WASHINGTON – Private car owners and operators say they are disappointed of Amtrak’s decision to ban observation deck riding and open dutch doors, despite their efforts to work together with the passenger railroad on these safety items. A...
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2019/05/28-private-car-community-disappointed-with-amtrak-observation-platform-ban
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
Brian Schmidt WASHINGTON – Private car owners and operators say they are disappointed of Amtrak’s decision to ban observation deck riding and open dutch doors, despite their efforts to work together with the passenger railroad on these safety items.
WASHINGTON – Private car owners and operators say they are disappointed of Amtrak’s decision to ban observation deck riding and open dutch doors, despite their efforts to work together with the passenger railroad on these safety items.
I don't think railfans have the slightest clue how dangerous riding on an open platform can be. I remember on the Rocky Mountaineer's platform, train was moving at 45 mph and hit a dip in the track, if I was not hanging onto the railing I would have been ejected off, over the railing behind the train. That was just a small dip in the track, imagine flying debris from a passing freight with box car doors open or kids throwing rocks at the passing train, etc.
The previous post is quite correct. I have an old copy of the Safety Book of Rules dating from the early 1970's which includes quite specific instructions about the stance to be taken while riding a caboose platform during a backup move.
JPS1Suppose a guy has one martini too many and falls off the private car while the train is running. Who wears the financial consequences? No problem! It is on the private car owner and/or operator. Or is it? If the private car owner does not have deep pockets, what is to stop a lawyer from going after Amtrak, which has very deep pockets?
Seems to me this is precisely the situation for which God invented waivers.
This is America, and you can do what you want in America. But if it's dangerous, you and your heirs have to accept the responsibility for that danger.
At the risk of starting another one of those quasi-political rants, I don't like the general idea exemplified in Bloomberg's large-Coke ban to 'save us from ourselves'. If I want to drink large Cokes and perhaps proceed on into pre-diabetes, I know the implications and the risks. If I want to ride on an open platform, I can agree to hold Amtrak harmless regardless of what Final Destination-like combinations of circumstances might occur. Many legal firms have a specialty in writing up enforceable versions of just such agreements -- and in my opinion Amtrak would be well-advised to have particularly wide and enforceable provisions, and good severability as well, in any arrangement regarding 'riding outside the confines of the car' particularly on parts of the route with, say, restricted clearances or overhead high voltage.
But I disagree with an outright ban ... OK, in large part because I love riding on the platform AND being able to experience the trip from an open Dutch door at high speed. And yes, I'd sign a waiver without the secret intent to break it 'if expedient later' to be able to do so.
OvermodBut I disagree with an outright ban ... OK, in large part because I love riding on the platform AND being able to experience the trip from an open Dutch door at high speed. And yes, I'd sign a waiver without the secret intent to break it 'if expedient later' to be able to do so.
You don't have an outright ban. The ban only exists if your in a private car attached to an Amtrak passenger train. Amtrak is captain of the ship in that case.
The waiver is great but I have a hard time believing whomever is with you on that private car is willing to waive an emergency stop and continue on with the regular train schedule regardless of your medical condition or where your physical body ends up.
About 20 years ago, riding the Alaska Railroad in a Princess Cruises passenger car, there were open platforms, very popular with photographers.
Does anyone know if they are still there? I know it is not Amtrak, but I wondered if the Alaska Railroad had any lawsuits.
Maybe this is a first step for Amtrak to outright ban private cars from their trains?
York1 John
CMStPnPThe waiver is great but I have a hard time believing whomever is with you on that private car is willing to waive an emergency stop and continue on with the regular train schedule regardless of your medical condition or where your physical body ends up.
I was thinking more in terms of personal liability suits. I wasn't really expecting that the waiver terms would include 'ignore me if I fall off' -- it would be more in line with 'you'll pay any costs associated with my falling off'. Which might be considerable if Government folks like those in the old OPA (or was it TC?) were allowed to get creative...
Of course, it IS up to the folks who actually saw you go over to pull the emergency cord (and thereby assume at least part of the potential 'liability'). Better be sure they like you more than your prospective net insurance payout!
Overmod I'd sign a waiver without the secret intent to break it 'if expedient later' to be able to do so.
People sign all kinds of hold harmlesss waivers, but as soon as something goes wrong, they get lawyers that find a way around them. The deeper the corporate pockets, the greater the incentive to find the right lawyer.
JPS1 Overmod I'd sign a waiver without the secret intent to break it 'if expedient later' to be able to do so. People sign all kinds of hold harmlesss waivers, but as soon as something goes wrong, they get lawyers that find a way around them. The deeper the corporate pockets, the greater the incentive to find the right lawyer.
And the more incentive for the deep pockets to hire better lawyers than those who desire to empty their pockets. My lawyer can beat your lawyer!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD And the more incentive for the deep pockets to hire better lawyers than those who desire to empty their pockets. My lawyer can beat your lawyer!
Agreed. We had some of the best legal minds under the Sun. But there is another side of the coin. The public will go after a large corporation for every conceivable grievance.
I recommended setting up an in-house legal department and hiring the managing partner from our outside legal firm to run it. Not a good idea! Turned out the managing partner was making a lot more money than the CEO, whose annual compensation package was over $2 million.
Regarding lawyers always finding a way, Finley Peter Dunne, writing under the pseudonym of "Mr. Dooley," the fictional Irish-American bartender and dispenser of great wisdom, said:
"What looks like a stone wall to a lay man, is a triumphal arch to a corporation lawyer."
As true today as at the turn of the last century.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.