Empire Builder discharges passengers in the middle of nowhere

[Devil's Advocate]

Once again being far too literal! I have seen people badger the heck out of a conductor because they either failed to get off at the correct stop or because they boarded to help someone else and didn't get off in time. I've seen them standing there screaming at the top of their lungs demanding that the conductor immediately stop the train and reverse it so that they can get off, instead of having to ride to the next stop and double back.

You say I take your words too literally, but you're not describing vague intuitions so much as you're making rather specific accusations, or "suggestions" as you call them. Suggestions that apparently have no connection to the current situation beyond having occurred on Amtrak at some point.

I have witnessed one particularly irate passenger who after not getting their demands met by the conductor, proceeded to go and pull the emergency brake. She did get her wish to get off the train, and she did get a ride, but it wasn't back to her missed stop. It was to the police station.

1. There is no indication that any emergency break was pulled.

2. There is no indication any police were involved.

3. There is no indication that anyone was irate or belligerent.

Or is that too literal?

I agree we don't know the whole story, but I'm hard pressed to come up with an easy explanation for placing even half of the blame on the customers. Amtrak LD trains stop all the time in my experience. Sometimes it's right next to a station, but if it's not the official spot for disembarking you're still not getting off. End of story. In the middle of the night I'd be just as groggy and spaced out as anyone else. And I'd be expecting someone to let me know when it was time to go. That's one of very few tasks I do actually expect of today's SCA's. Is that really too much to ask and, if so, why?

 

[Dan O]

Just wonder why it took over two months to hit the papers. Probably will never know but it would be interesting to know how the crew decided to let the women off--Alan's theory or something else.

Dan

 

[EB_OBS]

Wow! This is the first I've heard of this one. Doesn't sound good.

 

[EB_OBS]

Just wonder why it took over two months to hit the papers. Probably will never know but it would be interesting to know how the crew decided to let the women off--Alan's theory or something else.

Dan

In response to what Alan surmised, I too have witnessed passengers who've missed their stop, demand that that train be stopped and insist they be let off. This is against Amtrak policy and the majority of conductor's will not give in and the train will continue on to it's next stop where arrangements will be made to get you back to your proper destination.

This is the first I've heard of this incident so unfortunately I have no inside info. I can't believe I never even heard any crew talking about it when it happened.

 

[EB_OBS]

Also, just FYI,

At SCD, none of the SCAs are required to be up at that stop. That's 100% all on the conductors. If the SCA chooses to be up then so be it but they are not required to be nor are they paid to be unless the conductor specifically authorizes it and punches their timesheet.

 

[EB_OBS]

One more tidbit of info;

Since SCD is a crew change point, generally the train sits at SCD for 5-10 minutes.

 

[AlanB]

Once again being far too literal! I have seen people badger the heck out of a conductor because they either failed to get off at the correct stop or because they boarded to help someone else and didn't get off in time. I've seen them standing there screaming at the top of their lungs demanding that the conductor immediately stop the train and reverse it so that they can get off, instead of having to ride to the next stop and double back.

You say I take your words too literally, but you're not describing vague intuitions so much as you're making rather specific accusations, or "suggestions" as you call them. Suggestions that apparently have no connection to the current situation beyond having occurred on Amtrak at some point.

No, I made it quite clear that I was describing possible reasons that the crew might have done what they did. You seem to have failed to understand that.

I have witnessed one particularly irate passenger who after not getting their demands met by the conductor, proceeded to go and pull the emergency brake. She did get her wish to get off the train, and she did get a ride, but it wasn't back to her missed stop. It was to the police station.

1. There is no indication that any emergency break was pulled.

2. There is no indication any police were involved.

3. There is no indication that anyone was irate or belligerent.

Or is that too literal?

Yes, once again you are being too literal.

I was offering up examples of things that I have seen happen on trains. Something the EB-OBS has since corroborated. I didn't say that happened in this case.

But the lingering question is, might it have happened if the conductor didn't do what he did?

I agree we don't know the whole story, but I'm hard pressed to come up with an easy explanation for placing even half of the blame on the customers. Amtrak LD trains stop all the time in my experience. Sometimes it's right next to a station, but if it's not the official spot for disembarking you're still not getting off. End of story. In the middle of the night I'd be just as groggy and spaced out as anyone else. And I'd be expecting someone to let me know when it was time to go. That's one of very few tasks I do actually expect of today's SCA's. Is that really too much to ask and, if so, why?

