# MISC | Railway Security



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

I've been thinking about this issue for sometime. Airports have greatly increased security checks, procedures and safeguards in aftermath of 9/11. Yet, little was done to improve security in rail lines and vehicles, especially High Speed and long-distance services.

For sure, trains have different security vulnerabilities than planes. They cannot be turned into flying bombs, and they can be (HS, atb equipped) brought to a safe halt remotely, while planes have no such capabilities. To speak so, an armed train hijack has less "potential" than an aricraft one.

Nonetheless, I think trains are lagging behind adequate and necessary security measures worldwide. I see almost no X-ray screening, no reinforced cabine doors but a I DO SEE free acess to platforms and even trainsets to anyone willing to walk from the street all the way to the cars etc.

So, I have three questions:

(1) In your contry, do long distance and/or high-speed rail passenger services have any security check system for passengers boarding trains? How does it work? Am I the only one who feel very unsafe while riding a high speed trains and thinking that anyone could have boarded it with a gun, knife, sword, C4, TNT, whatever, without being even noticed, questioned, let alone scanned, by no police officer?

(2) Should diesel passenger trains be banned for posing a terrorism risk far higher than electric trains (they can explode and wreak havoc, while electric trains cannot, and as a last resort power can be cut off rail lines, while a diesel train is more or less phisically "autonomous").

(3) Isn't it a good idea to scan all lugage and passenger and make sure that extremely sharp items, arms and other dangerous stuff is, at least, locked away from passenger compartment or forbidden altogether?


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

andrelot said:


> I've been thinking about this issue for sometime. Airports have greatly increased security checks, procedures and safeguards in aftermath of 9/11. Yet, little was done to improve security in rail lines and vehicles, especially High Speed and long-distance services.
> 
> For sure, trains have different security vulnerabilities than planes. They cannot be turned into flying bombs, and they can be (HS, atb equipped) brought to a safe halt remotely, while planes have no such capabilities. To speak so, an armed train hijack has less "potential" than an aricraft one.
> 
> ...


Diesel fuel has a very high 'flash' point - you can drop a lit match into a dish of diesel fuel . . . and the match will go out when it hits the fuel as though it were dropped into water. Also, there are systems available now that will allow for train dispatchers to override engineers'/drivers' control of their trains.



andrelot said:


> (3) Isn't it a good idea to scan all lugage and passenger and make sure that extremely sharp items, arms and other dangerous stuff is, at least, locked away from passenger compartment or forbidden altogether?


You do have to remember that many train stations are in very small and remote locations (thus being prohibitive to set up airport-style access and security controls at them all) and that it is pretty much impossible to patrol every meter of track along rail lines. And trying to set up such controls would eliminate a MAJOR competitive advantage that rail has against the airlines. It is one of the risks that we all take with life (thinking of the damage that can be wrought if a major freeway interchange would be taken out, for example).

My biggest worries on trains are - suicide bombers, crazed gunmen (both relatively minor worries) and especially track sabotage.

Mike


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

I've ridden the CRH from Guangzhou to Shenzhen. I recall I did go through an X-ray check. However, the biggest risk I see is rail sabotage. It doesn't take too much to derail a train by placing foreign objects on tracks. We also saw the possibility of planting bombs on tracks and the effects given Russia's recent tragedy. How to police kilometres of open track is another big question.


----------



## Koen Acacia (Apr 17, 2007)

Perhaps it's just me, but I can't really remember airport security going up much after 9/11. Some extra fingerprint/identity checks and some computers that can "read" your passport to speed up boarding but that's about it. I suppose the situation in the US is different, but if anything checking in has become faster than before. As it should be, of course. 100 Percent security doesn't exist, it's about time that more people accepted that.


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

Rail bombing would me more difficult to cope with. As for foreing objects, small laser sensors could be put along rail tracks, at least on High Speed Rail. From my understanding, the impact of a crash with, say, an animal or a car is much more cathastrophic when it comes to a 300 kph train than for a 120 kph one.

As for security, at least high-speed rail doesn't use small remote stations. Thereby, it would be good to completeley segregate passenger movement in stations from gerenal light rail/urban rail/non-HSR in stations: no one could jump on a HSR train without being scanned first.

It would set back some advantages of HSR (like fast connections with "old" and "normal" rail services), and put an extra 15-20 minutes to every journey, but greatly increase security.


