Congress -- Change Amtrak boarding procedures ?

[dakotafred]

schlimm

dakotafred

Balt and Schlimm don't get a free pass on this gratuitous introduction of (shudder) politics on this thread.

My comment and Balt's were about campaign financing, which C-U has turned from bad to worse.   

 

Sorry, I was just crabby because I've got a houseful of company coming. Instant tenement living.

[NKP guy]

Further to Deggesty's comments:   When I board at Cleveland (in the middle of the night and with not even a platform roof over our heads, onto a train already hours late because it was held at Chicago to benefit those passengers, and not us down the line), the conductor shows up within a few minutes.  At Penn Station, however, we first class passengers find out that it's time to board when the lone redcap shows up at the Acela Lounge.  We then follow him, just like chicks behind a mother duck, out the door of the lounge usually to the elevator which takes us down two levels to the cars on track 7.  As we wait for the elevator it's not hard to see the looks on the faces of the coach passengers waiting nearby at the escalator.  But it's worse when the train is on track 8 and the elevator can't be used.  Then we are paraded right past the coach folks, who are told to step back for us as we enter the escalator and descend.  If looks could kill!

A colleague of mine, asking once about first class train travel, remarked on what we might call the opposite of boarding procedures.  He asked, in case of a derailment or accident, if first class passengers had first dibs on the ambulances.  

I think we could board passengers faster and with more dignity, too, but I should hope to goodness that Congress has more important issues to grapple with.  Or maybe this is just the kind of stuff a timid and poorly led legislature can do to look like they're doing something.

[schlimm]

dakotafred

Sorry, I was just crabby because I've got a houseful of company coming. Instant tenement living.

Apology accepted,Fred, though not really needed.   Off-topic, but apropos to your situ, I know the feeling. Even worse when they don't seem to know when common sense and good manners would suggest they should be moving on.

[ACY Tom]

Notice the photo that accompanied the original post.  If platforms throughout the Amtrak system were as wide as the one shown at Paddington, then all of this would be much easier.  In actual fact, many of Amtrak's platforms are extremely narrow, and widening them would involve moving adjacent tracks and reducing the number of available tracks at some stations.  Applied nationwide, this could involve a massive outlay of cash that Amtrak doesn't have. 

If the narrow platform is between two tracks, a crowd can overflow onto the adjacent track with dangerous consequences, especially if the platform is raised.  Current regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require that there be a minimal difference between platform height and car entry, so some fairly costly projects are currently underway to raise some platforms.

At low level platforms where passengers may have to step up, it is essential that a train staffer be present at each open door, unless Amtrak wants to invite lawsuits over real or imagined injuries.  The current trend is towards a lower number of onboard service personnel as well as operating personnel.  You can't ensure safety if all open doors are not manned at low level platforms.

Nobody likes to have a train make two or more stops to board and detrain passengers.  It takes longer and is just plain inconvenient for everybody.  But a single stop requires a longer platform.  Extending current platforms will be costly; even more so because of the more stringent standards imposed by the ADA. 

Now that I've said all that, I will add that it's very likely that boarding procedures probably can and should be improved at a lot of Amtrak stations.  I'm all for that whenever it's possible.

However, I do agree that it is a bit excessive for Congress to impose rules like this across the board, when there may be very good financial and practical reasons to do it in a way that differs from the ideal that Congress envisions.  Safety and legal liability issues can't be ignored in today's litigious society.

Read the papers and anybody can see that Congress has bigger fish to fry.

Tom 

[samfp1943]

ACY

Notice the photo that accompanied the original post.  If platforms throughout the Amtrak system were as wide as the one shown at Paddington, then all of this would be much easier.  In actual fact, many of Amtrak's platforms are extremely narrow, and widening them would involve moving adjacent tracks and reducing the number of available tracks at some stations.  Applied nationwide, this could involve a massive outlay of cash that Amtrak doesn't have. 

If the narrow platform is between two tracks, a crowd can overflow onto the adjacent track with dangerous consequences, especially if the platform is raised.  Current regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require that there be a minimal difference between platform height and car entry, so some fairly costly projects are currently underway to raise some platforms.