First, they did get a wake up call telling them that they needed to get ready to get off. So that alone means that they should have been more alert to what was happening. Especially when the train stopped for the normal 5 to 10 minutes that it takes to change the crew. Why did not one of them get up to go see what was going on and if the door was open? If this had been a quick stop, I could understand not having enough time to investigate anything.

So I'm sorry, but they do get at least some of the blame for missing their stop. I'm not going to assign percentages, but they certainly played a role in things, even though the ultimate responsibility still lies with Amtrak & the crew

Second, yes it is too much to ask of the SCA in this case. EB_OBS explained why.

 

[PaulM]

Wow! This is the first I've heard of this one. Doesn't sound good.

I was about to say where is EB_OBS when we need him? But even he can't cut through the wild speculation this time.

 

[PRR 60]

I am having a difficult time conjuring a scenario that even slightly mitigates the seriousness of this action. The crew was wrong to let the passengers off at this location absent someone being there and waiting for them. Amtrak admits to that (essentially confirming the published story) and offers no alternate explanation or justification. Amtrak is very, very lucky that nothing happened to these two women while they waited for help.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

No, I made it quite clear that I was describing possible reasons that the crew might have done what they did. You seem to have failed to understand that.

It’s true. I simply do not understand the point of wild non-literal accusations based on completely unrelated situations.

 

[AlanB]

No, I made it quite clear that I was describing possible reasons that the crew might have done what they did. You seem to have failed to understand that.

It’s true. I simply do not understand the point of wild non-literal accusations based on completely unrelated situations.

It's called speculating on reasons why the crew may have decided to do something that they shouldn't have done.

You seem to believe that the crew is 100% at fault for the way things transpired. I'm simply saying that there may be extenuating circumstances and provided possible scenarios that, while not excusing the crew from dropping them off where they did, may have led to that unorthodox and improper decision. You've decided to be judge & jury and have found the crew 100% guilty without ever allowing the defense to present any mitigating evidence.

 

[The Chief]

I know that it's hard like always and to complain about Amtrak like always. But maybe just once you could wait for all the facts to come in first.

Yeah, good luck with ^ that ^.

*. *. *.

Op crew (inbound conductor and assistant) screwed the pooch by not detraining a middle-of-the night PAX, and elderly at that. Same for SCA.

Departing PAX may share culpability for electing to detrain two miles outside of station.

Amtrak's Marc Magliari cites "standard procedure" "wasn't properly carried out." Division Superintendent probably would agree with that.

Amtrak Service Standards Manual covers thusly:

Train Attendants [TASC-Train Attendant Sleeping Car] to:

• Notify passengers individually from 10p.m. to

7a.m. Use a flashlight to locate passengers during

the night.

and

• Make certain the passenger is detraining at

their ticketed destination.

((Suggested [mandatory] "Good Night" announcement verbiage contains this sentence)):

If you are detraining during the night, please be sure

that you are at your assigned seat prior to arrival at your

destination so crew members can assist you off the

train.

*. *. *.

Many of us here think anyone traveling by rail, air, land or sea has responsibility for situational awareness, and we travel accordingly.

Transport providers are not agents of a nanny state to make every decision for us en route. Transport providers are responsible to follow their own rules and M&P.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm simply saying that there may be extenuating circumstances...that, while not excusing the crew from dropping them off where they did, may have led to that unorthodox and improper decision.

Everything you said there is a perfectly reasonable position. Absolutely there may have been extenuating circumstances. In fact it's hard to imagine there weren't any. If this was a story about two drunk college guys I'd have found your speculation far more believable. On the other hand, too senior citizen ladies being able to bully the staff into leaving them in the middle of nowhere just seems completely out of left field to me. Not saying it's impossible, but seems unlikely to me. :mellow:

You've decided to be judge & jury and have found the crew 100% guilty without ever allowing the defense to present any mitigating evidence.

