First, why am I pushing this idea? Because between 1967 and 2004, I lived in Hawaii and it was a stretch to find logical reasons why my Members of Congress should support Amtrak. (Of course, I know Amtrak is all politics and no logic...) Anyway, I managed to convince myself that passenger rail equipment would be useful in a natural or military event that precluded use of airplanes. Also, I think our President needs special train cars to move safely and comfortably by rail.
Ironically, my home island Maui was -- as far as I know -- the only place where a US railraod was damaged by the enemy in World War II. A Japanese submarine torpedoed the Kahului Railraod, destroying one rail (but not the other) at the Maui Pineapple cannery -- right about at the bottom of the anchor on the map below:
" mce_src="">
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Whew! Your comment about being in Hawaii so not wanting to support Amtrak because you'd never use it begs a return comment that I, in NY, wouldn't want to support air traffic control in and out of Hawaii because I'd never use it. But beyond that, I don't believe military use of passenger rail was ever considered in designing Amtrak. In fact during the early years it was often touted that supporting a national railpassenger network would allow any invading army to get around the country more easily. They also declared that Beach Grove would be converted into a tank manufacturing plant by the invading Russians. And I don't believe today there is a POTUS trainset. If it had to be done, it would have to be assembled from a lot of privately owned equipment including business trains operated by some roads.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
I have supported Amtrak since its inception!* My point was that Hawaii Congress members needed a logical reason why Amtrak SHOULD get their support. But the reality is that their Amtrak votes were usually just political bargaining chips. In fact, I believe politics is the major consideration in the "design" of Amtrak's long-distance network.
Our entire air travel system (passenger and freight) was shut down after 9-11. Has any nation ever had to shut down their entire rail system? We all know that an "invasion" is unlikely if not impossible. But I contend that a few guys with box cutters could not shut down our entire rail system.
The "privately owned equipment" I have seen Presidents use is very old. Our Chief Executive should not have to borrow. Purpose-built Superliners could have features such as an upper-level speaking platform and a full-width downstairs bedroom...
*(I grew up in Hawaii, but went to prep-school and college in the Northeast. Trips home for vacations were too expensive, so I would travel by rail to visit relatives on the Mainland. Then I married a woman who got me free airline travel privileges. It was hard to convince her to travel by train when we could fly first-class free, but we made two cross-country train trips and several shorter journeys. We also toured England and Scotland by rail, and took one rather miserable trip by train in New Zealand.)
Yes, definitely Amtrak is 90% politics. And 8% rialroad and 2% business to fill it out.
I believe we are confusing the term Civil Defense with Military Defense.
It is highly unlikely that anyone will ever come from without to try to militarily occupy our country.
Any attack would undoubtedly be either a small time act of terrorism, or a devastating missle strike.
We, however, face nearly constant civil threats. Earthquakes, wild fires, hurricanes, etc.
With a well developed high speed railroad network, containerized emergency supplies and facilities could be rapidly moved to wherever they are needed, and trains diverted from normal service and/or pulled from scheduled maintainence, could be deployed quickly to help in an evacuation.
There is no reason why discussion of high speed rail should be limited to passenger service, though I believe that high speed passenger service should share right of way, but not rail with freight.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe, I realize there is a problem with the title of this thread. Military and civil defense are two different things (I would like to discuss both). I also realize there are two identical pictures in my original post (I am not a computer whiz).
Our air travel sytem is too vulnerable to not only terrorist or natural disruption -- even just another stock market flop might cause problems going a couple hundred miles. Much of what was once considered "inter city" travel is now really "intra city" (for example, everything between Santa Barbara and San Diego).
Maglev First, why am I pushing this idea? Because between 1967 and 2004, I lived in Hawaii and it was a stretch to find logical reasons why my Members of Congress should support Amtrak. (Of course, I know Amtrak is all politics and no logic...) Anyway, I managed to convince myself that passenger rail equipment would be useful in a natural or military event that precluded use of airplanes. Also, I think our President needs special train cars to move safely and comfortably by rail. Ironically, my home island Maui was -- as far as I know -- the only place where a US railraod was damaged by the enemy in World War II. A Japanese submarine torpedoed the Kahului Railraod, destroying one rail (but not the other) at the Maui Pineapple cannery -- right about at the bottom of the anchor on the map below: " mce_src="">
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
"How does a submarine torpedo a railroad?"