At low level platforms where passengers may have to step up, it is essential that a train staffer be present at each open door, unless Amtrak wants to invite lawsuits over real or imagined injuries.  The current trend is towards a lower number of onboard service personnel as well as operating personnel.  You can't ensure safety if all open doors are not manned at low level platforms.

Nobody likes to have a train make two or more stops to board and detrain passengers.  It takes longer and is just plain inconvenient for everybody.  But a single stop requires a longer platform.  Extending current platforms will be costly; even more so because of the more stringent standards imposed by the ADA. 

Now that I've said all that, I will add that it's very likely that boarding procedures probably can and should be improved at a lot of Amtrak stations.  I'm all for that whenever it's possible.

However, I do agree that it is a bit excessive for Congress to impose rules like this across the board, when there may be very good financial and practical reasons to do it in a way that differs from the ideal that Congress envisions.  Safety and legal liability issues can't be ignored in today's litigious society.

Read the papers and anybody can see that Congress has bigger fish to fry.

Tom 

THis is what the furror is all about: FTA:

Here's the legislative language:

10 (a) REPORT.-Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Amtrak Office of Inspector General shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report that (1) evaluates Amtrak's boarding procedures at its 10 stations through which the most people pass; (2) compares Amtrak's boarding procedures to- (A) commuter railroad boarding procedures at stations shared with Amtrak; ( B) international intercity passenger rail boarding procedures; and (C) fixed guideway transit boarding procedures; and (3) makes recommendations, as appropriate, to improve Amtrak's boarding procedures, including recommendations regarding the queuing of passengers and free-flow of all station-users.

I seems to smack of a solution in search of a problem?

[NorthWest]

On the Cascades, the train has all doors open (usual at larger stops), or the passengers open the doors by pressing a button (usually at intermediate stops). Dwell time seems to be about five minutes, far longer than is needed.

[Paul Milenkovic]

samfp1943

ACY

Read the papers and anybody can see that Congress has bigger fish to fry.

Tom 

THis is what the furror is all about: FTA:

Here's the legislative language:

10 (a) REPORT.-Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Amtrak Office of Inspector General shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report that (1) evaluates Amtrak's boarding procedures at its 10 stations through which the most people pass; (2) compares Amtrak's boarding procedures to- (A) commuter railroad boarding procedures at stations shared with Amtrak; ( B) international intercity passenger rail boarding procedures; and (C) fixed guideway transit boarding procedures; and (3) makes recommendations, as appropriate, to improve Amtrak's boarding procedures, including recommendations regarding the queuing of passengers and free-flow of all station-users.

I seems to smack of a solution in search of a problem?

So Congress is asking for a report? 

And why does asking for a  report "smack of a solution in search of a problem" let alone case of "Congress (having) bigger fish to fry"?

Congress is asking for a report?  And this has a number of our regular commenters disrespecting Congress and generally angry at the state of the world.  Congress appropriates money and then asks for a report, and this constitutes overstepping its authority?

I can suggest what problem is searching for a solution.  Members of Congress who ride Amtrak, especially on the NEC, have probably experienced Amtrak boarding procedures first hand.  You could say these members are exercising a "princely prerogative" to demand answers to something that inconveniences them personally.  But maybe that Members of Congress use Amtrak benefits Amtrak when these Members deliberate whether Amtrak is important or not?  Don't we want Members of Congress to be taking the train rather than ignoring it because they have better ways to travel?

But Congress should appropriate the money but pay no attention to what happens with that money? 

[Paul Milenkovic]

ACY

If the narrow platform is between two tracks, a crowd can overflow onto the adjacent track with dangerous consequences, especially if the platform is raised.  Current regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require that there be a minimal difference between platform height and car entry, so some fairly costly projects are currently underway to raise some platforms.

At low level platforms where passengers may have to step up, it is essential that a train staffer be present at each open door, unless Amtrak wants to invite lawsuits over real or imagined injuries.  The current trend is towards a lower number of onboard service personnel as well as operating personnel.  You can't ensure safety if all open doors are not manned at low level platforms.

