UK - Business travellers back airport-style rail security

[John Ashworth]

Business travellers back airport-style security for rail

* Dan Milmo
* The Guardian,
* Monday July 7, 2008

Network Rail and train operating companies should increase their expenditure on security and bring the rail network's anti-terrorist measures in line with the aviation industry, according to business travellers.

Lengthy security queues at Heathrow airport and restrictions on the contents of hand luggage are the bane of many air travellers, but a survey published today indicates that they are deemed necessary by premium passengers.

Nine out of 10 business people feel secure when travelling through airports, with increased security measures being welcomed despite the knock-on effects, which include dire punctuality figures at Heathrow, with more than four out of 10 flights leaving the airport late.

However, the confidence in airport security is not reflected in attitudes towards the UK's rail system. According to the Barclaycard business travel survey, more than three-quarters of respondents believe that security on trains and at stations could be improved.

"People who are travelling by train more, but are used to seeing increased security at airports, are asking 'is this safer?'" said Barclaycard's Denise Leleux.

The Association of Train Operating Companies said intercity services, often used by business travellers, were well staffed and secure.

"Intercity trains are very highly staffed. And most of those trains operate at stations where there are a lot of staff," said an Atoc spokesman. Atoc added that it already pumps £116m per year into the British Transport Police - which patrols the UK's trains and stations and is industry funded. Network Rail, London Underground and freight train companies also fund the BTP, with LU and Network Rail paying £50m each per year to the BTP.

However, business travellers will not see the widespread introduction of metal detectors and bag screening machines at stations for several years. The government has ruled out introducing airport-style checks at every rail and London Underground station because ministers fear a public backlash if an enhanced regime causes delays. Instead, a small number of bag x-ray machines and sniffer dogs will be deployed at stations.

Tom Harris, the rail minister, said "100% airport-style screening is not feasible" due to the large amounts of people who use railway stations every day. He added that a new screening regime would also create privacy concerns.

[John Ashworth]

What a disappointing step in order to make a few businessmen feel secure. One of the pleasures of rail travel is precisely that one doesn't have to go through the cattle-class security gates and holding pens of airports.

[Steve Appleton]

I agree, John.
Aircraft security is mandated by the fact that an explosion or similar will almost invariably result in a 100% fatality. However, in reality, most of the security checks at airports are hardly effective against such an attack anyway and are designed to appeal to the mass hysteria (and cause immense inconvenience). Air crashes are always regarded as a horrific way to die. Why is this? Road deaths can be and often are far worse. In this country tens of thousands (almost certainly more than all the terrorism attacks on airports and aircraft put together) die every year in lingering, mutilated ways on the roads. Yet, we don't recoil in horror at that, in general. Back to the point: all airports leak like sieves. Just look at our OR Tambo: at the luggage theft they cannot stop; at the way trollies are casually pushed in through back doors around the scanners. It would be easy for any terrrorist worthy of the name to by-pass the security. And it wouldn't take the passengers to do it either.
The reality is that terrorism lives on the side-effects of hysteria. Despite some spectacular successes like Madrid and the London Underground/bus bombings, apart from political figures scoring points, any form of hysteria died very quickly. People were using the trains and buses just as before very soon afterwards. The terrorists achieved almost nothing, and as a result appear to have moved off to other things.
That means that the chances of train attacks are probably very small and it is hardly worth the time and expense of attempting to combat them in highly technical ways. Exactly the same value proposition that prevents the UK railways (Railtrack) from installing better and more modern train safety equipment (like ATP) on most lines in place of the 60-year (or so) old AWS. Its all about the actuaries' calculations: the chances and cost of a major accident that would have been prevented by such new equipment will be much lower than the cost of installing the new kit universally to prevent such accidents. And, if you still feel like providing some extra protection for the passengers, then simply increase the amount of your public liability insurance -- it's far, far cheaper!
Ultimately the solution to terrorism is political and sociological (some may even say religeous), certainly not forensic or technical.

[John Ashworth]

Steve, I agree entirely, especially about the hysteria.

A few figures:

Road deaths in UK - approx 3,500 every year
Deaths by terrorism in UK since the end of the Irish troubles several years ago - approx 56 in 2005 (57 if you count the poor South American chap who was later shot by police by mistake) - 0 each year before and after 2005

Deaths due to firearms in the USA - approx 30 thousand every year
Deaths due to foreign terrorism in USA - approx 3,000 in 2001 - 0 every year before and after 2001

[Steve Appleton]

Yep. Here is an extract from the Exec Summary in the 2006 report (http://www.arrivealive.co.za/pages.asp?nc=Fatal_Crashes):

1.9 The number of fatal crashes for the year 2006 increased by 718 (6,12%) from
11,736 during the year 2005 to 12,454. (The increase from 2004 to 2005 was
10,41%).
1.10 The estimated number of fatalities increased by 1,258 (8,90%) from 14,135 during
the year 2005 to 15,393 during 2006. (The increase from 2004 to 2005 was
10,62%).
1.11 Driver fatalities increased by 599 (15,49%) from 3,867 in 2005 to 4,466 in 2006;
Passenger fatalities increased by 793 (18,20%) from 4,358 to 5,151 in 2006; and
Pedestrian fatalities decreased by 134 (2,26%) from 5,910 to 5,776.
1.12 The number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometres (mvk) increased by 0,78
(7,10%) from 10,97 in 2005 to 11,75 in 2006.
1.13 The estimated cost of fatal crashes increased by R 632 million (6,12%) from a total
of R10,33 billion in 2005 to R 10,96 billion in 2006.

From this it is pretty obvious that, for SA, spending a disproportionate fortune on air and rail secutrity and safety would have an almost zero effect on fatalities. To have the biggest effect on both lives and costs country-wide, road safety is where the money must be spent: forget terrorism!

Of course the security industry is a powerful lobby. You can bet on it that the CIA, FBI, MI5, MI6, Interpol, etc, use those zero deaths due to terrorism as a major justification to their political masters for their very existence.