Amtrak Trains stuck near donner pass

[Modelcar]

....A comment:  At no time did I insinuate Amtrak train crew charged with the movement of the actual train could have done anything to rectify the given situation they found themselves in.....other than what was done.

I do think it was substandard at least in the case of the Ill person that some assistance was not provided....Move him to a "warmer" location on the train....blankets....Something to help by applying a little extra effort...!  From the report, it seems very little was done.

[jeaton]

....A comment:  At no time did I insinuate Amtrak train crew charged with the movement of the actual train could have done anything to rectify the given situation they found themselves in.....other than what was done.

I do think it was substandard at least in the case of the Ill person that some assistance was not provided....Move him to a "warmer" location on the train....blankets....Something to help by applying a little extra effort...!  From the report, it seems very little was done.

Sorry, I was feeling a little grouchy.  I agree that appears a little more could have been done for that person.

[Modelcar]

...And I accept.  No bad feelings.  Onward.

[cogloadreturns]

Have they moved? I am supposed to be travelling on the CZ a week saturday......hehehehehe.....

[jeaton]

Have they moved? I am supposed to be travelling on the CZ a week saturday......hehehehehe.....

Given the drop of the dollar against the Euro, service for you might be a tad off the standard  Be on the safe side and pack a pair of snow shoes.  (Actually-Welcome.  Hope you enjoy your holiday).

[conrailman]

1000 flights are Cancels tonight in Chicago, because of the Snowstorm.

[FTGT725]

One bright side to this is the amount of snow they have in the mountains this winter, because a lot of the reservoirs out there are low, yes?

On the other matter, I'm with Jim. I'd rather spend 18 hours waiting in a train than at an airport. Sounds like it could be fun.

 

+1

[cogloadreturns]

Euros....eh? Sterling dear chap. It maybe a few years before the Uk converts to Euros although you can spend them in various parts over here.

Watching the weather forecasts with interest here as I am flying into Chicago a week today and then CZ'eding from saturday week. There is a flight which I MUST catch from LAX to Auckland on the Tuesday. I do have one backup plan if the train gets in around 12hrs late.....

 

Looking forward to it. It will be the first time I have set foot in the US (although have been to Canada et. al) and have already had the email requesting name, address, inside leg measurement, passport number etc etc etc.....

[Railway Man]

   Well, I hope Amtrak's funding gets increased....................to pay for all the upcoming lawsuits.

You mean the UP Railroad, not Amtrak cause all this mess, the UP Railroad.

Amtrak's agreement with Class I railroads to use their track includes a hold-harmless clause that places sole liability onto Amtrak and its insurers for wrecks, derailments, delays, or service interruptions, regardless of causation, and especially not weather-related delays.  Amtrak will bears the entire cost.  Lawsuits for interruption to travel will likely be unsuccessful as the contract for carriage excludes weather-related causes.

RWM 

   Such contracts rarely hold up in a lawsuit.  When I worked in the ski industry, we had a contract for every person that bought a ticket, about the dangers, their responsibility, etc.

   Wasn't even a speed bump in the court.

   Unfortunately, I can provide other examples with first-hand experience.

That is not at all the same thing.  You're describing a contract between the passenger and the provider of a transportation service.  I'm describing the contract between Amtrak and the railroad, which requires that even if the railroad is found liable for whatever reason, including its negligence, for damages to a passenger, Amtrak is contractually obliged to write the check on behalf of the railroad. 

Amtrak could of course decide to not write the check, which would put it in default of its contract with the railroad, which would be the end of the Amtrak service.

RWM 

[jeaton]

Euros....eh? Sterling dear chap. It maybe a few years before the Uk converts to Euros although you can spend them in various parts over here.

Watching the weather forecasts with interest here as I am flying into Chicago a week today and then CZ'eding from saturday week. There is a flight which I MUST catch from LAX to Auckland on the Tuesday. I do have one backup plan if the train gets in around 12hrs late.....

Looking forward to it. It will be the first time I have set foot in the US (although have been to Canada et. al) and have already had the email requesting name, address, inside leg measurement, passport number etc etc etc.....