The "defense" is free to contact Kelly Smith at 612-673-4141 should they feel they are not being "allowed" to present actual evidence, as distinct from speculation and hyperbole. ^_^

 

[George Harris]

OK, so its against the rules, but I would think it better in both time and money for all concerned to be deposited 2 miles or so from the station in a town I know rather than be carried another 50 miles or so and then be sent back in a taxi. It saves the passenger a lot of time and Amtrak quite a bit of money. Just call the person that is supposed to meet them and say, hay, come get me at such and such a location. For the train crew, breaking one rule to cover the failure to properly follow another rule. Two events cancel out. End of story.

Unless I missed it, there was nothing said to indicate that these people were forced to get off the train where they did. This suggests that they were at the least cooperative in the process if not the instigators of it.

Things like this, that is the unscheduled stop to let off someone beside the track that missed their stop, used to happen quite a bit. All involved in those events in past years are now retired if still among the living. This was at times done even if the deposited passenger had to walk the track back to where he should have gotten off. Therefore people that never said anything at that time out of the most basic consideration for someone who risked a reprimand in not his job to help you could talk about it now, but probably see no point in doing so.

 

[henryj]

OK, so its against the rules, but I would think it better in both time and money for all concerned to be deposited 2 miles or so from the station in a town I know rather than be carried another 50 miles or so and then be sent back in a taxi. It saves the passenger a lot of time and Amtrak quite a bit of money. Just call the person that is supposed to meet them and say, hay, come get me at such and such a location. For the train crew, breaking one rule to cover the failure to properly follow another rule. Two events cancel out. End of story.

Ok George, so why didn't they just back up to the station and let them off, it was only 2 miles? They have done this before. I have been on trains that backed up to a station. Per Amtrak rules the next 'manned' station they could have let them off at was Fargo, three hours down the road. They would have passed #8 along the way. Other options are to let them off at Staples or Detroit Lakes to catch #8 back to St Cloud. According to the news release, the crew thought they were doing these ladies a favor by dropping them off still in St. Cloud rather than running all the way to Fargo. Apparently they failed to tell the ladies this. I still think calling the dispatcher to authorize a back up move would have been the best option.

 

[AlanB]

OK, so its against the rules, but I would think it better in both time and money for all concerned to be deposited 2 miles or so from the station in a town I know rather than be carried another 50 miles or so and then be sent back in a taxi. It saves the passenger a lot of time and Amtrak quite a bit of money. Just call the person that is supposed to meet them and say, hay, come get me at such and such a location. For the train crew, breaking one rule to cover the failure to properly follow another rule. Two events cancel out. End of story.

Ok George, so why didn't they just back up to the station and let them off, it was only 2 miles? They have done this before. I have been on trains that backed up to a station. Per Amtrak rules the next 'manned' station they could have let them off at was Fargo, three hours down the road. They would have passed #8 along the way. Other options are to let them off at Staples or Detroit Lakes to catch #8 back to St Cloud. According to the news release, the crew thought they were doing these ladies a favor by dropping them off still in St. Cloud rather than running all the way to Fargo. Apparently they failed to tell the ladies this. I still think calling the dispatcher to authorize a back up move would have been the best option.

Well again, we only have one side of the story here. We don't know that the crew didn't call the dispatcher for permission to back up. And if they did, we don't know what the dispatcher said, although I'd lay odds that the answer would have been no.

It isn't a safe operation to back up the train for 2 miles, in the dark. And that assumes that there wasn't another train already behind them.

 

[George Harris]

OK, so its against the rules, but I would think it better in both time and money for all concerned to be deposited 2 miles or so from the station in a town I know rather than be carried another 50 miles or so and then be sent back in a taxi. It saves the passenger a lot of time and Amtrak quite a bit of money. Just call the person that is supposed to meet them and say, hay, come get me at such and such a location. For the train crew, breaking one rule to cover the failure to properly follow another rule. Two events cancel out. End of story.

Ok George, so why didn't they just back up to the station and let them off, it was only 2 miles? They have done this before. I have been on trains that backed up to a station. Per Amtrak rules the next 'manned' station they could have let them off at was Fargo, three hours down the road. They would have passed #8 along the way. Other options are to let them off at Staples or Detroit Lakes to catch #8 back to St Cloud. According to the news release, the crew thought they were doing these ladies a favor by dropping them off still in St. Cloud rather than running all the way to Fargo. Apparently they failed to tell the ladies this. I still think calling the dispatcher to authorize a back up move would have been the best option.

