Do we need increased security on Amtrak?

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, we don't. The sort of attempted attack made by the lunatic in France could happen literally anywhere in the US. You might as well ask for improved security at restaurants.

The only sort of security trains need is checking the tracks for sabotage.
 
We don't need it, but I bet we're gonna get it, given what happened in France.
 
Whether we 'need' it or not, isn't really the question, IMHO.

The more relevant question is how will the general public, the fourth estate (news media), and those involved in transportation security end up reacting to this, and future events like this? I think the lack of postings here at AU about the events in Belgium/France are also telling. Folks were in a 'posting frenzy' when the accident in Philly happened, which was admittedly on Amtrak, but the reality that some lunatic can get on a train and try to turn it into a shooting gallery is not something any of us want to really acknowledge could happen. We've had mass shootings in places like movie theaters and nothing has changed, but imagine - with the fourth estate's coverage of the accident in Philly as an example (where 8 died - even though the US had over 32,000 highway deaths in 2013) - what might happen if a similar thing were to happen here - especially when a government agency sees the chance for a bigger budget.

Those are just my 2 AGR points on the matter.

EDIT: Like how I was able to use 'theater' and 'transportation security' in the same paragraph, but not directly related? :eek:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As to movie theater shootings, I've heard they may start some type of security. :(
 
I would argue that the posting frenzy was in an attempt to find out exactly what was going on, where things were, and trying to make sense of the views in the darkness of what we learned was once a Amfleet car.

This hit the news when it was all over with, and also had nothing to do with RR operations. Not too much to try and discuss and figure out.
 
889 posts, the last as recently as last week, to 2.

But that is not the point I'm making. What happens is going to happen, whether we like it or not, is my point..

I don't want to see increased security any more than you, but whether we really need it or not doesn't really matter in the face of (manipulated?) public opinion.
 
There is security onboard that many passengers don't notice. And security that is noticed. Particularly on Acela you will see the K 9 come thru. Also many passengers do report suspicious things they see. Almost always it is found to be nothing but that is part of security, passengers participating.
 
The Davy Crockett said:
Folks were in a 'posting frenzy' when the accident in Philly happened, which was admittedly on Amtrak, but the reality that some lunatic can get on a train and try to turn it into a shooting gallery is not something any of us want to really acknowledge could happen. We've had mass shootings in places like movie theaters and nothing has changed, but imagine - with the fourth estate's coverage of the accident in Philly as an example (where 8 died - even though the US had over 32,000 highway deaths in 2013) - what might happen if a similar thing were to happen here - especially when a government agency sees the chance for a bigger budget.

Those are just my 2 AGR points on the matter.

EDIT: Like how I was able to use 'theater' and 'transportation security' in the same paragraph, but not directly related? :eek:
Click to expand...
But it did happen here in the US already. December 7, 1993 on the LIRR and the media coverage then was as extensive as you could get.
 
"Do we need increased security on Amtrak?"

Yes. I would enjoy my train trips a bit more if we were able to lock our roomettes / bedrooms when they are empty and we are going to the dining car.
 
jimhudson said:
My first post was deleted by the Inquisition Board! ( why I haven't a clue?)

I vote No! to this and Hell No! to Guns on Amtrak!

I'll repeat my suggestion that the Name of this Forum should be changed to Amtrak Ltd.!!
Click to expand...
I also don't think Amtrak needs more security than it has. Hal said there is both seen and unseen security and from other posts he seems to work for them, so should know. Amtrak should decide how much they need, not another agency who doesn't know anything about trains.

I don't like that Jim had a comment removed. I especially don't like that he hasn't a clue. He is opinionated and political but that does not equal a personal attack. Besides, he should have been told explicitly and had an option to edit his post. Has this been happening a lot? I'd agree with the Amtrak Lmt name change if so.
 
I don't think there needs to be more security on Amtrak, either. Any lunatic with a pickup full of cement can take out almost any train and if you heap security on the major stations beyond securing those stations...well, any terrorist worth their salt will simply board one stop out (e.g. use Yonkers instead of NYP, NCR/BWI instead of WAS, etc.). Don't think that the crap in CHI hasn't tempted me to use Metra to get to Glenview or Napierville a few times just to cut out the missense...and that's just down to the Kindergarten Walk!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The initial post that was hidden related to arming passengers on trains, which could lead to heated off topic discussions, which it did. That post and the responses were hidden pending review of staff overnight.

This topic is about security on trains as related to the recent incident in France. It is not about gun control. Please limit the discussion to security. Thank you.
 
The Davy Crockett said:
889 posts, the last as recently as last week, to 2.

But that is not the point I'm making. What happens is going to happen, whether we like it or not, is my point..

I don't want to see increased security any more than you, but whether we really need it or not doesn't really matter in the face of (manipulated?) public opinion.
Click to expand...
Public opinion is very clear. Public opinion opposes security theater as currently done. Look at the Yelp reviews of the TSA!