Sterling...  My goof.  I should get out more or at least read something beside train news. 

I am about 75 miles north of Chicago Ohare Airport and we got a foot of snow yesterday.  A little less there, but I think I heard about 1000 flights were canceled.  They should have the mess cleaned up by next week.

I don't mean to cause you concern, but may I offer this caution?  I would say that the California Zephyer leaving Saturday should have you in California sometime on Monday OK, but if you miss the connection to the Coast Starlight for the leg from the Emeryville (San Francisco area) to Los Angeles area you will probably have to fly that leg to catch your flight to Auckland. 

I prefer to take Amtrak when they are going to my destination, but when I have an event I must make I usually give myself an extra day.  Easy for me since I am on pension.  Keep in mind the Boy Scout motto.  "Be Prepared".

A trip report to this forum would be interesting.  Enjoy your travels!!

Jay

 

[jeaton]

A northbound truck jackknifed up near Madison and as a result I-90 was closed from the Illinois state line.  It was reported that volunteers on snowmobiles distributed gas and water to people stranded overnight on the highway.  At this time the mess is still being cleared up.  Who needs to be on Donner to get snow.

[tree68]

We got into Detroit yesterday before the big mess - but still had to deal with potential icing and rough air coming in to and leaving DTW.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

I was going to let this topic pass, but since there's still some ongoing discussion and perhaps confusion regarding both aspects of this - passenger suit vs. Amtrak and/ or host railroad per Mailman56701, as contrasted with railroad vs. Amtrak suit (or vice-versa, though improbable), per Railway Man - and Railway Man's evident interest in signalling matters, here's a couple of further observations:

With regard to Mailman56701's comment about suits by injured skiers:  Several years ago I was told by a reliable source that a Pennsylvania statute law (from about the 1970's, as I recall) - and the usual "fine print" language on the back of the tickets, etc. - had the practical and legal effect of precluding or bringing a quick conclusion in favor of the ski resorts of any injury litigation by skiers, etc.  My source was a senior partner with a major Philadelphia law firm - Duane, Morris & Hecksher - who defended nearby Pennsylvania ski resorts such as Jack Frost, Big Boulder, Blue Mountain, etc. in Carbon County (the rail town of Jim Thorpe is also the County seat), among others.  So while some of those "adhesion" (no real choice) contracts can be overcome, that result is by no means universal.

 With regard to Railway Man's comment about railroad vs. Amtrak suits:  Technically, this is known as "indemnification", as in a "covenant not to sue, hold harmless, indemnify, and defend", or some variation thereof.  Indemnification agreements between 2 corporations is perhaps one of strongest such claims, and apparently the railroad industry has a long history of honoring them. 

This discussion recalled and motivated me to research the infamous Sept. 27, 1964 collision of passenger trains collision of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company's combined "Ak-Sar-Ben / American Royal Zephyr" with the Rock Island's "Golden State".  The Rock Island train was detouring over the Burlington's Streator Branch, and apparently was properly stopped at the the Burlington's Montgomery, Illinois interlocking (about 2.2 miles west of Aurora) when the Burlington train was improperly diverted onto the Branch at high speed and collided head-on with the Rock Island train at about 52 MPH, resulting in the deaths of 4 crewmen, injuries to 250 passengers, destruction of 4 E-unit locomotives, etc.  Notably, even though the Burlington was just about exclusively at fault - the Burlington's interlocking signal and switch controls were temporarily mis-wired (to greatly simplify the situation) - and it was a moving Burlington train that hit the stopped Rock Island train, the "innocent bystander" Rock Island apparently had to pay all the costs and damages - even for the Burlington's equipment - under the AAR's "Standard Form for Detour Agreement" contract.

For more on this, see the "Liability Issues" section of Michael W. Blaszak's excellent article on "When Trains Detour", dated May 1, 2006, at:

http://trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=272

Trains also had an detailed 3-page article on this tragedy - I believe by Robert Shaw, the railroad accident writing - in 1965 or 1966, entitled "The Impossible Acccident", or similar.  I remember the 1st page of the article had a huge "Iron Cross"-type "+" on top of the diagram of the collision site.

