her what the rules are. We can tell him/her, from experience, what typically actually happens. And the reading public will be better informed and prepared from that. And the pols are more likely to take corrective action if warranted, if they get both sides of the story.

Folks, AmtrakWPK couldn't have put it better. On the other hand, please don't treat this thread differently just because I posted it. The reporter already tried contacting Media Relations, and apparently found them unhelpful. To those who have suggested that nobody but Amtrak can answer the questions, please remember that this is not an official resource and is not being represented as such. If we happen to give our opinions on the matter, all they can do is help inform a story and fill in the blanks for whatever polished and processed statement Amtrak will (or won't) give. At the very least, my hope was that the thread would spark some interesting dialogue for the benefit of the forum audience at large.

I would expect that if a reporter approached an Amtrak employee in his or her official capacity to ask such questions, he or she would clam up and direct the reporter to Media Relations, as that is company policy and not adhering to it could result in discipline. We are under no such obligation here, as long as we do not misrepresent the truth or opine recklessly.

I can tell you from personal experience that persistent reporters who are dutifully told by on duty employees to contact Company media relations for statement are not satisfied, and will continue to probe and try to get the employees own opinion on questions.