The tracks were very close to the ocean (see map). The original MAUI NEWS article and photo of the damage was (is?) on display in the men's room of a popular Maui restaurant, Mama's Fish House in Kuau. I have not put much effort into re-investigating for details (I now live in Washington; Google search clogs with "Torpedo Tour Co.").
Maglev:
I don't think you and I are in disagreement on anything of consequence.
I, too, think upgrading of our 19th century rail system is long overdue.
Phoebe (and other readers)--
Thank you for your time and consideration. I am recently unemployed, and have been using several internet forums for research on topics of interest and possible future employment. I appreciate that the TRAINS forums require more accuracy and attention to detail than others!
My ideas are perhaps a bit "off-the-wall," but I am sincere and have a decent knowledge base. I have subscribed to TRAINS constantly for about ten years, and have been a "rail fan" (not quite a "foamer") for about thirty years. My great-grandfather was L & N Vice-President of Personnel. His idea that blacks should be allowed to work as locomotive firemen was very unpopular in those times.
Just to clear a point the Southern Pacific was also damaged when a japanese I boat shelled a oil refinery near Santa Barbra in early 1942 Larry
Maglev "How does a submarine torpedo a railroad?" The tracks were very close to the ocean (see map). The original MAUI NEWS article and photo of the damage was (is?) on display in the men's room of a popular Maui restaurant, Mama's Fish House in Kuau. I have not put much effort into re-investigating for details (I now live in Washington; Google search clogs with "Torpedo Tour Co.").
I'm going to guess that the sub shelled the track with it's deck gun? Most WW2 and earlier submarines had mounted artillery for bombarding both sea and shore targets. Usually this was done at night as the Sub sat exposed on the surface with the gun crew on the open deck The modern improvement is the submarine launched land attack cruise missile which solves the vuulnerability issue and makes a much bigger BOOM on the receiving end...
RE: "torpedoes" in Kahului
The one reference I found on the internet mentioned "shells lobbed" at the cannery, so "torpedo" is probably not correct. Also, as for the uniqueness of this event, there was likely some damage to train tracks when Pearl Harbor was attacked.
The map I photographed has some interesting omissions, notably the Wailuku and Kahului Armories. The area labeled "National Guard Reservation" was of limited military importance. I wonder if the Japanese thought they were attacking something other than a pineapple cannery, because of censored maps?
Of course, now all you have to do is go to Google Earth and the B-52's lined up at Hickam Air Force Base are clearly visible!
Well, if you recall it was on the men's room wall then, By Wahini, it's true!
Edit to Add Link: Click here
See the third paragraph. The US had obviously grossly neglected the defense of our pineapple canneries.
Thanks for the additional information... this thread needs to move out of the men's room. For one thing, the best toilets for visions of truth are those that flush onto the tracks!
Perhaps the most realistic idea I have proposed here is the concept of a Presidential Train. The incumbents seem to have no qualms about using Air Force 1 for campaign trips; my suggestion of a special bi-level car with an upper-level speaking platform would probably pay for itself in additional votes and contributions...
The idea of a presidential RR car is one I've thought about for a while. I'd certainly like to see one come into use. However, I think there's a couple of things to consider re your suggestion....
First, a bi-level car (I assume you're thinking of something like an Amtrak Superliner) couldn't be used in the east. The car would have to be able to be used in the high speed Washington - New York corridor (so the prez could get to the U.N. to speak for example) or other lines coming out of Washington DC.
Second, the idea of the speaking platform wouldn't work that well now anyway, since railroad stations aren't as common as they used to be - finding a place to safely stop a train so the president could speak from the rear platform would be tough. The days of the president talking to 1000's of people from the rear of a train are pretty much done I think.
Also, the platform would make the car too easy to spot. Any car used would need to look like any other Amtrak car for security reasons. Before Air Force One the president travelled in a Pullman Observation car that was pretty much the same as many other Pullman cars, and wouldn't immediately draw attention to itself in a train of Pullman Green passenger cars.
Maglev Thanks for the additional information... this thread needs to move out of the men's room. For one thing, the best toilets for visions of truth are those that flush onto the tracks! Perhaps the most realistic idea I have proposed here is the concept of a Presidential Train. The incumbents seem to have no qualms about using Air Force 1 for campaign trips; my suggestion of a special bi-level car with an upper-level speaking platform would probably pay for itself in additional votes and contributions...