There is also a reprint or re-type of the Interstate Commerce Commission's "RAILROAD ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION" report on this collision - "Ex Parte No. 244", CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY - MONTGOMERY ILLINOIS - SEPTEMBER 27, 1964, decided January 27, 1965, inclduing 2 photos and 2 diagrams (11 pages total) at: 

 http://www.rockisl.com/miscellania/iccreport.htm

Collectively, this illustrates 2 points:

- The near-infallibility of railroad signaling practices and equipment; and,

- Absolute liability in this contact means just that, regaardless of fault.

I trust this will be enlightening and informative for those that are interested.

 - Paul North.

 

 

 

 

[Railway Man]

Thank you Paul, for providing the appropriate legal language, as well as the additional information.  That's precisely the terms that I knew of but do not have the legal background to identify.

RWM

[conrailman]

 Is the airport open or close in Chicago tonight?

[edbenton]

Open my house is on one of the Outer Markers for Midway and I have all kinds of Soutwest circleing me tonight

 

[Mailman56701]

I was going to let this topic pass, but since there's still some ongoing discussion and perhaps confusion regarding both aspects of this - passenger suit vs. Amtrak and/ or host railroad per Mailman56701, as contrasted with railroad vs. Amtrak suit (or vice-versa, though improbable), per Railway Man - and Railway Man's evident interest in signalling matters, here's a couple of further observations:

With regard to Mailman56701's comment about suits by injured skiers:  Several years ago I was told by a reliable source that a Pennsylvania statute law (from about the 1970's, as I recall) - and the usual "fine print" language on the back of the tickets, etc. - had the practical and legal effect of precluding or bringing a quick conclusion in favor of the ski resorts of any injury litigation by skiers, etc.  My source was a senior partner with a major Philadelphia law firm - Duane, Morris & Hecksher - who defended nearby Pennsylvania ski resorts such as Jack Frost, Big Boulder, Blue Mountain, etc. in Carbon County (the rail town of Jim Thorpe is also the County seat), among others.  So while some of those "adhesion" (no real choice) contracts can be overcome, that result is by no means universal.

 With regard to Railway Man's comment about railroad vs. Amtrak suits:  Technically, this is known as "indemnification", as in a "covenant not to sue, hold harmless, indemnify, and defend", or some variation thereof.  Indemnification agreements between 2 corporations is perhaps one of strongest such claims, and apparently the railroad industry has a long history of honoring them. 

This discussion recalled and motivated me to research the infamous Sept. 27, 1964 collision of passenger trains collision of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company's combined "Ak-Sar-Ben / American Royal Zephyr" with the Rock Island's "Golden State".  The Rock Island train was detouring over the Burlington's Streator Branch, and apparently was properly stopped at the the Burlington's Montgomery, Illinois interlocking (about 2.2 miles west of Aurora) when the Burlington train was improperly diverted onto the Branch at high speed and collided head-on with the Rock Island train at about 52 MPH, resulting in the deaths of 4 crewmen, injuries to 250 passengers, destruction of 4 E-unit locomotives, etc.  Notably, even though the Burlington was just about exclusively at fault - the Burlington's interlocking signal and switch controls were temporarily mis-wired (to greatly simplify the situation) - and it was a moving Burlington train that hit the stopped Rock Island train, the "innocent bystander" Rock Island apparently had to pay all the costs and damages - even for the Burlington's equipment - under the AAR's "Standard Form for Detour Agreement" contract.

For more on this, see the "Liability Issues" section of Michael W. Blaszak's excellent article on "When Trains Detour", dated May 1, 2006, at:

http://trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=272

Trains also had an detailed 3-page article on this tragedy - I believe by Robert Shaw, the railroad accident writing - in 1965 or 1966, entitled "The Impossible Acccident", or similar.  I remember the 1st page of the article had a huge "Iron Cross"-type "+" on top of the diagram of the collision site.