Nobody likes to have a train make two or more stops to board and detrain passengers.  It takes longer and is just plain inconvenient for everybody.  But a single stop requires a longer platform.  Extending current platforms will be costly; even more so because of the more stringent standards imposed by the ADA. 

Let me get this straight.  On some trains boarding from low-level platforms, Amtrak crews can open only one trap and still be ADA compliant.  On other trains requiring "double stops", Amtrak cannot board from one trap, or even from one trap for Coach, a second trap for Sleepers, and be in ADA compliance?

And what is this step box thing but a relic from a kind of service culture from a bygone era?  What other mode of transportation, air, motorcoach, requires crew members to personally help each passenger use a step stool to embark and disembark?

[ACY Tom]

Paul:

Three things:

First, I realize this is just a study.  However, it does look like a fishing expedition.  There are different situations in existence at stations all over the country.  For the most part, boarding and detraining procedures have been developed at various stations in such a way as to be tailored to the existing conditions at those particular locations.  T&E, OBS, and especially station personnel have been at their jobs for a long time, and their procedures have been developed through years of experience as to what works and what doesn't work.  This sounds like spending a heap of money to reinvent the wheel. 

Second, I have said on another thread that I did not concur with some of the I.G.'s findings regarding Amtrak food service several months ago..  This leads me to question the idea that the I.G. will identify the correct problems and recommend the correct remedies in this case.  I don't think it would be productive to rehash the things I said almost a year ago on another subject, so I hope we can avoid going into that.  I will simply say that I do not accept the notion that the I.G.'s office is entirely competent or unaffected by political biases.  Reasonable people may have a different opinion.

Third, I honestly don't understand your questions.  If you can rephrase them I'd be happy to respond, with the understanding that I don't have personal knowledge of every situation for every train at every track at every station.

Tom 

[Paul Milenkovic]

ACY

Paul:

Three things:

First, I realize this is just a study.  However, it does look like a fishing expedition. 

Who knows why this provision is in the bill.  Maybe a Member of Congress who rides the train was disrespected by an Amtrak conductor or gate agent?

And before we get huffy around here about a Member of Congress throwing their weight around, don't you think it is better that someone from Congress is actually riding trains, having enough of an interest in the trains to write something like this into the appropriation than for the people in Congress to have no contact with Amtrak and wonder what it is even good for?

We want the money to support Amtrak, but when it comes with strings attached, the most sinister of motives is assumed.

Looks like a fishing expedition.  Everything looks like a fishing expedition.  Sure it is political, but if you need government money to have passenger trains, you are inviting in politics.

[schlimm]

ACY

T&E, OBS, and especially station personnel have been at their jobs for a long time, and their procedures have been developed through years of experience as to what works and what doesn't work.  This sounds like spending a heap of money to reinvent the wheel. 

Sounds more like doing things because "that's the way we always have done it here" [credit to Don Oltmann.]

Sometimes, not always, but sometimes it is just possible to stop and observe how things are done elsewhere, often with far greater passenger density.  Nothing wrong with borrowing other strategies that have far more real life testing.

[schlimm]

Paul Milenkovic

samfp1943

ACY

Read the papers and anybody can see that Congress has bigger fish to fry.

Tom 

THis is what the furror is all about: FTA:

Here's the legislative language:

10 (a) REPORT.-Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Amtrak Office of Inspector General shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report that (1) evaluates Amtrak's boarding procedures at its 10 stations through which the most people pass; (2) compares Amtrak's boarding procedures to- (A) commuter railroad boarding procedures at stations shared with Amtrak; ( B) international intercity passenger rail boarding procedures; and (C) fixed guideway transit boarding procedures; and (3) makes recommendations, as appropriate, to improve Amtrak's boarding procedures, including recommendations regarding the queuing of passengers and free-flow of all station-users.

I seems to smack of a solution in search of a problem?

So Congress is asking for a report? 

And why does asking for a  report "smack of a solution in search of a problem" let alone case of "Congress (having) bigger fish to fry"?

