QUOTE: Originally posted by Wdlgln005 1) TSA will monitor any contractors hired to do the job 2) If they use airline screeners, it will not be film-friendly. In an age of digital, this will soon be a moot point. Compact flash & other memory chips will go thru fine. 3) I don't see how any train station will have the space for any airline style screening system. Too many points of entry to the side of the train. What we will see is trained dogs on the platform sniffing for whatever. 4) The preferred device will have to be some type of portable unit to check boarding passengers. Every bag will have to be identified & no bag can be left unattented for long periods of time. I wonder if there is a way to enclose the overhead racks on a train, as people claim their seat but spend time in the diner or lounge car. 5) The whole purpose will be to try to find explosives. 6) This enterprise will end up being a waste of money. Some passengers may be detained & miss their train THe problem we are confronting is with suicide bombers that would kill themselves & endanger others on the train.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Have fun with your trains
Originally posted by macguy Are buses next? I understand Greyhound is already screening passengers' carry-on luggage here in their Washington, DC station. Reply Mookie Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 13,488 posts Posted by Mookie on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 6:17 AM And do we all feel a lot safer? She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw Reply Hugh Jampton Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: Southern Region now, UK 820 posts Posted by Hugh Jampton on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 8:28 AM When travelling on the Eurostar between London & Paris or Brussels I am already forced to put my bags through one of them airport x-ray machines and walk through one of those personal metal detector portals. If they were to impliment this on a larger scale people would just have to get used to turning up an hour and a half before the train departs. Just like we had to get used to the increased security at airports. Generally a lurker by natureBe AlertThe world needs more lerts.It's the 3rd rail that makes the difference. Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 9:54 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz A good idea, but one doomed to be next to useless. What I dread is when the terrorists start using car (and truck) bombs (think Oklahoma City). Absolutely no way (yet) of stopping those! Stop one leak and another will develop. Well actually, there are means of mitigating those risks..it just depends on your threshold of inconvenience. If you prevent vehicles from parking in front of buildings..like many building have in place since OKC, the effective radius of the blast pattern is reduced to causing superficial damage and casualties....so why bother. Most public buildings...courts, city halls, federal buildings, etc already have this inplace with concrete barriers to keep vehilces away. There are other things but I presume you don't want to get into a lengthy force protection discussion. Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 10:06 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz A good idea, but one doomed to be next to useless. What I dread is when the terrorists start using car (and truck) bombs (think Oklahoma City). Absolutely no way (yet) of stopping those! Stop one leak and another will develop. Well actually, there are means of mitigating those risks..it just depends on your threshold of inconvenience. If you prevent vehicles from parking in front of buildings..like many building have in place since OKC, the effective radius of the blast pattern is reduced to causing superficial damage and casualties....so why bother. Most public buildings...courts, city halls, federal buildings, etc already have this inplace with concrete barriers to keep vehilces away. There are other things but I presume you don't want to get into a lengthy force protection discussion. What about a truck bomb in the Holland Tunnel, or the Big Dig in Boston, or on any one of hundreds of large bridges around the US, That is scary! [V] Have fun with your trains Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 10:31 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz A good idea, but one doomed to be next to useless. What I dread is when the terrorists start using car (and truck) bombs (think Oklahoma City). Absolutely no way (yet) of stopping those! Stop one leak and another will develop. Well actually, there are means of mitigating those risks..it just depends on your threshold of inconvenience. If you prevent vehicles from parking in front of buildings..like many building have in place since OKC, the effective radius of the blast pattern is reduced to causing superficial damage and casualties....so why bother. Most public buildings...courts, city halls, federal buildings, etc already have this inplace with concrete barriers to keep vehilces away. There are other things but I presume you don't want to get into a lengthy force protection discussion. What about a truck bomb in the Holland Tunnel, or the Big Dig in Boston, or on any one of hundreds of large bridges around the US, That is scary! [V] A little harder to defend against. Many tunnels do not allow trucks to go through anymore...not for protection against bombs per se, but against the possibility of a Hazmat accident. But then again..we're talking Boston and NYC here..two places that should be isloated from the rest of the country anyway and turned in to penal colonies. Reply RudyRockvilleMD Member sinceSeptember 2001 From: US 1,015 posts Posted by RudyRockvilleMD on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 10:25 PM This is for Hugh Jampton. If I am not mistaken the Eurostar is presently the only railroad operation where passengers are screened, and it works because access to the trains is controlled. I don't know if conditions have changed since the March 11 bombing in Madrid, but my experience with trips on the Eurostar in 1996 and 1998 security screening was only taken seriously in England, and it was non-existent in both Brussels and Paris. What's important is rail passenger carry-on luggage screening has to be consistent, and it has to be done at all staions all of the time to be effective. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 11:12 PM safety 1st. we live in a imoral world. evil people. so we need a defense system to make amtrak safer . i like to ride amtrak. a miracle nothing bad happening yet. i live in fla. and drug runners hual moocho drugs coke and smookie. the gov. knew its been going on for years. drugs are a terrorists friends. destroying this great country inside out. such a crazy society let me out. the religion of some of the terrorists believe when they suicide bomb something , when they die each will have 6 virgins and all the wine to drink in (their) heaven forever.what a lie. Reply Edit Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz A good idea, but one doomed to be next to useless. What I dread is when the terrorists start using car (and truck) bombs (think Oklahoma City). Absolutely no way (yet) of stopping those! Stop one leak and another will develop.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz A good idea, but one doomed to be next to useless. What I dread is when the terrorists start using car (and truck) bombs (think Oklahoma City). Absolutely no way (yet) of stopping those! Stop one leak and another will develop. Well actually, there are means of mitigating those risks..it just depends on your threshold of inconvenience. If you prevent vehicles from parking in front of buildings..like many building have in place since OKC, the effective radius of the blast pattern is reduced to causing superficial damage and casualties....so why bother. Most public buildings...courts, city halls, federal buildings, etc already have this inplace with concrete barriers to keep vehilces away. There are other things but I presume you don't want to get into a lengthy force protection discussion.
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz A good idea, but one doomed to be next to useless. What I dread is when the terrorists start using car (and truck) bombs (think Oklahoma City). Absolutely no way (yet) of stopping those! Stop one leak and another will develop. Well actually, there are means of mitigating those risks..it just depends on your threshold of inconvenience. If you prevent vehicles from parking in front of buildings..like many building have in place since OKC, the effective radius of the blast pattern is reduced to causing superficial damage and casualties....so why bother. Most public buildings...courts, city halls, federal buildings, etc already have this inplace with concrete barriers to keep vehilces away. There are other things but I presume you don't want to get into a lengthy force protection discussion. What about a truck bomb in the Holland Tunnel, or the Big Dig in Boston, or on any one of hundreds of large bridges around the US, That is scary! [V]
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.