It's worth noting that numerous crazed gunmen shooting up schools, theaters, public squares, etc. haven't caused any increase in security to speak of anywhere in the US. People seem to react to planes crashing or blowing up, but not to gun massacres.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The LIRR shooting occurred long before 9/11, which obviously changed just a few things in this country. If the same thing were to happen today in the US and not off in some foreign land, combined with a perpetrator of Middle Eastern descent, there would be enough hysteria created for the TSA to see an opening big enough to run a train through. Look at what happened after 9/11. And people, the press and politicians love train wrecks and disasters. Look at Philly. Look at the press with the latest incident in Europe.

I don't want it to happen, but I sure wouldn't bet against it either.
 
neroden said:
The Davy Crockett said:
889 posts, the last as recently as last week, to 2.

But that is not the point I'm making. What happens is going to happen, whether we like it or not, is my point..

I don't want to see increased security any more than you, but whether we really need it or not doesn't really matter in the face of (manipulated?) public opinion.
Click to expand...
Public opinion is very clear. Public opinion opposes security theater as currently done. Look at the Yelp reviews of the TSA!

It's worth noting that numerous crazed gunmen shooting up schools, theaters, public squares, etc. haven't caused any increase in security to speak of anywhere in the US. People seem to react to planes crashing or blowing up, but not to gun massacres.
Click to expand...
or road accident fatalities and spectacles. They do react out of proportion to train accidents though. And hence the inevitable question about train security. In places where there is a real danger and threat, such measures are taken in spades overtly and covertly. But I don't think any place in the US under any threat of that magnitude.

Examples of measures taken for rail transport in seriously threatened areas have included running a pilot locomotive one block ahead of the train on a regular basis (I have seen that done for the Rajdhani and a few other trains in North Bengal and Assam during the ULFA insurgency). Running everyone through metal detector before they are allowed to board a train (I have seen that happen for a short period of time on Delhi Metro at various times). No operations in the dark of the night (happened after the Naxalite attacks in Jangal Mahal in the West Bengal - Jharkhand border area on the Kolkata - Mumbai main trunk route).

Usually the bigger threat to rail transport is of sabotage of track infrastructure leading to major loss of life and property through derailment, and not through a bomb or shooting on the train. Though such happens usually the casualties from such are less than those from massive derailments.

The issue is there has to be a significant general threat situation that needs mitigation to protect life and property. In the US we don't have that (yet). The situations are sporadic and it is unlikely that the cost of mitigation would actually save anything that would justify the cost and inconvenience.

The situation with airlines and airports is quite different from that or passenger trains, and is out of scope of this thread, so I am avoiding commenting on that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Put me down for a Definite No!

The others points about "Security Theater" and the cost and impossibility

of providing Security to the vast Rail Network in this country is spot on!
 
I do hear what you are saying jis. Unfortunately I don't trust the system that is supposed to keep us safe to not act in its own self interest. Maybe I'm just a cynic.

The irony of the focus on passenger train wrecks and disasters is that one main reasons for the focus is that they occur so rarely!
 
The Davy Crockett said:
I do hear what you are saying jis. Unfortunately I don't trust the system that is supposed to keep us safe to not act in its own self interest. Maybe I'm just a cynic.

The irony of the focus on passenger train wrecks and disasters is that one main reasons for the focus is that they occur so rarely!
Click to expand...
I've been on trains outside the US including HSR in China. Over there it's the norm to have metal detectors and X-ray machines at train and bus stations. I think they've been worried about separatist groups, which have been involved in high-profile stabbings at train stations. However, they don't really seem all that stringent about what they allow on board. Similarly when I went to get a visa to go there, the consulate in San Francisco had unarmed security and metal detectors. Before I got there I remembered my little Swiss Army Classic in my pocket and pulled it out and said I was going to take it back to my car, but the security guy said it was no problem.
 
Not a chance. I'm on AE2153 right now about an hour outside DC and when I was at Providence Station this morning, APD was rubbing bags as people approached the stairs. I was not selected, but the experience still leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I haven't been properly able to enjoy the ride. Instead I've been going over and over in my head all the reasons it's still better than flying because there at least exists the potential for my individual case this morning - someone can still walk to their train without being screened at all, which is how it should be.

I was really nervous hearing about the France incident as I was vacationing in PVD and would not have responded well to having to alter travel plans 1000 miles from home in order to maneuver around knee-jerk TSA involvement or whatever other reactionary things could have happened as a result of the news.

Train station security taking after airport security-theater directly equates to me switching to road trips. I will not stand for being screened. If APD wants to touch just the outside (and not look inside, no matter what the stupid test says) of my baggage (and not touch me on my body at all) then fine. Anything more than that and I start to have a serious problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MSNBC is now discussing "Train Security" with a Texas Congressman that wants magnatometers and TSA @ Train Stations because "they might attack our trains like the guy in Europe!"

Brilliant!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top