There is also a reprint or re-type of the Interstate Commerce Commission's "RAILROAD ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION" report on this collision - "Ex Parte No. 244", CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY - MONTGOMERY ILLINOIS - SEPTEMBER 27, 1964, decided January 27, 1965, inclduing 2 photos and 2 diagrams (11 pages total) at: 

 http://www.rockisl.com/miscellania/iccreport.htm

Collectively, this illustrates 2 points:

- The near-infallibility of railroad signaling practices and equipment; and,

- Absolute liability in this contact means just that, regaardless of fault.

I trust this will be enlightening and informative for those that are interested.

 - Paul North.

 

 

 

 

  Paul, I don't doubt what your source stated about ski industry suits.  However, I was referencing personal experience, and in such experience, the ski area I worked at *lost* every single suit (and there were several) brought against it, irrespective of any and all contracts, signage, etc., with the express notation by the judge/court that the above items did not (in understandable terms :) matter in terms of liability.

  Anyway, fwiw.

[Mailman56701]

   Well, I hope Amtrak's funding gets increased....................to pay for all the upcoming lawsuits.

You mean the UP Railroad, not Amtrak cause all this mess, the UP Railroad.

Amtrak's agreement with Class I railroads to use their track includes a hold-harmless clause that places sole liability onto Amtrak and its insurers for wrecks, derailments, delays, or service interruptions, regardless of causation, and especially not weather-related delays.  Amtrak will bears the entire cost.  Lawsuits for interruption to travel will likely be unsuccessful as the contract for carriage excludes weather-related causes.

RWM 

   Such contracts rarely hold up in a lawsuit.  When I worked in the ski industry, we had a contract for every person that bought a ticket, about the dangers, their responsibility, etc.

   Wasn't even a speed bump in the court.

   Unfortunately, I can provide other examples with first-hand experience.

That is not at all the same thing.  You're describing a contract between the passenger and the provider of a transportation service.  I'm describing the contract between Amtrak and the railroad, which requires that even if the railroad is found liable for whatever reason, including its negligence, for damages to a passenger, Amtrak is contractually obliged to write the check on behalf of the railroad. 

Amtrak could of course decide to not write the check, which would put it in default of its contract with the railroad, which would be the end of the Amtrak service.

RWM 

  My mistake in understanding your point, sorry about that.

[CTValleyRR]

Really!  Anybody who thinks that Amtrak could have done much better resolving the situation has little idea about what it takes to run a railroad.

....

Yep, jeaton, you must have been feeling a little grouchy.  Grouch got in the way of your logical thought process.  I was going to let this one pass, but I really can't.  After four days, I think I'm able to avoid being grouchy myself.

ALERT

First of all, I served 11 years as a military logistics officer, so while I don't have a lot of experience in the nuts and bolts necessary to move a train from one place to the other, I have quite a bit of knowledge about what it takes to move large numbers of people (and stuff, for that matter) across a long distance.  Furthermore, my entire 23 year career up to this point has been in one customer service organization or another (and yes, being a logistics officer IS being in customer service) and as a manager, I play "what-if" games with my staff on a daily basis, so I think I CAN, in fact, claim to know what I'm talking about.  The ability to manage in a crisis does not rely on knowing all the details yourself, but being able to draw on the knowledge of progressively broader groups of people who DO know the details.

Before you got silly, you did raise some valid points about the operations and events required by the situation.  My point is not that it isn't complicated.  It's that some senior management person should have quizzed his operations staff before hand, so that NO EVENT can come as a surprise, because you've already thought about where the solution will come from.  If you might need a 30 pound sledge to open couplers, then you know EXACTLY where it is at all times, and EXACTLY how you're going to get it to the coupler -- and exactly who's going to swing it, keeping the real or potential physical condition of the train crew in mind.  Your emergency communication channels to dispatchers and other railroads have already been set up, and they have backups.  People busting their humps is good -- and it appears AMTRAK had no shortage of that on the operational side -- but the hump busting needs to be in accordance with an organized plan, not just throwing people and resources willy-nilly at the problem.  I'm not convinced that was the case here.

