FRA Rules Needed For Evacuating 'Hot' Trains?

Every summer now we seem to get a few incidents where a train (usually a commuter train) breaks down and passengers have to endure an hour or two in sweltering conditions in sealed window coaches without a/c or ventilation.

It happened a few weeks ago on MARC and last weekend on Metro-North's New Haven Line. In each case passengers were kept in cars without ventilation for an hour or more in ninety-degree-plus weather. In each case passengers complained the cars became unbearably hot. In each case there were passengers who reportedly required medical attention. In the MARC incident it was confirmed that ten people required treatment with three people taken to local hospitals.

As a longtime commuter, it seems pretty obvious to me that the managements DON'T want to evacuate trains and for several good reasons too. First is passenger safety, trains often pick nasty places to breakdown and second, it can often mean big delays to other trains that are still running. But it also occurs to me, in focussing on keeping the system moving, the operating people may be missing the big picture. Maybe we need an outside agancy to take a look at these incidents.

Heat can kill. One MARC commuter said she was surprised that there was no attempt to "inventory" the passengers on her stalled train and see to it that at least elderly persons or anyone claiming to be diabetic or with asthma or a heart ailment was evacuated, either by railroad police or local police.

Since these situations always seem to wind up pitting railroad against passenger, is it time the FRA came up with some rules on how long passengers can be kept on stalled trains in cars with no ventilation during very hot weather? To take the decision out of the hands of the operating managers -- who obviously have an strong incentive in NOT evacuating -- and provide a formula in which if the outside temperature is over X degrees passengers MUST be taken off the train after X number of minutes?

Sooner or later some poor soul is going to go into cardiac arrest in one of these situations. I don't think anyone wants that.

If this happens, would it be considered a crime to peel open the emergency exit windows or open the vestibule doors to let some air in? Obviously it would go against policies of the railroad company for passengers to do this, but say the conductor wasn't looking and someone popped open a door or exit window, could they be arrested for this?

That happens and I think you can be arrested for it.

The other thing is, I don't think it usually does much good, anyway.

well lets see , you can't move train, and you can't get off, What rule would FRA come up with that could change that situation ???
Yup in my opinion take out a few emergency windows and place them in lugage rack(no need to do damage) if asked who took it out, make sure every one who was hot denies denies denies.
One rat and your in trouble

But wouldn't the unhealthy conditions be a defense to any criminal or civil charge for opening the windows?

And, what are the chances I would get a sympathetic jury?

There is federal legislation underway to levy fines against airlines for keeping passengers in planes sitting on the tarmac for too long a period of time.

DutchRailnut wrote:well lets see , you can't move train, and you can't get off, What rule would FRA come up with that could change that situation ???

A rule stating that if the outdoor temperature/humidity index is over...I don't know, 85?...and passengers are in cars with sealed windows with no means of providing ventilation for longer than say 45 minutes, then they must be evacuated. With penalties of large fines for noncompliance.

[edited for spelling]

Disney Guy wrote:And, what are the chances I would get a sympathetic jury?

I see your point, but that's why I think an outside agency should look at this and make some rules. You don't want riders removing windows. Or feeling they have to.

There's a serious health issue here and it needs to be addressed.

Just a few observations: Tommy you were not even on one of these trains yet you chose to stirr up the pot.
Airlines get a 3 hour window to get people off a plane, yet 95% of time on trains your off in less than 2 hours.
Its one thing to evacuate people off a plane on tarmac of a safe airport.
Its another thing to get people off on a railroad where embankments, high voltage wires, bridges without walkways, other trains, sharp rail etc are present.
Tommy in other words the FRA can't make a rule on this cause every incident is different.

Dutch I'm not stirring up anything, I'm floating an idea. No I wasn't on a stalled, sweltering train the other day and I don't want to be.

One of the riders on the stalled MARC train described 100-plus degree heat in the cars. The interior windows fogged up. One woman became dizzy, riders made room for her to lie across a three-seater. Another woman used a water bottle she had to wet paper towels and put them on the stricken woman's forehead. Other people in the car had vomited.

Do those conditions sound okay to you? I don't think anybody should have to endure those type of conditions. No way.

The safety and well being of the passengers should be first not last (or disregarded all together). It's a no-brainer, come on.