Generally when bending the rules is desirable to involve the fewest people possible. A simple stop would not necessarily involve the dispatcher. Backing up into another block would. Also, it would probably have to be done at restricted speed, resuling in a significantly greater loss of time. As already said by others, we are well off into the realm of speculation with all this, anyway. In addition, we are in much the same position of an appeals court that dilerates for hours or days and then comes up with a split decision on whether a policeman's decision under pressure with only seconds to consider was right or wrong. And, we are doing it without complete or even close to complete information.

 

[PRR 60]

Generally when bending the rules is desirable to involve the fewest people possible. A simple stop would not necessarily involve the dispatcher. Backing up into another block would. Also, it would probably have to be done at restricted speed, resuling in a significantly greater loss of time. As already said by others, we are well off into the realm of speculation with all this, anyway. In addition, we are in much the same position of an appeals court that dilerates for hours or days and then comes up with a split decision on whether a policeman's decision under pressure with only seconds to consider was right or wrong. And, we are doing it without complete or even close to complete information.

Ding, Ding, Ding! I think we have a winner!! This is exactly what I thought as well. Here's is my expanded story, Aren't we all entitled to one story with this saga?

Fact: Amtrak takes a very dim view of carry-by's. Given the fact that these two women were carry-by's at St. Cloud, if the crew strictly followed procedure, they would have hauled them all the way to Fargo (the next staffed station) where Amtrak would have transported the women back to St. Cloud, probably by cab. That would be one expensive cab ride. Amtrak management would be highly displeased with the crew about that. Then there is the "back-up to St. Cloud" option. That would have required the assistance of BNSF, BNSF would want to know why, so unless the crew lied, the carry-by would now be public knowledge. The back-up would also have resulted in a delay and a delay report. Once again, a very displeased management.

Here's an idea! What if we just stop right here, let these two women off while we are still just a couple of miles from St. Cloud and right next to a highway? They call the party waiting at the station. That person takes a five minute drive to pick them up. They get to their destination basically on-time. The train stays on-time. Management is none the wiser for the foul-up. It's a win-win-win! The women have a cell phone, so everything is set, right? Not so fast. It takes two cell phones to have a conversation, and by the time the women realized the other end does not have one, the train is gone into the Minnesota night. Oops. The rest, as they say, is history.

This is just speculation, too. But, at least this story makes sense. As is always said, the cover-up is worse than the crime.

 

[RRUserious]

Can the warring factions here at least agree that Amtrak gave itself a whopping black eye? And that in today's market, that is something to avoid whenever possible? I feel quite certain that higher-ups in Amtrak are taking that position.

 

[jebr]

Can the warring factions here at least agree that Amtrak gave itself a whopping black eye? And that in today's market, that is something to avoid whenever possible? I feel quite certain that higher-ups in Amtrak are taking that position.

Actually, from the non-scientific reading of the commenters on the article, it seems as though most people are placing the blame on the passengers, not the conductor.

 

[AlanB]

Can the warring factions here at least agree that Amtrak gave itself a whopping black eye? And that in today's market, that is something to avoid whenever possible? I feel quite certain that higher-ups in Amtrak are taking that position.

Actually, from the non-scientific reading of the commenters on the article, it seems as though most people are placing the blame on the passengers, not the conductor.

No, I don't think that is true at all, sorry.

First, the only thing that is clear is that the SCA bears NO responsibility in this fiasco. That is their rest time, so he/she is absolved from all blame in this.

Second, no matter what the conductors are ultimately to blame. A) It was their job to ensure that the ladies were not carried by. B) After realizing that a carry-by had occurred, they failed to follow correct Amtrak procedures in dealing with the issue.

Third, the ladies IMHO do bear at least some responsibility in all of this as they were awoken and told to be ready to detrain. But never took any further action. I equate this to how insurance companies deal with claims. The only way that you can ever get 100% in an auto accident is if you weren't even in your car when it got hit and your car was parked properly. Otherwise, they'll claim that you should have somehow done something to try to avoid the accident, even if there was nothing you could do.

It would appear that neither of these ladies ever got up to go look at why the train was stopped. So in my mind, they get at least 5% of the blame for the carry-by.