But no, the failure of contingency planning here came in the customer service arena.  Take your statement about pulling the train up to the reservation counter, for example.  On the surface, preposterous.  As a philosophy for how to deal with the situation, spot on!  I'm sure that very early on, someone in Amtrak's response team said, "Get some hotel roooms." and some underling jumped up, said, "Yes, sir, yes, sir, three bags full" and started making phone calls.  When what should have happened was the executive says "Implement the emergency lodging plan for Truckee, CA." The underling pulls out a binder in which the phone numbers of the hotels, the number of rooms that the hotel has agreed to make available, the payment arrangements, and even (or especially) HOW EACH passenger will get to each hotel are all spelled out in detail.  If the maximum passenger load is 500, then the plan identifies 500 rooms, because in the worst case, each passenger is travelling individually and wants his own room.  If the railroad decides it's more cost effective for strangers to double up in rooms (Or some happy medium, like having 70% of the rooms and asking for volunteers to double up first), then there needs to be a customer service person identified to explain the policy personally to each passenger.  And if Amtrak decides to throw two more coach cars on the train to accommodate passenger volume, they update their plan (either temporarily or permanently) to reflect the extra people.

And believe me, in the worst case scenario of a train physically trapped in an avalanche (or maybe that's NOT the worst -- that's what the planning team has to figure out), Amtrak needs a WORST CASE estimate for how long it would take to get the passengers out, and ensure that they have food, heat, and sanitary facilities for AT LEAST that long.

And you know what?  On a weekend when all the busses are likely to be at the Superbowl, someone should have been asking his staff, "What if" before knocking off and going home for the weekend!

And through it all, you're saying to your customers, HERE'S what we are doing, HERE'S how long we think it will take, and update them when something changes.  Because most people are willing to be understanding and patient when they know what's going on.  It's in the absence of information that people start getting irate (with the exception of the few complainers, and yes, the media will always find them).

Is this planning difficult? Yep.  Time consuming? Yep. Expensive? Yep.  Worth every penny in face saved later?  Yep.  You see, the expense of good planning is offset downstream because good customer service draws more customers, especially repeat customers.  Sure, sometimes even your contingency planning goes awry, and PERFECT contingency planning is a level that is never reached.  But then the point is that you're then reacting to a problem / crisis of a much smaller scope, and most other things can still run according their plans.  Or you've decided what is a cost-effective level of preparedness based on statistical risk analysis (not seat of the pants guessing), recognizing that throwing resources at a problem is VERY expensive.  And you know what?  Before you feel tempted to dismiss me as an armchair strategist, I HAVE done planning for troop movements (from Little Creek VA to Fort Wainwright AK, just to name one case) at the level I'm discussing above, so I know exactly the magnitude of the effort involved.  Government organizations outside the military are historically terrible at doing this (look at FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina), probably because they find it difficult to justify the expense to Congress or their parent bureaucracies.  But even if you can't carry contingency planning to it's fullest extent, even SOME arrangements and procedures go a long way.  You want a good example of it, look at the REAL story of Apollo 13 (not the hollywood version).  The "Lunar Module Lifeboat" scenario was planned in detail before Apollo 10, and even the CO2 scrubber and electrical power-up procedures (which Hollywood played as "hero of the moment" events) had straw-man procedures developed, and teams started fleshing them out within an hour of the explosion, because the guy in charge (Gene Kranz) pulled out his emergency procedure (painfully developed over months of planning and simulation), which said, "these things are potential issues", and he had people working on them well in advance.  "Tell me this isn't a Government Operation," is a great line, but it's dead wrong.  NASA knew the scrubbers were different sizes and had a basic idea how to proceed already.

Now don't get the wrong impression here.  I'm not an Amtrak basher.  No one wants Amtrak to succeed and grow more than me.

[MichaelSol]

  Paul, I don't doubt what your source stated about ski industry suits.  However, I was referencing personal experience, and in such experience, the ski area I worked at *lost* every single suit (and there were several) brought against it, irrespective of any and all contracts, signage, etc., with the express notation by the judge/court that the above items did not (in understandable terms :) matter in terms of liability.

