The term "kidnapped" is kinda over the top, but I can understand the author. I've travelled with Polish trains a lot when studying, and there were a few situations like this. Especially frustrating, if the train stops because of "some issue" while you can literally see the platform 200m away. No, you can't get out and walk the track (which will be guaranteed to be empty, because well, the train is broken) and take a bus or something, no, you have to sit there for ~2h until a replacement engine gets there.

▲

bombcar 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We had similar occurrences on Amtrak but there was a trick - the conductor could let people out of a stopped train to “smoke” on their own reconnaissance and risk.

And if you went to smoke with your bag and disappeared, well, they never saw it.

▲

mikkupikku 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I was in this sort of circumstance on a SEPTA train (using the same rails and stations as Amtrak fwiw) and they let us walk to the next station with no pretext. It was just the common sense thing to do and the SEPTA personnel running that train felt empowered to exercise common sense.

The more bureaucratic an organization becomes, the more inhuman it becomes. An unwillingness to bend rules when the circumstance rationally calls for it is extremely dangerous. One might think that Germans in particular would be highly tuned to this problem, but no. They still put following orders first. Typical.

	▲	adrianN 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I would expect a litigious country like the US makes common sense very expensive if somebody happens to get hurt. Train tracks are quite dangerous.

▲

avidiax 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was imagining something more Kafkaesque. There are some transit systems that have transfer only stations. If DB dropped you off at such a station, and then cancelled the only trains leaving that station (due to weather, holidays), I'm sure you could end up spending Christmas there, and you'd be entitled to €3.75 compensation.

▲

dpacmittal 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't think it's safe if the track is electrified

▲

sparqlittlestar 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Metros may have electrified third rail, but the ones next to DB train tracks are all with a top covered third rail. Usualy power deliviery is via catenaries.

▲

Etheryte 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Electric trains don't get power via the tracks like that, they use power lines. Metros are a different matter, but that's not what the article is about.

▲

alexfoo 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Many UK long distance trains still take power from a third rail for some of all of their journey.

Overhead electrification is a long term goal for the non-Metro UK rail network but it is a long way off.

The other method is an electric train with a diesel generator car.

▲

Etheryte an hour ago | parent [-]

Interesting, TIL. Trains don't do that where I'm from for obvious safety reasons, but I understand infrastructure everywhere comes with different baggage.

	▲	alexfoo 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Anywhere with third rail (which is predominantly London and the South-East of England) tends to be fenced off along the sides of the tracks or other things in place to strongly discourage you from walking onto the tracks. Given that a considerable amount of the UK rail routes date from the late 1800s there are a lot of places where tracks cross roads and therefore mix with other forms of transport (including pedestrians). It's surprising just how little there is in between a pedestrian and a live rail in these situations, here's an example 10 miles or so away from central London: https://maps.app.goo.gl/nPcJM1YxBexaDDKY6 One of those live third rails start less than 5 yards away from where pedestrians regularly walk, with just some angled planks of wood to stop you walking towards them.