----------



## Koen Acacia (Apr 17, 2007)

HSR lines should already be fenced off completely - "there's a foreign object on the track 1km ahead" isn't going to help much if you're moving at 300 km/h. They still won't help against rail bombing of course, but neither would gimmicky laser thingies.
The problem with your "solutions" is basically that they do help against the threats that aren't real, but don't help against the threats that are - none of these would have prevented the Atocha rail bombings for example. They would just inconvenience a lot of people in order to create a false sense of security.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

Its kind of pointless to hijack an electric train as the power supply can be switched off...


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

They could still threaten to kill passengers etc.


----------



## Koen Acacia (Apr 17, 2007)

Yeah, but they can still do that in an office building too. Or in a restaurant, a bar, a house... Does that mean we have to restrict access to those as well?


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

You've got a point there.

Out of curiosity, how much damage would occur if a blast happens in one of the carriages? Of course, there's no pressure differential like in high-altitude flying airplanes, but is a blast survivable for a high-speed cruising train?


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

^^Neva express,just a week ago?


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

^^ clickable... _*«Yoo’oo»*_ hno:


----------



## Silver Swordsman (Nov 8, 2011)

Taiwan High Speed Rail puts barbed wire fences around every single kilometer of track that is laid on the ground. I met a security personnel who pointed out that in areas where cars can potentially enter the track zone (i.e. bridges, embankments), the fences are fitted with motion detector wires that will automatically turn the rail signals red should they be disturbed. 

Still, I'm concerned that lobbing a grenade over isn't technically hard. Or, the worst case scenario I can think of is detonating a bomb while sitting in the front of the train... right when another train is passing... 300 km/h + 300 km/h = 600 km/h collision speed. Ouch.


----------



## k.k.jetcar (Jul 17, 2008)

HSR makes for poor terrorist targets- I believe Carlos the Jackal bombed a TGV many years ago but caused relatively little damage, and one or two fatalities. Much more tempting are subways and commuter rail- incidents have occurred with deadly results in London, Madrid, Moscow, and Tokyo. However, due to the nature of passenger flows and volumes, airline style security checks are impractical. The best countermeasure is vigilance, much as Europe has done for decades. Instituting increased and intrusive security merely hands victory to the terrorists.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

k.k.jetcar said:


> HSR makes for poor terrorist targets- I believe Carlos the Jackal bombed a TGV many years ago but caused relatively little damage, and one or two fatalities.
> 
> 
> > Indeed. A bit of material damage and a train that had to perform an emergency stop.
> ...


The security checks currently imposed on airline passengers are mostly pointless. They are "security theatre", meant to give impart a sense of safety.
There too vigilance is the best countermeasure, as has been shown in the shoe bomber (and underwear bomber) incidents.

The main reason why airline passengers are checked is that a) it is possible and b) politicians need to be able to "do something".
The whole terrorism threat is overblown anyway. The best answer to the terrorists is to refuse to be terrorized.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

K_ said:


> The main reason why airline passengers are checked is that a) it is possible and b) politicians need to be able to "do something".
> The whole terrorism threat is overblown anyway. The best answer to the terrorists is to refuse to be terrorized.


YEs, like accepting people will die of intentional attacks every other year in Europe is part of life, like Madrid or London were Islamabad or Baghdad. 

Barbed wire seems a nice solution to avoid people overstepping the fences.

I also wait for next-gen explosive detectors that can be fit in all transit stations.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> YEs, like accepting people will die of intentional attacks every other year in Europe is part of life, like Madrid or London were Islamabad or Baghdad.


Well if you fear things like that, you should never come to a station with your
car anymore. The odds that you get killed in a car accident are orders of
magnitude higher than in a terrorist attack while on the train and in the 
station. And I never understood why people dying in road accidents are
in any way more socially acceptable than victims of terrorist attacks.


----------



## hmmwv (Jul 19, 2006)

I don't think there are any security checks on passenger rail in the US, on the other hand we got slow trains and huge steel carriages so the puny explosives any potential terrorists can bring will not cause a catastrophic event.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

^^ If not, then what should each of us make of Amtrak obligating all its passengers to procure genuine, valid, photographic identification?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ To require ID is good because it also steers off criminals, fugitives and illegal immigrants fearing apprehension from using public transport. The less mobile these people are (driving a car is already risky), the better. 

As for terrorism death rates: I know they are rather slim, but it is its vicarious nature that make it good for much more spending to avoid and fight.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

:uh:​


----------



## KingNick (Sep 23, 2010)

Dafuq happened there? I mean one train already derailed and another one came down the hill batshit crazy.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Yeah, the rescue unit.