So I as a taxpayer underwrite this and "it pays for itself in votes and contibutions"???????????????
I'm unclear as to any specific problem this solves that hasn't already been overcome in the Amtrak era "campaign special" operations.........
Train is actually cumbersome for POTUS moves...security, pilot train, etc. Often the President would have to be moved further distances more quickly than a train could actually provide. Airlifting off the White House lawn to Air Force One is quicker and more secure than any land encumbered journey. Plus a journey from D.C. to NYC to New Orleans to Portland, OR then to Phoenix and Milwukee would be difficult and too time consuming.
Regarding clearances for a bilevel presidential car: this car would be able to arrive and depart from Washington (or nearby) for points south and west, as do the Superliner-equipped CAPITOL and AUTO TRAIN. Another reason I suggested a bilevel car was that it allows full-width spaces downstairs (eg, bedroom) while still allowing passage along the train upstairs.
The point about a speaking platform having limited utility in an urban area is well taken. In cities, an auditorium would provide the best assembly area. Speeches from the train would be most practical in rural areas.
As for security, I do not see a significant difference between the risks of -- for example --Marine One, which flies over areas that are impossible to scan for safety; versus a train, which has a route that may be checked for potential threats. I have watched Marine One flying along the Potomac, and it is a very obvious and vulnerable target. There is also the benefit that if a train is attacked, the President would not fall as far. A train would be preferable to automobile travel in that there would not be as much of a disruption to civilian activities. Visiting Presidents have caused historic traffic snarls!
The economic value of votes was presented from the President's perspective. From the citizens' perspective, benefit value could be determined by comparing costs of travel by train to use of airplanes or automobiles. Personally, I would see great value in having a Chief Executive who takes pride in our railways, and who cares about having close contact with rural America. This might also earn us some respect from leaders of other nations sharing the ride.
Carnej1 wrote: I'm unclear as to any specific problem this solves that hasn't already been overcome in the Amtrak era "campaign special" operations.........
The United States does not have a train that is designed for our President.* A purpose-built train could have safety, communications, and comfort facilities that is not available in borrowed, ancient private cars or existing Amtrak equipment. Travel by train could allow more flexibility than Air Force One and more security than automobiles.
There is also the matter of pride... I don't question the value of Air Force One. It is an impressive international symbol of our technological supremacy. But it is time for our President to also look at the image he portrays to THIS country. Use of old Pullman observation cars should be relegated to the days of Presidents with popularity ratings below 50%...
_______________
*At least I am not aware of such a train. I sure hope we have some truly secure rail vehicles stashed somewhere! In any case, such vehicles are not designed for public display...
How do Presidents of other countries travel. I have seen France's Prez board many of the regular HSR trains and travel in his country as has Germany's leader. Japan's leader also travels quite often in his country by HSR. Not sure if they have a designated car on the train or not. In many of the worlds countries there leaders travel by train. In England there is special equipment for the Queen. While most world leaders travel abroad in planes, many travel within there own countries by Rail.
I agree that with as much advance notice as there is when the Prez of this country travels that all of his advance people, equipment(helicopters, Limos, etc.) should travel by rail. The communications equipment on air force one is necessary for his travels.
When the Prez of the US travels by rail there is to much disruption to other rail services. I.E. switches spiked in place and always the lead train.
There is a very famous picture of Canada's Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau riding in the Park car of the Canadian and extending his middle finger to the press corp at one of the trains stops. I kind of enjoyed that expression to the elite press that were waiting at every stop along the trains trip. There are also special cars operated in Canada that were built for the Governor General to travel in. It was a pair of cars built at the same time as the Tempo cars and resemble them. They too were often loaned to the Prime Minister for trips as well. Don't know if these cars still exist or not.
I believe in this country security would be a nightmare for the Prez to travel by train. Now that Joe Biden is Vice Prez I would bet his days of travelling back and forth on Amtrak will be over.
Al - in - Stockton
passengerfan How do Presidents of other countries travel. I have seen France's Prez board many of the regular HSR trains and travel in his country as has Germany's leader. Japan's leader also travels quite often in his country by HSR
How do Presidents of other countries travel. I have seen France's Prez board many of the regular HSR trains and travel in his country as has Germany's leader. Japan's leader also travels quite often in his country by HSR
Other countries are not mired in the swamp of paranoia that we are.
