MISC | Railway Security

[trainrover]

[KingNick]

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

[trainrover]

Yeah, the rescue unit.

[Gadiri]

Originally Posted by trainrover

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

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by Gadiri

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]

Aqua planing? 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]

Originally Posted by trainrover

Yeah, the rescue unit.

Still why?

[trainrover]

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

[Momo1435]

Originally Posted by KingNick

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]

Thanks, that explains a lot.

[trainrover]

Ah! slipperiness crossed everybody else's thoughts.

[trainrover]

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

Originally Posted by trainrover

[Geography]

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]

[K_]

Originally Posted by Geography

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]

Seconded.

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by K_

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_]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

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]

The crocodile analogy made me laugh.

[trainrover]

Today's :

Towns, train fight over fences --and responsibility for safety