DutchRailnut wrote:Just a few observations: Tommy you were not even on one of these trains yet you chose to stirr up the pot.
Airlines get a 3 hour window to get people off a plane, yet 95% of time on trains your off in less than 2 hours.
Its one thing to evacuate people off a plane on tarmac of a safe airport.
Its another thing to get people off on a railroad where embankments, high voltage wires, bridges without walkways, other trains, sharp rail etc are present.
Tommy in other words the FRA can't make a rule on this cause every incident is different.

I disagree, the FRA can make any Railroad rule it wants, and can enforce it too!
The jetliners in question have working heating and air-conditioning systems. In some of the latest train incidents, heating and air conditioning systems were NOT working.
Both heat and cold can kill. Haven't you ever read about deaths to people in their homes during heat waves and freezes? If train personnel just got ill from the heat or cold, it would be a reportable illness or injury to OSHA.
But apparently, passengers don't count as employees. Maybe, just maybe, if agencies were held just as responsible of their passengers as they are of their employees, situations like these wouldn't occur.
If you kept your child in a car on a very, hot day for just a few minutes, you could be facing injury to a child felony charges. But apparently, train agencies are exempt from these laws. In my opinion, they shouldn't be.

Leave the action to passengers who were actually involved, not some railbuff with idea's.
Remember what your parents told you: speak when spoken too, in other words if it don't concern you stay out of it.

DutchRailnut wrote:Leave the action to passengers who were actually involved, not some railbuff with idea's.
Remember what your parents told you: speak when spoken too, in other words if it don't concern you stay out of it.

But it does concern me!
I've had heat exhaustion before, several times.
Did you know that once you have experienced heat illness, it's easier to experience it again?

Obviously you haven't ever experienced a heat illness, that's why you apparently have a cavalier attitude about it.

Maybe you should take you own advice........

My opinion:
If any passenger must be taken to a hospital for treatment of any illness in part caused by employee indifference, that employee in charge (whether on the train or in an office somewhere) should be treated as if he/she were in a train crash. Ie, immediately removed from duty and an investigation started with possible employment status changes.
Actions to help passengers who have informed you of their condition, should be taken before anyone gets ill, not after they have passed out. Requests for relief from passengers should not be ignored.

I, too, have no idea about the legalities of passengers opening the emergency windows on their own ... I guess if they can't prove who did it, how can they press charges?

However ... it has happened in previous incidents ... and the reason you shouldn't do so (from the railroad's standpoint) is that the train cannot move with those windows open.

Not only do the windows have to be re-closed, but someone from the car shop probably has to certify them once closed (or possibly even have to be the one to close and then certify them).

- litz

So if a Cruise ship has AC failure do you suggest people to hit life boats.
If a plane has AC failure should someone open a window.
The short is , you wait for instructions from those in charge, even on a train.

Mr Electricron I use to work steamships and spend many days with no sleep rebuilding electric panels behind a boiler at temperature of over 130 degrees.
Was it hard, betya, needed it to be done, you betya, Did I suffer, you betya.
But again you can't fight what might happen to you in future, only those who were involved will get any attention from politicians or authorities.
As far as people trying to get involved while not victims , their gone get laughed at.

DutchRailnut wrote:So if a Cruise ship has AC failure do you suggest people to hit life boats.
If a plane has AC failure should someone open a window.
The short is , you wait for instructions from those in charge, even on a train.

Mr Electricron I use to work steamships and spend many days with no sleep rebuilding electric panels behind a boiler at temperature of over 130 degrees.
Was it hard, betya, needed it to be done, you betya, Did I suffer, you betya.
But again you can't fight what might happen to you in future, only those who were involved will get any attention from politicians or authorities.
As far as people trying to get involved while not victims , their gone get laughed at.

Dutch the problem was that the "authorities" fiddled while the pax burned - there appeared to be management decision paralysis topped with lack of communications....

If anyone had died (you know heart attacks do happen under those circumstances) MARC/Amtrak would have a new owner once it go through the courts....
or we the taxpayers would have jumped the national debt by a non-trivial amount..

what the crews endure is of little legal moment to what the passengers endure unfortunately. You were getting compensated to work with out sleep and in $hitty conditions - pax have paid to be transported... simple as that...

The proposal or suggestion on the table is a typical think tank/consultant solution of "make a new rule or law" that will be ignored until the next occurance....
Actually the management types should have gotten some form of discipline similar to what a T&E Crew would for an egregious violation of proceedures IMHO....
Send a couple of the suits home for a month without pay or demote them/reduce pay (a lot easier to do to them than barganing unit employees) and the amount of occurances like this would go down pretty quickly IMO....

Your milage may vary!