POTUS travels in a group of limos with dark windows so you can't tell which one he is in. He travels in a group of 3 identical helicopters so you don't know which one he is in. Every road his fleet of limos travels is completely closed and any parked cars are towed away. A helicopter follows the convoy, and an armed officer is on every overpass. That officer is accompanied by a Secret Service member, because even local police are not trusted.
Do you really think he is going to get on a train?
Let's say we have another 9-11 type event, and commercial air traffic shuts down again. Air Force One would stick out like a sore thumb if it's the only plane flying!
Our nation is not secure because of its over-reliance on airplanes. One of the reasons I moved from Hawaii to Washington is because the economy there was hit so hard by 9-11. My wife worked for a cooperative asociation in a National Park. After 9-11, charity organizations took a big hit. Funding dwindled, programs were cut, staff suffered. All because of a few guys with box cutters...
Incidentally, 9-11 provided one of the very few opportunities to determine the amount of air pollution from jetpalnes. Contrails definitely have a climate effect.
I get so tired of listening to people whine about 9/11.
Do you think America will ever come out from under our beds?
7 years later America is still intimidated by 18 dead primitive criminals with box cutters. Imagine if we were ever attacked by a military.
Land of the free and home of the brave, my foot.
Phoebe Vet wrote:
"Other countries are not mired in the swamp of paranoia that we are."
and
"I get so tired of listening to people whine about 9/11."
We are stuck in the past because we are unwilling to make the changes within ourselves to prepare for the future. On 9-11, terorists flew airplanes into a financial building and our military headquarters. Well, we tried to solve the terrorist thing but have not done anything about changing the institutions involved in the attack. Airplane travel became more miserable, and collapsing banks wreak havoc on the world's economy. The Defense Department does not recognize that many elements of our society are disturbingly fragile.
Maglev Let's say we have another 9-11 type event, and commercial air traffic shuts down again. Air Force One would stick out like a sore thumb if it's the only plane flying! Our nation is not secure because of its over-reliance on airplanes. One of the reasons I moved from Hawaii to Washington is because the economy there was hit so hard by 9-11. My wife worked for a cooperative asociation in a National Park. After 9-11, charity organizations took a big hit. Funding dwindled, programs were cut, staff suffered. All because of a few guys with box cutters... Incidentally, 9-11 provided one of the very few opportunities to determine the amount of air pollution from jetpalnes. Contrails definitely have a climate effect.
Air force one did fly after the commercial/general aviation grounding as did all military and a fair amount of (non DOD) Federal Government aircraft.
Having personally seen AF One land it "sticks out like a sore thumb" anyway.....
Well, the idea of having a Presidential Superliner train seems about as popular as replacing Air Force One with a fuel-efficient Airbus. And as for military defense, the main issue I see is that our air transport system is susceptible to disruption... otherwise, the existing infrastructure is probably sufficient to support any military needs.
But how about civil defense? What is the relative effectiveness of trains versus other transportation modes for evacuation?
I just received my January, 2009 TRAINS -- on page 11, "QJ's set freight record, help flood victims." Money was raised for charity by giving tours of a steam locomotive. But steam locomotives can be helpful in natural disaster because they can run through water above the rails.
Maglev. But how about civil defense? What is the relative effectiveness of trains versus other transportation modes for evacuation?
Since we don't have a clear, cohesive, rationalized, nonpoliticized, national transportation policy, there is no real way of answering your question. If an air traffic control tower is bombed out, there is no air services. If a highway is bombed out, there is no truck and auto service. If a pipeline or power lines are bombed out, there is no fuel or electricity. If a rail line is bombed out, there is no frieght or passenger rail service. So which would be most important to plan for? I would venture from this point that some kind of regional plan, like that in New Orleans since Katrina, would, or should, be looked at.
The importance of railroads to civil stability is crucial. Look at India, Iraq, Japan, China... Iran was even considering a mag-lev line. Transportation has a pervasive influence on the unity of a nation.
Railroads hold India's cities together as no other transportation mode could. In Iraq, restoration of commuter trains is a key to recovery. Japan was forced to reconsider their social infrastructure because of World War II and their limited resources, and their economic success and stability shows they made the right choices. China will succeed with a train where ideology and military might have failed: they will conquer Tibet. Do we really like being behind Iran in terms of public transportation?
Travel in America tells us we live in the land of the confined and the home of the afraid, and all we are allowed to see is gray sky's majesty.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.