Security!

[Junctionfan]

I find some flaws in the way both Canadian and U.S handle railroad security measure but nothing overly serious. I will list why

1/ If hi-jacking a train is on your mind good luck. With so many railfan about with scanners, most know the train numbers and if they here that a train is diverting routes, they will all flock out to see. They will take pictures even. If they see someone that does't look like who they are than they will call the police. If they here that dispatch is asking the train where they are and they don't answer the railfanners may call the police and likely want to see if the engineer is alright.

2/ Like it or not, people racially profile other people. It is unfortunate but true. Saying that, it makes it more dangerous for terrorist to go anywhere without be checked out by the general populace never mind security forces. I don't think states with a strong KKK membership will have to worry about terrorism at all because of their intense hatred to other people that don't resemble themselves.

3/ Alot of communities that are used to seeing railfans will usually be able to tell who is here for good and who is a bad apple. They might call the police anyways-you never know.

4/ Some areas are so inconvient to get to I doubt unless you had a hi-railer you could get badly injured trying to reach the target by other transportation means.

5/ Some training is expesive and time consuming for the terrorists. It is even more time consuming to send someone to the US to blow up a non important train. The only reason in my opinion that Spain was attacked is that their land connects with Europe which connects to the middle east. We have a gigantic moat called the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. They can't go on planes and hi-jack them because of the air-marshals and even if they took out the marshall I am reminded of the time a guy tried to detonate his C4 shoes and the passengers was all over him like a cheap suit. One of the passengers was a doctor and sedated the terrorist. Oceanliners take to long and have even more people to watch and tackle you if you act suspicious.

6/ Any train carrying anything like nuclear equipment is likely to be monitored by the NSA and have the US Airforce and other assault groups on stand by. You would have to be stupid to assume otherwise.

7/ I have no doubt that there is somebody monitoring this forum working for some intelligence agency bringing up our files and checking us out as we speak on this subject.

8/ For all we know they maybe doing the same with the employees at all the railroads and sure the heck aren't going to let us know. Off the record they have no problems violating the rights of individuals as long as it is done discreetly.

9/ After 9/11, the US will never let anybody do that again. The terrorists have interupted the sleeping lion and now they may get completly destroyed for it. They wanted war and they will get it not just by our armies but through our police forces, government agencies and even the general populace is ready to combat terrorism. The US government can not guarantee safety but the people can guarantee that we will not tolerate any more attacks on our homes. The terrorists have failed and they are beginning to know that it is futile to continue. We do not fear them as much as we fear what we will do to them if we get our hands on them.

[philnrunt]

goboard- The little doubts in life are what drive you crazy. Sounds like you did what everyone else would do under the same circumstances, don't beat yourself up over it.
I posted "Homeland Security and railfans" over in the Model Railroader forum, if I knew how to send it here I would, but if you get a chance to glance it over, please do. I know getting people to go to another forum is tough, but I've done it and I find it quite rewarding.
All of US society is wide open for attack, and we will write our new policies in blood, as we always have. I only hope that freedom dosn't suffer too much in the process.

[Anonymous]

Good points by everyone.

Perception is a big part of how people react to each other. There are some situations where I would rather have people think I am being jumpy or paranoid, rather than unsafe or uncaring.

However, it is always good to hear from a broader viewpoint. I think this makes it easier for people to feel more comfortable talking about a difficult topic, and to develop a better sense of support and community.

I am originally from Pennsylvania and was in the area when everything happened. It still bothers me when I remember the impact that had on everyone. The skys and the roads were eerily quiet. I remember looking up at airplanes wondering what they were going to do as their flight path descended past a major nuclear power plant. I felt sick for months.

The problem for me was that before these things happened, I was helping a person from Malaysia visit the country.

This person was from a country which is highly prone to infiltration, from a city (Malacca) known for its high incidence of clandestine terrorist meetings, who had deep Muslim connections which I didn't know about until later. This person repeatedly had conflicting stories, was in areas "coincidental" to 9/11, such as New Haven-Boston, New York, and DC. Additionally, they had stolen money from my home and bragged about it in a very cleverly-worded way.

They supposedly had a Masters degree in mathematical modelling and did a thesis on fluid movement, spoke 5 languages and had friends who were supposedly within the government at various levels. Some of this I do not doubt. The more I was in contact with this person, the more I realized that their behavior was not only duplicitous but extraordinarily suspicious.

