Some comments on the article:
- Who at Amtrak did the fire department call and what did they tell them? My first-hand experience with Amtrak dispatching is that they are very responsive, and treat emergencies properly. This story is so out of character, I have to question how the message was conveyed. Does anyone else find the item at the end of the article strange? The fire department now has a direct line to Amtrak police? They did not have that before? Even I have that. Maybe that's a problem right there.
- The local fire company took it in their own hands to shut down the railroad using flares? No disrespect, but are they crazy? They put firefighters on an active, electrified four-track railroad with the only protection being flares? Unless there was a imminent risk to life from the brush fires, this was foolhardy and risked the lives of the firefighters. Most local fire companies are cautious and professional, but there are a few Rambos out there.
- When you finally get to the end of the article, it seems like all is well between the Fire Company and Amtrak. Lines of communications have been established. If so, then what's the point of the article? Maybe it is....
- The article refers to an incident that took place over six weeks ago. What makes it news now? My guess (only a guess): the people who suffered damage are preparing to file claims and legal actions against Amtrak and they are getting their story out there to set the table, so to speak. There's nothing wrong with that, I would do the same thing. But, if that's the case, the facts presented have to be considered realizing they are intentionally one-sided.