----------



## Gadiri (Oct 30, 2009)

trainrover said:


>


Could aqua-planning happened for a train like a car ?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Gadiri said:


> Could aqua-planning happened for a train like a car ?


Trains have are much heavier per sq. mt of their footprint, and the contact point where all that load rests over a rail track (the wheel) is much smaller as well.

It is more theoretically possible, but unlikely. Water can make a lot of damage to trains, though, if it enters the delicate electronic boxes.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Aqua planing? :weird: landscape's semi-arid ... I suspect the case be botched upkeep and crummy emergency response measures ... somewhere in the Balkans? Wet leaves do meddle with the traction twixt the rail and wheel.

Edit: I apologise, Gadiri, I presumed you were quoting the Croatian vid I shared; I've just seen that you were quoting another one!


----------



## KingNick (Sep 23, 2010)

trainrover said:


> Yeah, the rescue unit.


Still why?


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Traction » Adhesion

The description to the video doesn't mention much, other than that the rescue unit had just about as bad a mishap as the first rake...I wish I knew where the accidents happened . . . I noticed that *only* one individual rushed away to the unit :uh:


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

KingNick said:


> Dafuq happened there? I mean one train already derailed and another one came down the hill batshit crazy.


This was the Rudine derailment in Croatia in 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudine_derailment

The cause was a slippery track after a new type of fire retardant was sprayed along the railway line. The rescue train also wasn't able to break because of this and did crash as seen on the video. Luckily not into the derailed passenger train, otherwise the death toll of 6 people would have been much higher.


----------



## KingNick (Sep 23, 2010)

^^ Thanks, that explains a lot.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Ah! slipperiness crossed everybody else's thoughts.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

:uh: Tug of war between engines featured at 30'26", introduced at 30'10:


trainrover said:


>


----------



## Geography (May 17, 2010)

> In the last 10 years, roughly 500'000 people have died in traffic accidents in Europe and zero in terrorism against long distance rail. Even if something does eventually happen, the best thing to do is to completely ignore it. Every dollar spent on rail security checks saves way more lives if it is spent in road safety. Additionallz, the hassle of rail security checks actually kills people, since many people will not accept the hassle and revert to car travel, where they are way more likely to die in an accident.


I strongly agree with this. The bottom line that policymakers and citizens need to realize is that terrorists are just not that big a threat to your life and health. Even in Israel over the last 10 years, I bet terrorism is not even in the top 10 causes of death.

Here are my posts regarding security checkpoints on China's metros.

You've got to use a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to public policy. What are the costs of security checkpoints? Not only are there salaries of the guards to pay, but also the time lost to those checkpoints.

What are the benefits? Maybe one or two attacks prevented? I would guess zero terrorist attacks have been prevented because terrorists can easily hit a bus or different city's metro system if deterred by guards at one station. But since China has not seen a suicide bomb attack on a bus or metro system anywhere, that indicates the threat is not there. Another benefit might be a greater sense of security by metro riders.

I would argue that given China's excellent security situation there is no need for random checkpoints. Even if there's a suicide bomb attack, that still doesn't justify random checks because they will be ineffective in saving lives. If terrorists can't hit a metro, they'll hit a crowded bus. Which is exactly what the fourth and final London Tube bomber did in 2005.

Traffic accidents kill 100,000 people a year in China. Drunk drivers kill about 15,000 people every year in America, five times more than 9/11. Drunk and dangerous drivers, not terrorists, are the biggest threats to life in China. 

I've been a fierce critic of overspending on security in the United States. As I stated before, the U.S. overreacted right after 9/11 and posted guards everywhere. It was all very expensive and utterly pointless. When people calmed down and glanced at the balance sheet, they quickly scaled back. With the exception of Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan terrorism is just not that big a threat anywhere in the world.

I bet that with the exception of Syria, Iraq, and Pakistan, terrorism does not appear in the top 100 causes of death and injury in any country. Things like heart disease, lung cancer, strokes, heart attacks, vehicle accidents, alcoholism, food poisoning, drownings, and allergic reactions to snake bites and bee stings kill more people than terrorists worldwide and certainly in China.

Terrorists love when the media and government over-react to their relatively puny attacks, it increases the terrorists' egos and encourages more attacks. We shouldn't indulge them by inconveniencing ourselves unnecessarily. Of course the police and intelligence agencies should still investigate and head terrorists off, something the U.S. has done very well in 9/11.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)




----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Geography said:


> What are the benefits? Maybe one or two attacks prevented?