  Anyway, fwiw.

At one time, the general attitude was that limitations on liability for negligence were, as a matter of public policy, void because the purpose of the law was to promote safety, whereas such limitations actively protected negligent behavior.

Particularly in recreational activities, however, "negligence" was found to be a difficult concept to define to juries, and lawsuits did, in fact, threaten whole recreational industries. Legislatures, which enacted the negligence statutes to begin with, began modifying liability upon the theory that a ski ticket is not a contract of adhesion because the recreational nature of such activities was clearly a voluntary action -- and a requirement to accept the risk was not therefore a contract of "adhesion".

This view has been increasingly supported by courts and while the past 15 years or so have been transitional -- old case law slowly being replaced by legislation and new case law -- the trend is clearly in the direction of limiting liability in those states where the legislature has acted.

In the case of commercial contracts of adhesion, courts determine their enforceabilty by two reference standards: "good faith" and "unconscionability". Neither of these is a negligence standard, per se, except that "intentional" negligence can be a measure of bad faith or unconscionability justifying a court's refusal to enforce a contract of adhesion.

 

[Mailman56701]

  Paul, I don't doubt what your source stated about ski industry suits.  However, I was referencing personal experience, and in such experience, the ski area I worked at *lost* every single suit (and there were several) brought against it, irrespective of any and all contracts, signage, etc., with the express notation by the judge/court that the above items did not (in understandable terms :) matter in terms of liability.

  Anyway, fwiw.

At one time, the general attitude was that limitations on liability for negligence were, as a matter of public policy, void because the purpose of the law was to promote safety, whereas such limitations actively protected negligent behavior.

Particularly in recreational activities, however, "negligence" was found to be a difficult concept to define to juries, and lawsuits did, in fact, threaten whole recreational industries. Legislatures, which enacted the negligence statutes to begin with, began modifying liability upon the theory that a ski ticket is not a contract of adhesion because the recreational nature of such activities was clearly a voluntary action -- and a requirement to accept the risk was not therefore a contract of "adhesion".

This view has been increasingly supported by courts and while the past 15 years or so have been transitional -- old case law slowly being replaced by legislation and new case law -- the trend is clearly in the direction of limiting liability in those states where the legislature has acted.

In the case of commercial contracts of adhesion, courts determine their enforceabilty by two reference standards: "good faith" and "unconscionability". Neither of these is a negligence standard, per se, except that "intentional" negligence can be a measure of bad faith or unconscionability justifying a court's refusal to enforce a contract of adhesion.

 

  My experiences were from the late 80's through mid 90's, so that fits with your info.

[jeaton]

Really!  Anybody who thinks that Amtrak could have done much better resolving the situation has little idea about what it takes to run a railroad.

....

Yep, jeaton, you must have been feeling a little grouchy.  Grouch got in the way of your logical thought process.  I was going to let this one pass, but I really can't.  After four days, I think I'm able to avoid being grouchy myself.

ALERT

First of all, I served 11 years as a military logistics officer, so while I don't have a lot of experience in the nuts and bolts necessary to move a train from one place to the other, I have quite a bit of knowledge about what it takes to move large numbers of people (and stuff, for that matter) across a long distance.  Furthermore, my entire 23 year career up to this point has been in one customer service organization or another (and yes, being a logistics officer IS being in customer service) and as a manager, I play "what-if" games with my staff on a daily basis, so I think I CAN, in fact, claim to know what I'm talking about.  The ability to manage in a crisis does not rely on knowing all the details yourself, but being able to draw on the knowledge of progressively broader groups of people who DO know the details.