I started having problems with my PC as if my operating system was running a shell program. The desktop would always have to be shut down several times, which it never did before. E-mail messages would get rerouted or arrive in my box totally out of order. I started noticing other odd little things too, like a possibly-faked VISA, and other things I don't want to talk about. I remember all sorts of behavior that seemed like a subtext for other things.

I ignored all of this.

Even though my instincts were screaming, I remember joking around with this person about how they could be a spy or something. We used to actually talk about stuff like that, like the ease of getting into the US unnoticed.

I dismissed all of it as so much nonsense.

I even thought about reporting some behavior to the police, but I didn't. I would have sounded like a paranoid idiot, right?

I practiced sending e-mails to myself with information about this person, but I could never find the right way to say it to anyone else. I secretly wished that the government would intercept my messages with a web filter and use them. I felt like I was going to go crazy. I tried to warn people who had this person as a houseguest. My efforts sounded overblown and awkward.

Then 9/11 happened. I was one of many people who reported suspicious behavior to the FBI. I still do not know if my information helped or hurt. I do not know if I had said something sooner, if anything would have changed.

But I also overlooked the possibility that I was innocently involved in something bigger, because I would be the one targeted as crazy for thinking that way.

Before 9/11, this person and I had visited one of the railroads where I used to work. It hauled chlorine gas to a chemical plant in a densely-populated area. After 9/11, I remember the visit by a pair of middle-eastern looking people wanting a train ride. They were a very well-spoken, middle-class couple, but one of the odd things the man said was "We won't be back to New York for a long time."

The FBI never interviewed me. Perhaps they didn't need to, or perhaps I was wrong. I'll never know. But I had to face the cold hard fact that my behavior may have cost 3,000 people their lives, even if what I had to offer was only a tiny piece of the puzzle.

How many of you could live with that? This is the first time I've told anybody about it in public. Thanks for allowing me to get that off of my chest. Even if this thread was considered a waste of time by other peopple, it helped me to feel better.

[V]

[tree68]

And don't forget that those in charge of fighting terrorism aren't about to tip their hand and tell us (and the terrorists) how many plots they may have thwarted already. Assuming we've learned their lessons, we are closely watching, and may even be inside suspected terrorist organizations.

The best defense against terrorism is eyes - yours, mine, everybodies. Just so it doesn't roll over into paranoia.

[Anonymous]

why would someone bother with terrorism by freight train? why go through all that trouble?

you can get a commercial drivers license without ever taking a test, or go through a background check, get you an 18 wheeler and load it up Oklahoma City style, or hijack a LPG tanker and cause much more destruction without any of the trouble. I have been a truck driver for 5 years now and i know how easy it is, and so do the terrorists. they are probibly already out there on the highways. and if you want to talk about unhappy employees and high turnover rates, most of the large trucking companies have a turnover rate somewhere between 80 and 110 percent. and remember the guy that drove his truck into the state capital building in Sacramento California?

there are disgruntled workers in every profession. and yes, it is a damn good idea that we all pay attention and do anything we can to increase security. you bring up some good points Goboard, but i think you may be overreacting a bit. there are many more jobs out there with many more upset workers than the railroads. just think how easy it would be for one of the many disgruntled postal workers to slip a bomb or more anthrax into the system without ever being detected. if you think there is security at the postal sorting centers, you are wrong. i know several truck drivers that deliver mail to the big postal centers and they never get checked out and they are allowed to wander freely.

security is all smoke and mirrors at many places. if you have the desire and a little knowledge, a terrorist act would be easy to get away with in this country.


but thats just my opinion.

[philnrunt]

Dave- I agree that the situation has not changed, I recall reading an article in Penthouse-yes, I did read an article now and then- in the early 70's about the possibility of a LPG ship being detonated in NYC harbor, with the effect of a small atom bomb. But I disagree with the statement about the situation not being as bad as it's made out to be, the memory of 3 buildings being hit by US airliners and the crater in the Pa field where some brave folk sacrificed their lives make me think the situation is indeed bad. But I do agree that the paranoia level has been taken to a whole new level with no good results.
And goboard- The best defense against crime of all types, including terrorism is the local cop. McVey was arrested by an Oklahoma troop, and Atta would have been by a Mass. officer if the feds had spread the info they were in possession of around a bit.They do not share well.
And as I said in a MR forum about grafitti, if a local kid can spend half an hour painting a covered hopper without being interupted, how hard would it be to plant a bomb?