Congress is asking for a report?  And this has a number of our regular commenters disrespecting Congress and generally angry at the state of the world.  Congress appropriates money and then asks for a report, and this constitutes overstepping its authority?

I can suggest what problem is searching for a solution.  Members of Congress who ride Amtrak, especially on the NEC, have probably experienced Amtrak boarding procedures first hand.  You could say these members are exercising a "princely prerogative" to demand answers to something that inconveniences them personally.  But maybe that Members of Congress use Amtrak benefits Amtrak when these Members deliberate whether Amtrak is important or not?  Don't we want Members of Congress to be taking the train rather than ignoring it because they have better ways to travel?

But Congress should appropriate the money but pay no attention to what happens with that money? 

+1

[lvt1000]

A rather broad assumption and not a holdover from PC and predecessor railroads. "Even at the time, it was understood to be inconvenient but helpful to avoid passengers accidentally boarding a wrong train. I just wonder how much of a problem that really was?" What are you basing your assumptions on? I rode PRR/PC/early Amtrak and while there were ushers at the gate it was not a single file cluster of confusion on the order of current standards and at places like Penn Station in New York there were the usual back door ways onto the platform. During early Amtrak days long haul trains at NYP had check in desks but again it was not the same environment as today. So bottom line the current boarding protocols appear to pretty much be a "new idea".

[oltmannd]

In the '70s, the boarding procedure at NYP was kind of llke a cattle drive.  The "regulars" would hover around "magic orange doors" in the concourse which led to the track they thought the train would depart.  If you were clever, and it was a through train from Boston, you could find which track the arrival was planned for.  Then, when the guy with the nuanced baritone voice made the boarding announcement, a great crush of folk would coalesce down to singe file on the narrow escalator.  Sometimes, you could beat the crowd by using the opposite set of doors.  The crowd would usually try boarding the train at the first several open doors, but life was simpler when you walked up or down a few cars and avoided the crush.

At 30th St. it was similar, except you kept your eye on the Solari board.  The voice announcement sounded like one of the adults from Charlie Brown Peanuts specials...  It was also easier than NYP because the platforms were wide and you had some time to get spread out along the platform before the trains wheeled into the station.

There was no checking of tickets either place back then.  That's something new.

[ACY Tom]

Refer to my comments above regarding safety.  Before Amtrak existed, our society was much less litigious.  Photos taken in the past were taken from railroad signal masts, the tops of boxcars, and other locations where it would be absolutely forbidden today.  The top sections of dutch doors were sometimes opened by passengers or crew members on moving trains so they could breathe the air or get a better view.  End doors were often left unlocked on the last car, and the vestibules were readily available.  Nothing but a folding metal gate separated the vestibule from the track.

In that climate, it shouldn't be surprising that boarding procedures were less formal than they are today.  I suspect non-employees may not realize how much Amtrak's day to day operations are impacted by real or potential safety concerns, and I suspect that many of these issues are the result of those concerns.

It is possible that better ways can be found at some locations.  However, it seems to me that Congress ought to have Amtrak find those ways because Amtrak knows the practical aspects of its business far better than the I. G. does, simply because the I.G.'s greatest expertise is not in railroad safety.

Tom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

 

 

 

 

m    

[Overmod]

oltmannd

At 30th St. it was similar, except you kept your eye on the Solari board.  The voice announcement sounded like one of the adults from Charlie Brown Peanuts specials...  It was also easier than NYP because the platforms were wide and you had some time to get spread out along the platform before the trains wheeled into the station.

At 30th Street in the '70s, I recall the Metroliners having guards of some kind checking tickets at the head of the stairway.  I of course never bothered with this because there was a path extending across all the tracks at the west end of the platforms, and I would judiciously cross to the one with the 'right' train and board through any open door.  Didn't have a reserved seat, of course, but whenever I rode Metroliners it was up in front with a view out, anyway...

Sometimes there were other implications for security procedures at 30th Street -- someday I'll tell the story of how I got to ride the 'Save Grand Central' special train,,, (but this isn't really the thread for THAT story!)