Platform for improvement

The Madrid train bombings in the early part of 2004 merely served to underline what security experts have known for years – that railway stations are key targets for terrorists and other criminals, and are difficult to secure. In Britain, security managers and the police service are long accustomed to the threat posed by (Irish) terrorists. That being the case, security has always been tight.

However, with the nation now at the very centre of the struggle against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, the need for stringent railway security is even more acute.

Now, a new regime is opening up the way in which railway stations are policed in England and Wales. By way of regulations that fall under the Police Reform Act 2002, the British Transport Police (BTP) – currently responsible for safeguarding over 3,000 railway stations – is empowered to use the Railway Safety Accreditation Scheme (RSAS). The main outcome is that the BTP can accredit suitably skilled and trained non-police personnel, and grant them specific powers to be used within the BTP’s own jurisdiction.

Inevitably, this brings about important implications for the private sector. For train operating companies and Network Rail, BTP chief constable Ian Johnston is able to confer certain limited powers upon, for example, private security officers once they have been suitably instructed under the RSAS. In reality, these powers are the same as those now granted under the Community Safety Accreditation Schemes, including the right to take names and addresses of people acting in an anti-social way and enforcing laws over the consumption and confiscation of alcohol and tobacco. However, the RSAS also affords private sector contractors the power to issue fixed penalty notices for trespassing on the railways, and for throwing stones or other missiles at train carriages.

Station staff granted such powers also have more protection. Heavy fines (of anything up to £5,000, in fact) and a possible 51-week term in prison could result from assaults or wilful obstruction. Quite a deterrent.

Increased powers and protection

The implications for the private sector are important. In an era where concerns over security are arguably at their highest ever level, we have the introduction of a national vetting procedure for station and security staff granted new powers (in line with Home Office requirements for policing in general). Similarly, the Chief Constable must have regard for the Code of Practice issued by the Home Secretary under the 2002 Act, while information concerning the scheme must be included in any annual policing plan.

A tantalising combination of increased powers and protection could make station security far more attractive to leading companies such as Group 4 Securicor (see this month’s Guarding Watch on pp44-45). That said, the new system doesn’t really simplify what is already a somewhat complex chain of command concerning station security.

A spokesperson for BTP told SMT: “We are directly responsible for policing, but security is a matter for individual train operating companies. The Strategic Rail Authority’s requirements covering franchising have a security clause, and the Department for Transport has its own security arm in the shape of Transec. The local division of the BTP is responsible for policing, while a given station’s management team is tasked with looking after the safety of its own personnel.”

Last June, the third National Railway Crime Week highlighted the efforts of the still relatively new cross-industry partnership arrangements aimed at clamping down on crime, as well as the Government’s Secure Stations Scheme. To be classified by Whitehall as a ‘Secure Station’, its management team must work with the local BTP crime reduction officer to make sure that the station in question meets national standards in terms of design and management. The standards cover staff training, the correct installation and use of Help Points, CCTV, lighting and the provision of information to members of the public.

Operators must also carry out an independent passenger survey to judge whether or not customers are satisfied with safety and security procedures, and (wherever possible) provide statistical information to back up assertions that crime levels are low.

To date, the number of stations enjoying ‘Secure Station’ status is still in the hundreds rather than the thousands. Only recently, rail regulator Tom Winsor warned that, despite the best efforts of the regulators, UK railway stations remain vulnerable to terrorist attack. A situation not helped by the BTP’s tight budget for the past 12 months, because of which the train operating companies must fork out £82 million of the total £162 million earmarked for railway security.

Indeed, there have been long-running disputes between the train operators and the BTP over the size of these contributions. Last year, managers at the Great North Eastern Railway and those of the English, Welsh and Scottish Railway jointly withheld funds to the tune of £4 million in protest over their 20% rise in contributions to the BTP, which was largely requested to help finance pensions.

Of the Government’s contribution, 2.3 million is being spent on new anti-terrorism vehicles that can respond to biological and chemical attacks. The balance of the budgetary allocation comes from Network Rail and the London Underground.

Following on from the Madrid bombings, Ian Johnston is now calling for a shake-up of BTP’s financing regime. He desperately wants Government to relieve the train operating companies of having to pay for his organisation’s presence and assistance.

Traffic at an all-time high

Despite all of this, security fears aren’t deterring passengers from the railways, it seems. The Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) recently announced that more than one billion passengers used the rail network in 2003-2004, the highest annual figures since 1961. Passenger traffic on the UK’s rail network has risen by more than 30% during the past seven years, largely thanks to “a mix of greater prosperity, increased road congestion and more frequent train services,” claims the ATOC.

Success on this scale makes it even more important for station security to keep pace with the times, albeit at a cost. Government is only too aware of that fact. The Department for Transport stresses that it’s essential to render the best return from security regimes. One key improvement would be the development of detection systems that would enable the Department to extend screening across all modes of transport. That would bring UK stations more into line with the Eurostar stations at London Waterloo and Ashford, where passenger and freight screening and security arrangements are more akin to those now in place at international airports.