[88gta350]

QUOTE: Originally posted by goboard


But if this stuff is so easy, I wonder why terrorist activities haven't resurfaced sooner? I guess we can thank the Feds

ANyone ever think the terrorist situation isn't nearly as bad as Chicken Little has made it out to be? Nothing in the world has really changed because of 9/11. Only our perception has changed.

There are terrorists that would like to bring down the U.S. now, and there were terrorists before 9/11. That day didn't change or create anything, it only showed us what was already there.

There will be another atttack. No matter what we do, no matter how strict we make our rules, there will be another attack some time. You can't protect everything, and like water running down a mountain, terrorists will take the path of least resistance. They'll do what is easy and what they know they can accomplish. But it will never stop. It's always been there and it will always be there. 9/11 didn't change that.

[Anonymous]

Well said by everyone.

While it's a possibility, I concede the insider probability is somewhat low, compared to other things. I realized how horribly easy stuff like that still is, even post 9/11. We know it doesn't take much.

But if this stuff is so easy, I wonder why terrorist activities haven't resurfaced sooner? I guess we can thank the Feds, although as I said, heavy-handed enforcement isn't helpful and borders on constitutional abuse.

Part of the problem I have seen is how employees are treated by the company. I think it is possible to show a basic link between corporate behavior and employees who are being distracted from their jobs by militant management practices.

I just think the vulnerabilities aren't always where people think they are, and we can't protect everything. Sooner or later it comes down to an issue of trust, knowing that you don't have to worry about dealing with the dangers of your job because you fear management retribution.

The bare fact that these practices can exhibit a supreme form of paranoia is important because it demonstrates how-- in their rigor to protect all bases-- it creates bad management which simultaneously alienates good people.

I remember working a yard where we saw some kids with a gun (it was a BB gun, or so we thought). Nobody reported it because we had other things to do, and the conductor felt it wasn't worth stirring up trouble.

Security weaknesses from the inside can be traced to attitudes toward employees. The typical war between management and labor is counterproductive to the point of distraction, even to the point of not reporting possible problems due to the friction it would cause with management.

I think this friction can be taken advantage of by people with bad motives, regardless of how that occurs-- even if it has to be from an outside vantage point via the unstable turnover of employees and the subsequent "churning" of up-to-date information.

A lot of companies physically lock out access when a person leaves a job. They set up NDAs which have legal repercussions against leaking trade- secrets. A lot of companies would appear paranoid about protecting "proprietary information." I am wondering how railroads expect to protect their crews, if turnover allows newbies to become engineers in 6 months?

It doesn't appear very smart to me to demand that people promote beyond their level of experience, or create incentives for new people to leave. And how many of us are always so wedded to our jobs that the money and working conditions aren't an issue? If the railroads can only keep people who are either highly-devoted to the job and are lucky to avoid problems, or those who can't find another job, then what does that do for all the guys who work for the RR and really hate it?

I've met a lot of those who feel that way, and I think this is a common reaction to constantly have your human dignity offended. In other words, the people that really hate railroads are ordinary people who are burned-out and extremly fatigued.

Some complaints are just the bluffing common to railroad-culture, but I have met other guys that really do hate everything about the companies. People who despise their job eventually stop caring about who they tell, and what is said. I guess that is a topic for another forum.

[Anonymous]

Sounds paranoid to me-

You know how many engineers and Conductors Died while serving the Railway back in-the-day?

I'm talking about old age- not because they fell off.

That must of sucked, dying on the train.

Checking tickets- you take a moment to rest, and you never see the end of the ride?

You'll have to accept that poeple also don't like this concept and retire before there time is up.

I plan to- i imagine many people plan to aswell-

Don't get your blood pressure up and worry about things like that, it's pointless, and you'll jsut end up hurting yourself over the issue- or end up with stomach ulcers because you're worrying to much

-and yes i know what that is like.

so my best advice- don't worry- don't panic, we're not all crooks in this world.

[edblysard]

While this presents a interesting question, in reality, there is no need for any organization to infilltrate any railroad by creating a fifth colum inside the railroad itself.

