[kiba]

So we allowed people to go on trains in large number without lengthy security checks but not for airline travelers?

What's the difference?

[patrickmay]

It's hard to fly a train into a building.

(That doesn't excuse the TSA's security theater, obviously.)

[scrollaway]

It's also easier to stop a train, get off a train, or prevent collateral damage in case of malice/accident. Survivors are also a lot more likely if there is an accident, mostly because of gravity.

[jagger27]

Very true. Even in the worst train derailments you never hear that there were no survivors.

[Declanomous]

Assuming passenger trains of course. I think a freight hijacking is far more likely. The danger posed by a hijacked freight are evident from the huge numbers of lives lost from exploding petroleum trains over the past few decades.

[hueving]

TSA isn't really for hijack protection, that was solved quite quickly after 9/11 with effectively impenetrable cockpits.

It's really for preventing destruction of the plane itself. A large bomb on a train underground could cause way casualties, which is why the strictness of the TSA is puzzling.

[joering2]

If it really puzzles you then read a little bit on Michael Chertoff and immediately all pieces of the puzzle will click.

Hint: its all about money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff

Google is your friend but this is good piece:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12...

[eli]

There are occasional random security screening for trains. Amusingly you can choose to decline them and not board, which makes it even more of a theatrical display than usual. I guess it's for the terrorists who want to get caught?

[jrockway]

Gives the police something to do other than ticket bicyclists for riding slightly outside the blocked bike lane.