Is there a simple security formula that applies to all stations? And how might the private sector bring its own skills to bear in this environment? Steven Langley of Winchester-based SLJ Associates is a specialist consultant focusing purely on the rail industry. Langley has clients dotted all over the country, and sees before him a rather varied picture. “Railways are a complex entity,” states Langley. “There are now 20 different franchise operators, all with their own ‘flavours’ and resourcing levels. That’s a good thing. The security mix is a diverse one, and constantly subject to change.”

For Langley, the terrorist threat is a difficult nut to crack. “It’s a rare event,” he comments. “One is trying to detect intent, as is the case with, say, a suicide bomber. This is almost an impossible task.” Post the IRA bombings of the 1970s, Langley is adamant that successive Governments, the BTP and the security sector have encouraged much higher standards of vigilance, partially due to advice from consultants such as himself.

To date, the number of stations enjoying ‘Secure Station’ status is still in the hundreds. Only recently, rail regulator Tom Winsor warned that, despite the best efforts of the regulators, UK railway stations remain distinctly vulnerable to terrorist attack

“It’s all about creating a controlled environment,” continues Langley. “A fantastic first line of security is the electronic ticket gate. It’s a truism that 95% of those people caught for crimes on the railways don’t have a ticket.”

Balham Station in south London offers a suitable proving ground. Previously a byword for vandalism, graffiti and opportunist crime, there has been a dramatic decrease in such problems since the introduction of electronic gates. Making sure that staff are visible is also of great importance, stresses Langley, which means that staffing numbers shouldn’t be decreased purely because physical security measures are now in place.

“There are at least 26,500 additional station staff currently operational across south east England to man these ticket gates,” stresses Langley. “That’s as it should be.”

Do Help Points really work?

Langley does raise a caveat or two, though. Although he’s fully in favour of good lighting and real time CCTV monitoring at stations, and rightly so, Help Points don’t win many plaudits (in spite of the fact that many rail operating companies have moved to install them.

Who, Langley points out to SMT, will automatically try to locate a Help Point when they’re under attack or threat?

What Langley would like to see instead is a telephone number, prominently displayed all over stations, that callers can reach via their own mobile phones. Langley also feels that not every station’s security would be improved by the addition of more personnel. “In very infrequently used stations,” adds Langley, “it’s better to man the trains rather than the stations themselves. Where the trains are frequent, then put the security effort in to the stations.”

Langley suggests that UK train operating companies are generally well aware of the benefits of having more secure stations, but often don’t have the budget they need for the desired improvements. “There are 2,500 railway stations in England alone, and you could spend as much as £100,000 on each of them. We’re not suggesting that much should be spent, though. The operators will invest in line with the business case, balancing the cost of security measures against the cost of crime.”

Fraser Robertson is a business and technical consultant for Scotland-based Alfred McAlpine Business Services. His company is heavily involved in station security and, as part of a recent project, introduced an interactive CCTV system in a station car park that had suffered repeated attacks on vehicles. This system can be tripped by intruders, and a local key holder can reach the site very quickly. It also lets vandals and criminals know they’re being monitored. Robertson’s firm uses Unit Group 1 for security patrols, stepping up the frequency of those patrols during the winter months.

Another technical innovation introduced of late has been the automatic voice pillar, whereby someone can speak directly to the monitoring network to report a problem.

One difficulty in terms of crime and terrorism prevention work, adds Robertson, is the need to keep it quiet. “We haven’t been showing the public that we’re on top of terrorism,” he states. “For instance, we have self-identifying camera systems taking the numbers of vehicles coming into a station, but if you were to inform the public of that it can actually be counter-productive.”

These hidden cameras are based on fibre optic technology, and can be linked to MI5 and Interpol (as is the case with the systems in place at Kings Cross Station in London).

The broadening security horizon

No single security system fits all conditions, but it’s clear that today’s station security managers are having to link the latest variants in technology to traditional skills of policing and vigilance in ways not thought of even 20 years ago. Can they look overseas for any tips on doing so?

In America – supposedly the land of the free (markets) – public security improvements have been the focus of protecting New York’s Penn Station and Grand Central Station from acts of terrorism post-September 11.

Tom Kelly – director of communications for the Manhattan Transport Authority (MTA) which controls the stations – commented that regular police patrols have been increased by 50% to 750 rostered officers. In addition, the MTA has established a police canine unit specifically to sniff out explosive devices, as well as an emergency response unit with heavy weaponry. Furthermore, the New York National Guard and members of the MTA police now perform spot checks in the trains and on the platforms. State troopers from New Jersey and Connecticut also contribute to station patrols on those days when additional help is needed.

Kelly told SMT that the Madrid bombings did lead to an intensification of station security, but added that US railway operators have been on heightened alert since the September 11 attacks. “It’s difficult to quantify the increase over and above an already high security alert,” says Kelly.

In the meantime, a return to reliances on public law enforcement teams is on the cards in South Africa – a key market for many private security companies. Railway security in terms of both passengers and goods has been problematic over the past two or three years, with State-owned national railway operator Spoornet contracting private sector guarding company Hlanganani Security Services to bolster commuter and railway station security across the country.

