posted
Being a newbie to the rail travel area, how does everyone feel about safety on the trains. They don't screen passengers like on airlines so anybody could get on. Eoes Amtrak have anything in place for security at some of the stations? Thanks.
Posts: 13 | From: Ohio | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I suppose that Amtrak safety isn't very much different from Greyhound safety, as far as weird passengers are concerned. On two occasions I've seen the conductor put weird passengers off the train, once in Flagstaff and once in San Jose. The conductor radios ahead and the police greet the passenger at the station. At San Jose, the police greeted the passengers with handcuffs and I'm sure that they spent at least the night in jail.
It's like anything else, just be aware of your surroundings.
-------------------- Kiernan Posts: 155 | From: Santa Fe, New Mexico | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel very safe riding Amtrak trains and I think you are mistaken when you say that passengers are not screened. Passengers may not be screened in the same way that they are on airplanes, but the security is there, nonetheless.
It would probably be inappropriate to discuss such sensitive matters on a public forum like this, but as a newbie, I would advise you to have your bags clearly tagged and your identification on hand.
As a rule, trains are much safer methods of transportation than airplanes. You will note, for example, that you never hear news stories about suicide bombers on Israeli trains. It's not because terrorists haven't tried to bomb them, it's because heavy intercity trains don't make very good targets.
Nevertheless, it's always a good idea to immediately report any suspicious activity.
Posts: 324 | From: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hijacking a train is extremely difficult. Forget the type of nonsense you see in Steven Seagall's Under Siege whatever number and the various other runaway train and hijacked train movies, which fortunately have their railroad operating "facts" so far from reality as to be unrecognizable. It is kind of difficult to blow something out of the sky that stays on the ground, and equally difficult to get a train to go where the tracks don't.
There are few vehicles in the world, if any, that are stronger or perform better in collisions than the American Railroad Passenger Car.
George
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
points well taken , George. However(isn' there always a however?) people probably think about the tragedy in Spain and also in London. IT could happen here. Wasn't there an accident in Arizona a few years ago that was very suspicious? Of course there is security on trains that we know nothing about. The last time we were in Union station in D C there were many teams of police with and without dogs patrolling.
Posts: 1577 | From: virginia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Last time I got on the Adirondack, from NY Penn Station to Montreal, I went through no less than three checkpoints. And while I was waiting in the station, my bags were searched by a fully armed soldier because a small flashlight that I use for hailing cabs at night started to blink inside my backpack.
I've seen enormous German Shepherds being lead through the train in search, I assume, for drugs and I've seen many respectable people being lead off the trains for one reason or another.
The Amtrak police seem to be very much on the ball. As far as the Madrid incident was concerned, I believe that involved "light rail." The Arizona incident was unfortunate, but I think valuable lessons were learned from that event.
Posts: 324 | From: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chharles, you are right to a degree but remember the Spanish incident took place from backpacks next to the tracks not on the train. What I was trying to say was 1.we are not immune from attacks 2. Amtrak has a lot of security that is not obvious.
Posts: 1577 | From: virginia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No terrorist is going to blow up an Amtrak train. They would go after bigger targets that have a more crippling effect on transportation, i.e. planes.
I'm more worried about another "Sons of Gestapo" incident than a bomb.
Posts: 286 | From: Knee deep in the retention tank | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't ever say "No terrorist is going to blow up an Amtrak train". Why wouldn't they? If they feel the need to do it in London and Madrid, then they would certainly not exclude North America.
While the "gains" of blowing up a train are minimal compared to a plane, it still generates front page headlines around the world. THAT is what the terrorists want more than a body count - impact.
A couple of corrections to points above: the Madrid bombings were on heavy rail, not light rail. Most of the bombs were on the trains themselves (3 on one train alone), not trackside.
Geoff M.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Arizona event was a derailment of the Sunset by someone who fiddled with the rail and had a certain level of knowledge of the signals as well. Accident date was October 9, 1995. Have looked on both www.ntsb.gov and dotlibrary.specialcollection.net and have not found the accident report. Maybe they have removed it from public access as containing too much information. Responsibility was claimed by a group calling themselves "Sons of the Gestapo" that has never been heard from before or since, which suggests they do not really exist. This was on the Pheonix line west of Pheonix, which is now bypassed by the current routing.
Unfortunately, the level of knowledge required to do what they did in Arizona would be held by almost everyone who has ever worked on track and many non-track railroad employees as well, plus a lot of fans. Couple of million people, probably, including me. Even though they did manage to derail the train, the level of casualties was very small.
One thing I will say, what was done in Arizona would not have been possible with a more modern track structure, so for the most part Amtrak is running on tracks where what was done there could not be done. Don't ask for any detailed explanation.
Geoff: I was thinking that the Spanish trains were commuter trains on RENFE. In American terminology, that would not be heavy rail. Heavy Rail is something like Washington Metro or San Francisco BART.
George
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone wanted to highjack a train, where would they take it? If you see someone laying track to the front of a tall building, I'd suggest notifying the police.
Besides, if someone did try to highjack a train, all the other passengers would pull their guns and shoot the highjackers dead... If that happens, I would suggest diving under your seat/table. Who knows if the gun-toting passengers are good shots.... Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
George, yes you're right they were commuter trains in Spain, but AFAIK they are main line trains sharing tracks with freight trains and thus built to main line crashworthiness standards. Light rail is usually a dedicated rapid transit system that has fairly common/similar stock and doesn't share with freight trains or main line trains, though I think the exact definition may well vary. Axle loading may be a factor too.
posted
Amtrak rookie --- To answer your original question as simply as possible -- Yes there is Security personnel both in many stations and on trains. In some of the larger stations, New York, Boston, Washington, Chicago etc they are often visible (uniformed)and sometimes accompanied with dogs. But I would say it is safe to say that most security is quiet and unseen. (Much of it behind the scenes.) You will be randomly asked to show picture ID and you can count on being asked for ID if you are checking luggage through to your destination. Like any other means of transportation -- nothing is foolproof. Someone who is determined to cause trouble can surely find a way --- be it on land, water or air. It is a sad reality of the times we live in. (I refuse to make major alterations in my way of living (or traveling) -- to do so makes the terrorists/ troublemakers "winners") The usual caution of being aware and prudent is of course advised. Dee
Posts: 460 | From: North Central CT | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unlike commuter trains, it is not as convenient for someone to board an Amtrak train and leave a packsack bomb and get off.
