MISC | Railway Security

[trainrover]

Anyhow, I suspect the unenforced security subsequent to 1'29" induced the 3'35" mishap:

[hmmwv]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

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.

Our local Amtrak service requires passengers to sign the ticket before it's checked, I have never been asked to present photo ID. The passenger's name is printed on the ticket just like on an airline boarding pass.

[trainrover]

Ah, okay ... their ID requirement must be limited to the international runs.



Sorry if the following being outdated be bothersome (they fascinate me, that's all):

[alphorn2]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

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.

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

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.

[Suburbanist]

It doesn't matter that more people will die on the roads.

It is a similar argument, made mostly in US, against the extensive and cumbersome security checks on airports that more people have already died due to "mode shifting" in one decade than a plane full of passengers.

The overwhelming majority of traffic fatalities are not intentional (e.g., even if recklessness is involved, the parties rarely desired death to be the result of their actions). Terrorism is different.

If you sum up all terrorist deaths in Western Europe since 1950, including domestic terrorism such as ETA, Brigade Rosse, IRA etc., they will still be less than the number of people who die in car accidents or drown in pools, beaches and other water bodies every couple years. That doesn't mean we should let terrorist roam free.

To fight intentional assassinations is a thing very different than fighting transportation causalities.

[hmmwv]

Checking ID is the most basic security check which can be implemented, in many parts of the world x ray machines, metal detectors, and bomb/drug sniffing dogs are also used. In addition, railway stations need to secure its perimeter through fencing, video monitoring, and card key access control.

[K_]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

It doesn't matter that more people will die on the roads.

It is a similar argument, made mostly in US, against the extensive and cumbersome security checks on airports that more people have already died due to "mode shifting" in one decade than a plane full of passengers.

And it is a valid argument.

If you sum up all terrorist deaths in Western Europe since 1950, including domestic terrorism such as ETA, Brigade Rosse, IRA etc., they will still be less than the number of people who die in car accidents or drown in pools, beaches and other water bodies every couple years. That doesn't mean we should let terrorist roam free.

Sure we should not let them "roam" free. But good detective work is quite effective. Most terrorist plots actually never get carried out. Not because they get stopped at a TSA checkpoint (TSA is not about stopping terrorists after alll) but because they get discovered before they take place.

We should however not allow the terrorists to get a return on their investment. The terrorists want us to live in fear. They want us to give up on our freedoms. They are currently very effective at that, but not because they are good, it's because we are being stupid.
We should simple not allow the terrorists to terrorise us, we should not allow them to affect every day life. It's by not putting up checkpoints everywhere, by not requiring an ID whenever you board a plane or a train, it is buy insisting that our basic civil rights and freedoms are preserved that we make them lose.

[K_]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

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.

Sure. Because criminals have an ID with the word "CRIMINAL" stamped in huge letters on it, right?

[hmmwv]

No but it will definitely makes it harder for them to travel, government agencies now have systems to share information regarding criminals so they cannot travel on their own ID. Forcing them to either use less convenient means of transportation or spend money, time and energy to obtain fake ID.

[MarcVD]

Originally Posted by hmmwv

No but it will definitely makes it harder for them to travel, government agencies now have systems to share information regarding criminals so they cannot travel on their own ID. Forcing them to either use less convenient means of transportation or spend money, time and energy to obtain fake ID.

OK, then if we do it at train stations, just to be consistent, we should also
do it for long-distance buses and at every toll barrier, shouldn't we ?

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by MarcVD

OK, then if we do it at train stations, just to be consistent, we should also
do it for long-distance buses and at every toll barrier, shouldn't we ?

Though passengers are not checked often, cars have been individually traceable since like the early 1950 at the latest (in some countries, earlier than that).

That is why you hear of criminals trying to produce getaway cars, concealing plates, abandoning stolen vehicles to commit other crimes etc. This is far more difficult than merely boarding a train with an elusive, nameless ticket and travelling without having your ID checked.

================

In any case, at least in regard of long-distance travel, an advantage of ID checks is that it enables name-specific ticketing, like airlines. In other other: it makes it easier for large-scale yield management, even the modern ones (the type that adjusts the price slightly according to your IP or something), without opening the floodgates for ticket scalping.

[particlez]

Oh dear lord Suburbanist. We all know you hate anything in the public realm. But it's not difficult to wreak havoc with a car. Think of Timothy McVeigh, obviously on the slow side, on the incompetent side, but he still loaded a truck full of explosives and blew stuff up. Same thing with assorted suicide bombers all over the place.

As long as you're crazy enough, you can inflict lots of damage. Public transit, private vehicle, it doesn't seem to matter.

[trainrover]

Originally Posted by trainrover

Actually, it's the youtube video labelled as follows that I had in mind:

[K_]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Though passengers are not checked often, cars have been individually traceable since like the early 1950 at the latest (in some countries, earlier than that).

That is why you hear of criminals trying to produce getaway cars, concealing plates, abandoning stolen vehicles to commit other crimes etc. This is far more difficult than merely boarding a train with an elusive, nameless ticket and travelling without having your ID checked.

Whereas you hear all the time about bankrobbers making their getaway by train, right?

[MarcVD]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Though passengers are not checked often, cars have been individually traceable since like the early 1950 at the latest (in some countries, earlier than that).

That is why you hear of criminals trying to produce getaway cars, concealing plates, abandoning stolen vehicles to commit other crimes etc. This is far more difficult than merely boarding a train with an elusive, nameless ticket and travelling without having your ID checked.

Totally disagree with that. The car certainly is today the most efficient way
to travel anonymously. Tracing of cars is technically possible but almost
never done, and passengers in cars even less. I commute by car to my
workplace everyday and have not been controlled, even once, in the last
20 years. Even speed cameras are made, on purpose, in such a way that
people in the cars cannot be recognized.

As opposed to that, train passengers need to pay for a ticket, pass in front
of umpteen security cameras in the station, and wait for their train in a
platform possibly looked after by security people, and then be scrutinized
again by security cameras in the train itself. This can hardly be considered as
anonymous.

So if we want to increase security by monitoring people on the move, our
first target must be people in cars. So, let's systematically ID people at each
toll barrier to begin with, and record all those collected IDs in a database;
re-instate the same checks at each nation border like it was done in Europe
before Shengen ; and for each city that, like London, has an urban toll managed
by automatic plate recognition, communicate systematically all the data to the
police for long-term retention.

This is the car-equivalent of what you propose to force on train passengers.
Why would it be less acceptable ?

[trainrover]

Originally Posted by trainrover

TfL policy seems encouraging, in that they've opted for harware for their (signalling) training purposes instead of relying on computer simulation, which I bet must be the medium drawn upon here around N America:

..

[trainrover]

Originally Posted by trainrover

Fencing problem(s)

..

[hmmwv]

What the hell, all that because of sheep? The ICE seems to have a history of derailing because of seemingly small problems.
I guess the sheep don't have quick reflex.

[trainrover]

Seemingly small? With or without its ram, ewe, even packaged a fleece itself is bulky enough ...

[trainrover]