However, a spate of incidents (including a right wing attack on the New Canada Station outside Soweto, and the murder of a commuter who was allegedly thrown from a moving train by security officers for not having a ticket) has prompted swift reaction from the Government, which has now issued a set of security recommendations to improve passenger safety. An initial step has been the re-introduction of a dedicated railway police force, mirroring the specialist South African Railway Police Force that had been disbanded around 18 years ago and amalgamated into the South African Police Service (SAPS).

Last year, managers at Great North Eastern and those at the English, Welsh and Scottish Railway witheld funds to the tune of £4 million in protest over their 20% rise in contributions to the BTP

The Force’s resurrection means that major railway stations – such as Johannesburg, Pretoria and Soweto – will have a dedicated police station with charge office and holding cells, while the smaller stops inbetween these stations will have satellite police stations operating on a traffic-demand basis.

The SAPS will assume responsibility for the security of passengers at the railway stations and on the trains.

Charles Nqakula (minister of safety and security) has stated that the new railway police unit will remain under the umbrella of SAPS. Recruiting and training for the 400 additional officers was completed in December, and they’ll be deployed as from this month.

The move comes as the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) is locked in a legal battle with Transnet – the State-owned holding company responsible for the management and running of Spoornet – over passenger safety. The case has been heard by the Cape High Court, which had ruled that the railway operator was indeed responsible for the safety and security of its passengers. The case is set to go before the Constitutional Court. Commentators expect its judges will not rule against the company, allowing it to ask the police to pay for basic infrastructure such as access control and turnstiles at the stations.

Cosatu secretary Tony Ehrenreich said that his organisation welcomed the reintroduction of the railway police. “We’re glad that the Government has listened to our very serious concerns.” The SAPS has reported that roughly 650 crimes are committed for every 10,000 passenger trips in South Africa – a statistic which is 108 times higher than that of Britain, where an estimated six crimes are committed for every 10,000 trips.

State-of-the-art CCTV systems

On the Asian continent, Hong Kong’s second rail terminus with direct connections to mainland China was scheduled to open just prior to Christmas.

Officials there are bracing themselves to deal with the security implications of potential illegal immigration problems (the city is a glittering magnet for stowaways from the People’s Republic).

The original terminus at Hung Hom currently hosts 540 arrivals and departures daily, 25 of which are intercity services linking directly to cities as far away as Beijing and Shanghai in China. Around 40 members of staff from the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation (KCRC) supervise the 69 million-plus passengers who use the terminus every year.

To thwart potential illegal immigrants, the KCRC will be introducing a state-of-the-art CCTV system at Tsim Sha Tsui East, the new terminus which will operate in parallel with Hung Hom. It’s a combination of fixed and PTZ cameras providing coverage of platforms, concourses and subways. Video recording facilities are also provided to record the camera images in 24-hour mode. A computer-controlled facility – a touch-screen computer complete with station layouts and camera locations – can be used to select and control all cameras within the station.

For surveillance, monitors are provided in the station Control Room, in the Platform Supervisor’s Booth and in the Police Control Room. Remote monitoring of the CCTV images is also available in the Control Centre at Fo Tan (the main control hub for the entire East Rail system) via fibre networks. Furthermore, while street crime such as muggings is the exception rather than the rule in Hong Kong, the CCTV system will also be used to monitor other security issues.

In Denmark, a private security company – JAI – has been front and centre of efforts aimed at making the country’s railway stations more secure. The company has recently been installing its advanced surveillance system across several stations. The new system makes use of digital pictures and sound transmitted over the Internet via IP addresses.

JAI director Villads Sondergaard states: “This means that the system is faster and more effective than an emergency call to 112, simply because 112 isn’t available on the Internet. Our system runs on a 10 Megabit network. The police are never further away than one IP address and our own hyperlink on their surveillance screen. The system exploits network technology in a unique way.”

JAI has already developed and installed a first generation security system at 47 S-Train stations in and around Copenhagen. As a result, vandalism and violent incidents have fallen. This successful experience has led to the technological refinements featured in the new apparatus. Over the next five years, the Danish railway authorities will install 1,500 cameras and 600 telephone units nationwide.

Sondergaard states that JAI has received several approaches from other countries. In particular, transport authorities in Stockholm and Munich are keen to replicate Denmark’s pioneering example.

At present, JAI is developing a security system similar to that deployed in Denmark to be used on Lokaltrafik, the Swedish capital’s underground system. In addition, Stockholm Metro’s managers have already fitted 130 Gunnebo hidden gates across the network’s stations, and have an option to fit a further 80 sets of gates if and when required.

The Swedes have also developed sophisticated ‘crisis drills’ for dealing with potential bacteriological and chemical attacks – exercises which have been developed in co-operation with the Swedish Rescue Agency and the armed services. A similar exercise has just been completed in neighbouring Finland.

However, the Swedes don’t have any railway police corps. Regular police are responsible for all public order, though private security operatives are called in for bigger sporting occasions or public festivals such as the New Year celebrations.