Any pesron possessing the basic common sense needed to could garner the required info to wreck havoc from this forum, and just about every railfan magazine published in the last 15 years.

For that matter, the info is available at the public libary.

Just a few days observation from a secluded vantage point would give anyone bent on causing maximum damage the necessary info needed.

Dont think so?

Well, two kids with a bolt cutter managed to dump a Amtrak into a sideing at 60mph.

They just watched the same train a few days, discovered that once past a certain point, there were no signals between the last one and the sideing.

They waited till they knew the train was by the signal, cut the switch lock, threw the switch, and put on their boogie shoes.

Derailed both engines, and most of the cars.

Want to derail a train?
Four old spikes and a curve.

Note the 9/11 hijackers didnt work for any airline, only took enough classes to learn the basics of how to handle the craft to accompli***heir task.

When I was a kid, we looked up the formula for black powder in the encyclopedia.

All the necessary info is here already, its free, accesible on the net or in the library.
For under $300.00, you can by a really nice scanner, listen, and plan.

There is no need to go through the process of infiltrating a railroad.

As for the drunk old head?
Well, if a new guy showed up drunk, or acting squirrely, trust me, he wont be working there the next day.

Old head we all know, he might get a afternoon in the back of somebodys pick up, sleeping it off, but he only gets the one freebie, next time, he gets turned also.

We are such a closed society that anyone out of the ordinary would be noticed right away.

Dont like all that info floating around?

Then we all need to break out the jackboots, gray flannel, some arm bands and lapel pins, and re create the Bund.

Maybe close and burn a few book stores and raid a few libraries, you already know the drill...

There isnt much choice, its either one or the other.

Free speech, free press, and a open society, or goverment controled press, and a closed society.

Course, the last option hasnt seemed to work all that well, every time it's been tried.

Ed

[Anonymous]

Like any background check, it is possible to have someone slip through. Federal regulations require that all Engineers and people required to accept promotion to engineer provide a release of their driving records to the RR. In addition, all railroads require disclosure of prior criminal convictions. RR police who often handle background checks are police officers and have the ability to check all databases available to police.

In short while it is always possible someone slips through or becomes a criminal after they join the RR (see above), the background checks are generally effective.

LC

[Anonymous]

Yeah, like any other sensitive job they do a background check although they always say on the form that a person's prior convictions do not bar employment. Fortunately, I have never had this problem and I never will.

They make you list every single part of your job history, and if there's gaps they will ask. Unfortunately, this fails to account for some regionals and shortlines which use trackage rights on Class 1's, but may have a less-extensive background checking capability.

I don't know if they can check everyone. I would hesitate to say, in any case.

[MP57313]

I don't work in the industry, but I'm curious: are there RR hiring restrictions to prevent hiring felons or others who have done time? The reason I ask....a radio news item I heard today regarding al-Qaida recruiting non-Arab US citizens, possibly disgruntled workers who have spent time in prison.

With 30% turnover one wonders if they have time to run background checks.

[tree68]

Didn't kick in 'cause I agree with LC. In my line of work I see more security in a week than most folks do in years. Yet I see many ways that security can be circumvented, and you don't need an ID to do it. We can't protect everything, so we protect what we perceive to be our weak spots. You don't need a key to remove a switch lock.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps so. But then again, I don't know. I 'm not the crazy one who would try to find ways to infiltrate a railroad in order to destroy it. This was just to raise the idea. It could be a bad Stephen Seagal movie, and maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it, except a lot of things don't get mentioned until it's too late. With the public misunderstanding of the railroad industry in general, it wouldn't be too hard to spread panic if something did happen.

There are guys that sit around in the Pentagon thinking up situations like these. It's more difficult to get explosives than a device that can be adapted to interfere with signalling. Collisions are more dangerous and more common than some goofball with explosives. The ability to cause simultaneous failures in populated areas would be signficant.

As far as as personal issues go, my point was lack of judgment and the pressures of one's personal life (as it affects work and vice-versa), leading a person to either distrust those who are new (you know the sideways glances that everyone gets when you're new, until they figure out if you're on the side of the crew or a fresh-faced brainwash case?), or to place unwarranted trust in someone or a situation that becomes deadly. Like the guys that go 40 years without incident , and then fall under the wheels.