Finally, we come to what led to the decision by the conductor to drop them off at that road and why they agreed to it. Was it entirely as PRR suggested? It's certainly possible. It's also possible that there was some combination of PRR's thinking combined with mine, wherein these ladies insisted that it was not acceptable to be taken to the next stop. Or was there some other third reason that either on its own, or combined with the other possibilities, that led to the decision to drop them there.

And since they both couldn't have gone out the door at the same time, I have to wonder why the first one out didn't look around and say something then about how desolate it was.

There is more going on here I think than we know, and we may never know just what did go down. That still doesn't change the fact that the conductors made a major mistake by first not getting them off, and then by violating policy and dropping them off at that road. The only question is; what, if any, mitigating circumstances led to the decision to drop them off at the road.

 

[jebr]

Can the warring factions here at least agree that Amtrak gave itself a whopping black eye? And that in today's market, that is something to avoid whenever possible? I feel quite certain that higher-ups in Amtrak are taking that position.

Actually, from the non-scientific reading of the commenters on the article, it seems as though most people are placing the blame on the passengers, not the conductor.

No, I don't think that is true at all, sorry.

First, the only thing that is clear is that the SCA bears NO responsibility in this fiasco. That is their rest time, so he/she is absolved from all blame in this.

Second, no matter what the conductors are ultimately to blame. A) It was their job to ensure that the ladies were not carried by. B) After realizing that a carry-by had occurred, they failed to follow correct Amtrak procedures in dealing with the issue.

Third, the ladies IMHO do bear at least some responsibility in all of this as they were awoken and told to be ready to detrain. But never took any further action. I equate this to how insurance companies deal with claims. The only way that you can ever get 100% in an auto accident is if you weren't even in your car when it got hit and your car was parked properly. Otherwise, they'll claim that you should have somehow done something to try to avoid the accident, even if there was nothing you could do.

It would appear that neither of these ladies ever got up to go look at why the train was stopped. So in my mind, they get at least 5% of the blame for the carry-by.

Finally, we come to what led to the decision by the conductor to drop them off at that road and why they agreed to it. Was it entirely as PRR suggested? It's certainly possible. It's also possible that there was some combination of PRR's thinking combined with mine, wherein these ladies insisted that it was not acceptable to be taken to the next stop. Or was there some other third reason that either on its own, or combined with the other possibilities, that led to the decision to drop them there.

And since they both couldn't have gone out the door at the same time, I have to wonder why the first one out didn't look around and say something then about how desolate it was.

There is more going on here I think than we know, and we may never know just what did go down. That still doesn't change the fact that the conductors made a major mistake by first not getting them off, and then by violating policy and dropping them off at that road. The only question is; what, if any, mitigating circumstances led to the decision to drop them off at the road.

I'm not saying that the commenters are necessarily right, only that that's where those people are placing the blame. Amtrak definitely bears some responsibility, in my opinion, but apparently the commenters on the Star Tribune article think that the vast majority of the blame lies on the passengers.

 

[RRUserious]

You can SAY the passengers are to blame. But how well will that sell which future passengers? Companies that whitewash themselves by blaming customers only win in the short run.

 

[George Harris]

You can SAY the passengers are to blame. But how well will that sell which future passengers? Companies that whitewash themselves by blaming customers only win in the short run.

No one is saying "to blame" as in solely responsible. That is not even possible unless they pulled the ememrgency brake and opened the door themselves. Complicit, absolutely. No is saying they were trown off against their will or were threatened so that they got off due to fear. Possibly, and likely, requesting or even demanding the stop is highly likely, followed by selective amnesia when things did not go as they expected.

If it had been me, and remember we are talking about a town they knew, I would have been happy to have been allowed to get off rather than take an unintended and multiple hour round trip. And, yes I am looking at 65 in the rear view mirror.

 

[The Chief]

,,, the SCA bears NO responsibility in this fiasco. That is their rest time, so he/she is absolved from all blame in this.

So Alan, what about the Manual citation noted earlier, i.e.

Train Attendants [TASC-Train Attendant Sleeping Car] to:

• Notify passengers individually from 10p.m. to

7a.m. Use a flashlight to locate passengers during

the night.

and

• Make certain the passenger is detraining at

their ticketed destination.

This ^ reference is from the Sleeping Car pages. I'm still thinking Op crew and SCA share culpability on Amtrak's side.