More like "no attacks prevented". The benefit is zero. 
Terrorists rarely try the same tactic twice, and any security regime will have flaws, which the terrorists will find before they do anything.

No. Take an example of the Norwegians. After Breivik's attacks they didn't change any laws. They didn't put up more cameras or security features, or start a department of homeland security.
They held an event commemorating the victims, and put the perpetrator on trial. That's how you deal with terrorists.


----------



## KingNick (Sep 23, 2010)

Seconded.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

K_ said:


> More like "no attacks prevented". The benefit is zero.
> Terrorists rarely try the same tactic twice, and any security regime will have flaws, which the terrorists will find before they do anything.


This is only partially true. When you put substantial hurdles for an attack, you raise the bar required to perform it. While suicidal terrorists might be willing to go any length, it is still difficult - and terrorists less willing to risk their own security are deterred in parts.

Example from the airline industry: in the early 1970s, one could practically walk into a plane like it were a bus. Not even ID was required, only ticketing - on most domestic markets. Then, you had a string of political-motivated hijackings - mostly conducted by Cubans and Arabs. It was from that time they put the first security measures in check like metal detectors.

Today, hijacking airplanes is extremely difficult. It is practically impossible. That makes people "merely" wanting to hijack a plan to back off, leaving the threat "only" to those who want to blow themselves and their planes up.

In case of train travel, cordoning off most stations as off-limits except for identified passengers would deter a lot of crime, particularly petty crime that is rampant in big stations. Once everyone in a large space full of camera surveillance is identified, there is strong deterance from those wanting to use the facilities to commit a crime.

Another comparison: in US, Marshall Service target buses as the prime target for escapees and fugitives on the move across the country. Why? Because Amtrak requires ID to board their long-distance trains, airports have obvious ID requirements and driving cars is risky if you can be stopped and checked.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> This is only partially true. When you put substantial hurdles for an attack, you raise the bar required to perform it. While suicidal terrorists might be willing to go any length, it is still difficult - and terrorists less willing to risk their own security are deterred in parts.
> 
> Example from the airline industry: in the early 1970s, one could practically walk into a plane like it were a bus. Not even ID was required, only ticketing - on most domestic markets. Then, you had a string of political-motivated hijackings - mostly conducted by Cubans and Arabs. It was from that time they put the first security measures in check like metal detectors.
> 
> Today, hijacking airplanes is extremely difficult. It is practically impossible. That makes people "merely" wanting to hijack a plan to back off, leaving the threat "only" to those who want to blow themselves and their planes up.


This makes me think of a comic routing that probably exists in multiple variations in all cultures.

- A man is walking down the street. He is distributing some powder everywhere he walks. The passersby look at him puzzled, and one asks him what the powder is for, and why he is spreading it.
- "The powder is against crocodiles, the man says".
- "But there are no crocodiles here, the puzzled by stander replies.
- "Strong powder eh..."

Numerous countermeasures have been taken since 9/11, and the western world has been mostly spared serious terrorist attacks. Naive people like the man spreading his anti crocodile powder in the gag above may think that the one is related to the other. This is a classic case of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

Informed people know better. As has been demonstrated again and again by experts and investigative journalists alike the security measures at our airports are easy to get around. They really are just theatre.
And they are very inconvenient for passengers, cost a lot of money, impinge on our liberties, and actually reduce security. A suicide bomber now can easily create a carnage by just blowing himself up in the queue for a TSA checkpoint.

The real reason why we don't see more terrorist attacks in the west is quite simple: There are just not a lot of terrorist. And most of them are already on the radar of the various intelligence services, so they get caught before they do anything. Terrorism is rare. It's overblown.



> In case of train travel, cordoning off most stations as off-limits except for identified passengers would deter a lot of crime, particularly petty crime that is rampant in big stations. Once everyone in a large space full of camera surveillance is identified, there is strong deterance from those wanting to use the facilities to commit a crime.


So the petty crime will move to other places. Is that your solution?



> Another comparison: in US, Marshall Service target buses as the prime target for escapees and fugitives on the move across the country. Why? Because Amtrak requires ID to board their long-distance trains, airports have obvious ID requirements and driving cars is risky if you can be stopped and checked.


So you see that even the dumbest criminals know how to avoid having their ID checked. Do you want to make ID check mandatory for everything now?

Are you that desperate for the terrorists to win?


----------



## KingNick (Sep 23, 2010)

The crocodile analogy made me laugh.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Today's







:
_Towns, train fight over fences --and responsibility for safety
_​


----------

