5 ms·

You have to board and get luggage on/off a train too ...

btilly 4y ago
Train boarding is a lot faster than airplane boarding. Train stations are often conveniently located in crowded downtowns. Airports are located some distance away. Security is a lot more of a problem on planes because hijacking planes is a problem. Hijacking trains is pointless.
- rvnx 4y ago
  Let's not forget that high-speed trains are very comfortable and do not have insane air turbulences
  - dzhiurgis 4y ago
    I took shinkansen last week. Some of it was quite wobbly. Passing oncoming train sounds like explosion that almost gives you heart attack. Entering tunnels blocks your ears due pressure difference. Yes the seats are obviously more comfy than plane (although one should compare with business class because it costs similar), but turbulence is not fair comparison.
- coredog64 4y ago
  Hijacking a train in the US is currently pointless. While it’s true you can’t route a 200mph train into One WTC, a 200mph train full of people is now a good bargaining chip. You have a captive audience and you can derail the thing someplace where it can cause a lot of damage. At the end of the day, hijackings are about creating publicity. Don’t think that a popular high speed train would be completely immune from security requirements just because you can’t attack arbitrary targets.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    No it's not. Positive train control is universal on high speed lines. As soon as the train approaches a red or yellow without slowing the brakes will go into full emergency. Most such systems will also enforce a full stop if the speed limit (which the train knows, and is based on the derailment speed with a healthy margin). The only real credible threat is mass violence against the passengers. That could just as easily occur in any crowed public space.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
    Speed on rails! Err... https://www.imdb.com/title/tt16605106/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt16605106/
  - btilly 4y ago
    The easiest ways to derail a train are damage the tracks, damage a bridge (possibly as the train goes over it), or leave something (eg a stolen car) in the train's way. Not coincidentally, these are historically the most commonly used methods. Boarding a passenger car from which it is hard to get to the engine where the engineer is driving the train is far less likely to be effective.
- kube-system 4y ago
  The US is heavily suburban. Not only are the airports not in city centers, neither are many of the travelers. And security is not just about hijackings. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_involving_railway_systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_...
  - ohgodplsno 4y ago
    Security in airports is just for show and hijackings. Do you know where to blow yourself if you want to easily cause 200+ dead ? Right in the middle of the damn airport, where everyone is packed and waiting.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      How is that any different than a train station?
- ghaff 4y ago
  For a lot of people, not needing to drive into the crowded downtown is a feature, not a bug. Where I live is somewhat unusual as there's a suburban Amtrak station while the airport is adjacent to downtown. One reason it's more convenient to take the train to NYC.
  - btilly 4y ago
    To quote the great Yogi Berra, "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." No matter how many want to avoided crowded places, they are crowded because a lot of people are already there, and a lot of others would like to grow. And this is only possible if there actually are good ways to get there. To serve a geographically spread out group, it is reasonable to build a a hub and spoke system. And the geographically convenient place to put the hub generally already has a city built there exactly because it is geographically convenient.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Except that land is expensive and things like airports in particular are generally not built adjacent to those downtowns. Train stations often are as they don't require anything like the land but they can have suburban stations as well. If I--and almost certainly many other people who don't live in the city--had to drive into and park in downtown Boston to take Amtrak it wouldn't remotely be a consideration. And, yes, there's commuter rail but now you're adding hours to traveling. At that point I'm just driving into NY or maybe driving to a NY commuter rail station.
piva00 4y ago
Which you can do arriving at the platform 5-10 minutes before the train departs and still make onto it comfortably.
kgwgk 4y ago
True, the fact that everyone has to enter and exit the train through the same door makes it quite slow.

Train boarding is a lot faster than airplane boarding. Train stations are often conveniently located in crowded downtowns. Airports are located some distance away. Security is a lot more of a problem on planes because hijacking planes is a problem. Hijacking trains is pointless.

rvnx 4y ago
Let's not forget that high-speed trains are very comfortable and do not have insane air turbulences
- dzhiurgis 4y ago
  I took shinkansen last week. Some of it was quite wobbly. Passing oncoming train sounds like explosion that almost gives you heart attack. Entering tunnels blocks your ears due pressure difference. Yes the seats are obviously more comfy than plane (although one should compare with business class because it costs similar), but turbulence is not fair comparison.
coredog64 4y ago
Hijacking a train in the US is currently pointless. While it’s true you can’t route a 200mph train into One WTC, a 200mph train full of people is now a good bargaining chip. You have a captive audience and you can derail the thing someplace where it can cause a lot of damage. At the end of the day, hijackings are about creating publicity. Don’t think that a popular high speed train would be completely immune from security requirements just because you can’t attack arbitrary targets.
- TylerE 4y ago
  No it's not. Positive train control is universal on high speed lines. As soon as the train approaches a red or yellow without slowing the brakes will go into full emergency. Most such systems will also enforce a full stop if the speed limit (which the train knows, and is based on the derailment speed with a healthy margin). The only real credible threat is mass violence against the passengers. That could just as easily occur in any crowed public space.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Speed on rails! Err... https://www.imdb.com/title/tt16605106/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt16605106/
- btilly 4y ago
  The easiest ways to derail a train are damage the tracks, damage a bridge (possibly as the train goes over it), or leave something (eg a stolen car) in the train's way. Not coincidentally, these are historically the most commonly used methods. Boarding a passenger car from which it is hard to get to the engine where the engineer is driving the train is far less likely to be effective.
kube-system 4y ago
The US is heavily suburban. Not only are the airports not in city centers, neither are many of the travelers. And security is not just about hijackings. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_involving_railway_systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_...
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  Security in airports is just for show and hijackings. Do you know where to blow yourself if you want to easily cause 200+ dead ? Right in the middle of the damn airport, where everyone is packed and waiting.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    How is that any different than a train station?
ghaff 4y ago
For a lot of people, not needing to drive into the crowded downtown is a feature, not a bug. Where I live is somewhat unusual as there's a suburban Amtrak station while the airport is adjacent to downtown. One reason it's more convenient to take the train to NYC.
- btilly 4y ago
  To quote the great Yogi Berra, "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." No matter how many want to avoided crowded places, they are crowded because a lot of people are already there, and a lot of others would like to grow. And this is only possible if there actually are good ways to get there. To serve a geographically spread out group, it is reasonable to build a a hub and spoke system. And the geographically convenient place to put the hub generally already has a city built there exactly because it is geographically convenient.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Except that land is expensive and things like airports in particular are generally not built adjacent to those downtowns. Train stations often are as they don't require anything like the land but they can have suburban stations as well. If I--and almost certainly many other people who don't live in the city--had to drive into and park in downtown Boston to take Amtrak it wouldn't remotely be a consideration. And, yes, there's commuter rail but now you're adding hours to traveling. At that point I'm just driving into NY or maybe driving to a NY commuter rail station.

piva00 4y ago

Which you can do arriving at the platform 5-10 minutes before the train departs and still make onto it comfortably.

kgwgk 4y ago

True, the fact that everyone has to enter and exit the train through the same door makes it quite slow.