Slashdot Mirror
Man Tries To Use Explosive Device On US Flight
reporter writes with news that a Nigerian man allegedly attempted to set off a small explosive device — possibly a firecracker — on a Delta Airbus 330 airliner bound for Detroit yesterday. "There was a pop and then smoke wafted through the cabin. A passenger then climbed over several seats, lunged across the aisle and managed to subdue the suspect, the eyewitnesses said. The Nigerian man was placed in a headlock before being dragged up to the first class cabin. Passenger Zeina Seagal told CNN that after the suspect was collared and parts of his burning pants were removed, flight attendants quickly grabbed fire extinguishers and doused the fire at his seat." The man has claimed links to al-Qaeda, though the investigation hasn't confirmed that yet. (They're not taking anything for granted given that his pants were literally on fire.)
The new rules are hilarious however:
- Not allowed to have any items or anything on your lap for the last 1 hour of flight
- Not allowed to go to toilet during that time either
- Crew doesn't tell about cities or landmarks so passengers don't know where they are flying (it's so hard to time that on clock)
What is that going to improve?
I've done the same thing a few times and there are a number of problems.
The first is it's one thing to spend over night or most of a day traveling by train instead of most of a day "flying" (flying, say, from NYC to Palm Beach consists of approximately 3-4 hours of flying, but a little over two hours of "getting there, checking in, going through security, making sure you're way early due to paranoia, etc", umpteen hours of layovers, and at least thirty minutes of baggage claims, plus another thirty to sixty minutes of getting out of the air port and getting to your destination), but generally with Amtrak it's a little of both, multiplied.
I've taken the train from Palm Beach to NYC, it's around 26-30 hours, depending on the precise train you take and how much it's delayed. In practice, that's most of two days, plus a night.
Then there's the cost. A bedroom (which is what you describe, roomettes don't include showers - and the "toilet" in them isn't something you'd want to use given it's not enclosed) generally costs around $500-1,000 per night on top of the regular fares. Roomettes are a little cheaper, $300-500 per night, generally, but are even less comfortable and, like I said, you wouldn't want to use the toilet and you have to share a shower. Again though, you add fares to that. You can forgo both and sit in the standard seats, which are certainly more comfortable than airline seats, for something more competitive with airlines, but for a minimum of 26 hours?
Rail travel could be cheaper and could actually compete with the airlines. If Amtrak and CSX et al improved the track, including engaging in a program of electrification (which they should do anyway), and started using lighter, lower cost, rolling stock, they could run faster trains at lower cost, which in turn would increase passenger numbers exponentially and mean they could use the same rolling stock for more trips. Palm Beach to NYC is only 1,200 miles. At an average of 100mph, which is hardly rocket speed outside of the US, that trip could be done in 12-15 hours (depending on number of stops.) I think a huge contingent of people would be more than willing to go by train if you could get in a train in the morning and get off at your destination before the end of the day. Travel for ten hours in confusion and discomfort, or travel for fifteen in comfort. Not the world's hardest choice.
Alas, outside of the North East, I seriously think Amtrak sees itself as a state subsidized version of a Heritage Railway. In England, there Heritage Railways are limited to 25mph because they originally operated under a nineteenth century law making it easy to create independent railways that was never updated. In the US, Amtrak runs most of its East Coast trains at 25-30mph outside of the DC to Boston portion because the sodding track doesn't support faster speeds.
And then people turn around and complain that trains are obsolete and we shouldn't fund (and fix) Amtrak because railways are inherently slow and inflexible, while the French, Japanese, and even the post-Beeching British, scratch their heads and wonder what the hell happened to a country that was built by the railroads.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Rail travel could be cheaper and could actually compete with the airlines. If Amtrak and CSX et al improved the track, including engaging in a program of electrification (which they should do anyway), and started using lighter, lower cost, rolling stock,
I don't disagree with most of what you wrote, but I have to comment on this segment. First, regarding "lighter, lower cost rolling stock" there's a huge perception that the Acela service on the NEC corridor sucks because they train is too heavy, and in turn the train is too heavy because of FRA safety regs. Yes, the Acela is heavy, and yes the Acela is heavy because of safety regs (although the FRA regs were revised in the late 1990's to make accommodations for the Acela) but that's not the cause of any performance problems. I worked on the testing of the Acela trainsets in Pueblo and in NJ in 2000 and the trainset can sustain speeds of well over 150 mph for hours at a time. The power cars are plenty powerful - one of the Amtrak engineers on the project told me that if a trainset was powered by one PC instead of the normal two, the end-to-end (Bos-DC) run time would only be increased by 5 minutes). If you look at the cost of an Acela trainset, it falls within the range of other HSR trainsets like the ICE, TGV and Eurostar (albiet at the higher end). The Acela service sucks because it shares tracks with freight trains (in fact most of the NEC is dispatched by CSX and Norfolk Southern who tend to prioritize their trains over Amtrak trains), because the catenary south of NYC dates from the 10th century and can't handle high speeds, because there are a number of grade-crossings along the line north of NYC that the trains have to slow down for, and because the track has a lot of curves that the train has to slow down for.
In any event, the rolling stock is by far a minor cost compared with the total capital cost of an HSR system. Train track costs on the order of $1 million/mile for a single track. That costs does not include land acquisition, electrification, environmental review, the inevitable NIMBY litigation, mitigation costs, etc. And I agree that more electrification is something we need, but it's not just a matter of stringing wire. Bridges have to be raised to allow for the additional clearance for the catenary, if you're electrifying an existing line you have to do the work at night to minimize traffic disruption which means nighttime nose & lighting concerns, you have safety concerns (especially at crossings), you have to acquire more ROW for electrical substations, and so one. Combine all these costs with the perception that "transit needs to pay for itself" and you have a country unwilling to invest the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary for a world class rail system.