Especially if it is the Sunset, Coast Starlate, or Late for Sure Limited. If there is a timing device set for x hours, the terrorist could still be on the train hours after he expected to get off (lol).
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great point, TSR (and ditto to the lol). The abysmal on-time performance of selected trains might be the most sophisticated deterent to terrorists that has been developed to date. Like, even suicide bombers probably think messing with Amtrak is too hazardous.
posted
A terrorist attack is incredibly unlikely, that's why I mentioned normal security in my first post. Theft is what I would worry about, but there are other things to worry about, too. The man who was put off the train in Flagstaff was run-of-the-mill drunk and he should have been put off in Albuquerque. The two guys put off the train in San Jose were a little tipsy, but they were also trying to molest a little girl. There were no cops on the train; the conductor had to deal with them until the San Jose police took them off.
Be aware of your surroundings. Watch your kids. Watch your property. My luggage stays downstairs and if someone steals it, I'll get over it. But my Hasselblad stays with me. The camera and all its accessories are in a backpack and I bring it with me into the dining car.
For those of you who believe that airline security might be better, here's a true story. My brother recently retired from the U.S. Customs Service in Seattle. One day he took a pistol through airport security at Sea-Tac, twice. He did it the second time to prove to the head of security that he could do it. He wouldn't tell me how he did it.
When you're on a train remember that you're in a public place. And act like it.
-------------------- Kiernan Posts: 155 | From: Santa Fe, New Mexico | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
gp35: Why bother? Also, again unlike some of the things you see in the movies it is not so easy. Cars are set up to be uncoupled by someone on the ground. Also, as soon as they start to seperate, the brake hose uncouples, putting both parts of the train into ememrgency braking.
One of the best laughs I had recently at a movie goofy on rail was one showing a guy spinning the rod to loosen up the link on the UIC style hook and screw coupling. He cranked until the buffers seperated and then picked the link off the hook. Nope. Not possible until the cars run in toward each other to give you some slack, which will put the buffers either in contact or in compression. To add to the laughs, all other views of the train showed AAR style knuckle couplers. It appeared that the unnamed location was South Africa, which by the way does use AAR style couplers.
By the way, you can't pull the pin on an AAR coupler without some slack on it, either.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I don't know about "much safer" than planes because both trains and planes are very safe, but it seems to me that the chances of one getting killed by a terrorist on the rails (or anywhere else) are pretty minute compared to getting killed in a car accident or a larger scale disaster. That's why I don't worry about it. Also, it seems to me that one of the biggest indications that the terrorists don't have a huge and sophisticated organization bent on attacking civilians is that they haven't done so but for a several isolated incidents. As Mr. Kiernan illustrates with his airport pistol testimony, if they wanted to they could. There's just not that many that really want to. They're a relatively small band of insane criminals that don't wield anything like the power that a lot of us think they do. That's why I'm not afraid of them. To me it doesn't justify this level of paranoia toward one's fellow passengers, and I'm not going to take part in it. I realize the "be suspicious" mentality that we're being educated to carry has gotten out of hand. I just hope the paranoia isn't going to go in a direction similar to where it went during Stalin's time in the USSR, but that's beside the point. Have fun, always cooperate with the police when you meet them, taking it in stride, but most important, ride the train with confidence knowing you're safe.
Posts: 144 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Safest" is just another statistic that can be twisted to suit any politician.
I can't remember exact figures, or for what region this applied to, but if you took fatalities per *journey* as a statistic then the train came out on top easily, ie safest. However, if you took fatalities per *mile* as a statistic then the plane came out on top - again, easily.
Geoff M.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does the requirement to produce "photo ID" actually make one's trip safer, whether by air or rail - or is it a matter of preception of safety? I am reminded that news reports said that the terrorists who brought down the World Trade Center had government issued photo ID. They also went through security with their Exacto knives.
It has often been reported that the safest mode of transportation is the elevator. I don't know how that is measured: whether in miles travelled (not likely) or in time spent on the device.
Posts: 216 | From: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting discussion here; I too have seen the 'stats' showing on a passenger mile basis, commercial air transport is the safest mode. I also have knowledge of the per trip commenced 'stats' that put elevators, escalators, and passenger rail ahead of air.
However, be such as it may, rail travel gives a greater perception of safety than does air. I must wonder if there has ever been a rail incident in which "there were no survivors'. Obviously in rail incidents, the vast majority do survive - Chase and Eschede included.
Air transport of course cannot make that claim, for if there has been damage resulting in a hull loss, more often than not 'the party's over'. Aboard a train, one will think "I've gotta chance". That same reasoning applies to the most common, yet least safe, mode of personal transportation - the automobile. This is because of the control that a driver has over his fate, as distinct from air transport where I note that where else, save surgery, does one voluntarily relinquish so much personal control to someone else than when boarding an aircraft?
But back on auto travel again, if one simply uses the "Three C's" (caution, courtesy, common sense), avoids the "Three D's' (drunk, doped, drowsy) when driving, and travels by day in a roadworthy vehicle, that motorist has taken steps to 'swing the stats' in their favor.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