Before you got silly, you did raise some valid points about the operations and events required by the situation.  My point is not that it isn't complicated.  It's that some senior management person should have quizzed his operations staff before hand, so that NO EVENT can come as a surprise, because you've already thought about where the solution will come from.  If you might need a 30 pound sledge to open couplers, then you know EXACTLY where it is at all times, and EXACTLY how you're going to get it to the coupler -- and exactly who's going to swing it, keeping the real or potential physical condition of the train crew in mind.  Your emergency communication channels to dispatchers and other railroads have already been set up, and they have backups.  People busting their humps is good -- and it appears AMTRAK had no shortage of that on the operational side -- but the hump busting needs to be in accordance with an organized plan, not just throwing people and resources willy-nilly at the problem.  I'm not convinced that was the case here.

But no, the failure of contingency planning here came in the customer service arena.  Take your statement about pulling the train up to the reservation counter, for example.  On the surface, preposterous.  As a philosophy for how to deal with the situation, spot on!  I'm sure that very early on, someone in Amtrak's response team said, "Get some hotel roooms." and some underling jumped up, said, "Yes, sir, yes, sir, three bags full" and started making phone calls.  When what should have happened was the executive says "Implement the emergency lodging plan for Truckee, CA." The underling pulls out a binder in which the phone numbers of the hotels, the number of rooms that the hotel has agreed to make available, the payment arrangements, and even (or especially) HOW EACH passenger will get to each hotel are all spelled out in detail.  If the maximum passenger load is 500, then the plan identifies 500 rooms, because in the worst case, each passenger is travelling individually and wants his own room.  If the railroad decides it's more cost effective for strangers to double up in rooms (Or some happy medium, like having 70% of the rooms and asking for volunteers to double up first), then there needs to be a customer service person identified to explain the policy personally to each passenger.  And if Amtrak decides to throw two more coach cars on the train to accommodate passenger volume, they update their plan (either temporarily or permanently) to reflect the extra people.

And believe me, in the worst case scenario of a train physically trapped in an avalanche (or maybe that's NOT the worst -- that's what the planning team has to figure out), Amtrak needs a WORST CASE estimate for how long it would take to get the passengers out, and ensure that they have food, heat, and sanitary facilities for AT LEAST that long.

And you know what?  On a weekend when all the busses are likely to be at the Superbowl, someone should have been asking his staff, "What if" before knocking off and going home for the weekend!

And through it all, you're saying to your customers, HERE'S what we are doing, HERE'S how long we think it will take, and update them when something changes.  Because most people are willing to be understanding and patient when they know what's going on.  It's in the absence of information that people start getting irate (with the exception of the few complainers, and yes, the media will always find them).

Is this planning difficult? Yep.  Time consuming? Yep. Expensive? Yep.  Worth every penny in face saved later?  Yep.  You see, the expense of good planning is offset downstream because good customer service draws more customers, especially repeat customers.  Sure, sometimes even your contingency planning goes awry, and PERFECT contingency planning is a level that is never reached.  But then the point is that you're then reacting to a problem / crisis of a much smaller scope, and most other things can still run according their plans.  Or you've decided what is a cost-effective level of preparedness based on statistical risk analysis (not seat of the pants guessing), recognizing that throwing resources at a problem is VERY expensive.  And you know what?  Before you feel tempted to dismiss me as an armchair strategist, I HAVE done planning for troop movements (from Little Creek VA to Fort Wainwright AK, just to name one case) at the level I'm discussing above, so I know exactly the magnitude of the effort involved.  Government organizations outside the military are historically terrible at doing this (look at FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina), probably because they find it difficult to justify the expense to Congress or their parent bureaucracies.  But even if you can't carry contingency planning to it's fullest extent, even SOME arrangements and procedures go a long way.  You want a good example of it, look at the REAL story of Apollo 13 (not the hollywood version).  The "Lunar Module Lifeboat" scenario was planned in detail before Apollo 10, and even the CO2 scrubber and electrical power-up procedures (which Hollywood played as "hero of the moment" events) had straw-man procedures developed, and teams started fleshing them out within an hour of the explosion, because the guy in charge (Gene Kranz) pulled out his emergency procedure (painfully developed over months of planning and simulation), which said, "these things are potential issues", and he had people working on them well in advance.  "Tell me this isn't a Government Operation," is a great line, but it's dead wrong.  NASA knew t

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics

• Reply