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.
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.
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.
You would think so (and so would I), but my experience with Amtrak is that the conductors and engineers exercise a lot of individual discretion.
(I think it "helps" that Amtrak covers a very large area, most of which only sees a train once or twice a day at the most. So the practical reality is that there are a lot of stops where you pretty much exit the train right off onto the rails.)
If you got in a taxi to take you 35km away and he drove you 60km away to a random other town instead, would you consider "kidnapped" to be over the top?
Does it only count as "kidnap" if you are not eventually released? Or is it just that it's not kidnap when a corporation does it?
kidnap:
to take a person away illegally by force, usually in order to demand money in exchange for releasing them.
The "usually" refers to the money, but the part that is "always" is the existence of an intent.
There was no intent here. This was a mistake, not on purpose. Nobody would say, unless to make a joke, "i was kidnapped by an elevator" Because the elevator works automatically, it has no intent to take the person by force and hold them hostage.
The train operator deliberately drove the train, with passengers on it, to places they knew the passengers didn't want to go, and did not allow them a chance to get out sooner.
If a taxi driver were to do the same thing we would say he kidnapped his passengers.
The fact that trains are operated by big corporations does not absolve them of responsibility. If anything they should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
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.
Almost had this somewhere in Northern Germany in early december.
The train stopped at "Kuhdorf", as the author says, at 10:30pm. The driver told us he couldn't continue because "the track was wet" (in Northern Germany in december, how unlucky!) and to wait for "replacement circulation" (usually buses or trains).
The driver then left the train. In fact he had reached his hometown and exceeded his work quota because of the delays.
Like the fabled German roadworker and the (more frequently observed) Krampus, the DB replacement bus is a fairy tale creature.
The passengers got out and forced the driver back into the train and he drove us to the terminus then took a taxi back to said Kuhdorf.
On the nightbus home a class of French highschool girls elected me the best-looking man in the bus (they thought I didn't understand) so I went back home with a smile.
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.
Interesting, TIL. Trains don't do that where I'm from for obvious safety reasons, but I understand infrastructure everywhere comes with different baggage.
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 5 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.
We just take it for granted here in the UK. The number of people who die accidentally on the tracks each year is very low, and much lower than those who choose to commit suicide that way.
There's a strong "stay away from train tracks" education whilst growing up.
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.