When problems affect work behavior, it can also potentially affect security. How about the disgruntled worker who entered the Amtrak repair facility (was it in in Delaware ro Beech Grove?) to shoot up the place. Combine a disgruntled railroad-version of TIm McVey and you've got yourself a pileup.

Anyway, in order not to belabor the point, that's all I've got to say. Everyone else has been rather quiet, due to the freakishness of the topic I suppose? Shoulda just kept my mouth shut.

Now, will I be the one that people carefully edge away from on this forum? I hope not. Rational people can think of extremes for better or worse, and ultimately I am just curious about public perception. I appreciate your responses. I only pop in here on this forum once in a while, anyway.

But as far as the railroad goes, I have little doubt that conversations like these have taken place in hushed tones among railroad management. Even if it could be considered unlikely baloney at a cocktail party for executives. People like to scare themselves. Perhaps it was not unwarranted after 9/11?

Best Wishes as a SIncere American.

[Anonymous]

You are making these issues far more complex than they are. Most terrorist plots are simple, just as are most good military operations. Perhaps you weren't in the military and didn't get the acronym K.I.S.S.= Keep It Simple, Stupid. Why not just blow up the tracks with a relatively small explosive device? All the complex effort to create and/or obtain radio control equipment to shunt a signal circuit? That is making a lot of work for yourself. Again, it also increases the risk of detection.

Seeing other employees drunk or otherwise having issues (an engineer I once knew is currently serving 15 to life in Attica for running down his girlfriend and another person with his car while intoxicated) is not a security issue. It is a safety issue that should be addressed.

Your idea that the terrorists are coming to the rails to hire out as my next trainee still sound a lot like "the sky is falling".

LC

[Anonymous]

No, you didn't say so:

You said, "Sounds like another half baked paranoid idea to me and there are plenty of those around already." It's hard to say that without implying a personal attack.

If you are so insulted by the idea that you should be careful around fellow employees-- by virtue of the fact that certain employees have either weaknesses for bad behavior or intentional malice-- then explain to me the time I saw an old head come to work drunk (and nobody said a thing because the guy was having personal problems), or the time I heard the story about a railroader flipping out and murdering his wife.

Would you disregard long hours as a factor in behavior? I'm sure that attitude and fatigue (as well as long hours) contribute to divorce in the industry. The fact that people have personal weaknesses is of course no reason to malign their worth. But the fact that people can be manipulated regardless of their upstanding behavior as an employee is certainly obvious.

It is possible to draw the conclusion that I would expect you to be suspicious of your fellow employees. That was not my intention. I pointed out that terrorism as a numerically-assessed risk should probably be no more common than any other risk: ". . . the risk of embedded terrorists increases, just as the risk of ordinary injury would increase. This issue should be a statistical factor in any RR's business plan."

Embedding a terrorist for information-gathering would obviously be less-noticeable than if someone was embedded to create havoc. Lord knows, management is good enough at creating havoc already. I do not know whether or not specific data stands out showing railroads at a greater risk. All I am suggesting is for people to think the unthinkable in a way that insurance companies have been forced to do-- by considering risks based upon available information.

And what is available information? Plenty, to anyone. I am not suggesting, however, that the increasing paranoia by authorities toward railfans is any more effective than the possibility of increasing paranoia against rail employees. I think it has the opposite effect.

There is no specific need for anyone to be present from a crew-operated position to cause problems. All it requires is for a person to take advantages of inherent systemwide weaknesses by having insider knowledge. I draw your attention to several posts already on this forum requesting information regarding the electrical cycle on signal current. What good is that information to anyone?

Considering the unthinkable, we could also guess that this forum is a handy tool for anyone seeking to create problems. However, driving away curiosity fails to root out those people who would be spooked by ham-handed crackdowns before they could be caught. As you seem to have already suggested, such paranoia also fails to solve anything or alleviate misconceptions.

I am torn by the fact that you keep pressing me about issues which I could directly address, but which could be detrimental. However, at the risk of drawing suspicion upon myself, I will be very obvious about describing the possibilities.


So this is how I see it. All it requires is for someone to drop a signal using a remote-controlled shunt attached anywhere in a block in front of a Key train, sending it into emergency. Or to white out the dispatcher's screen with intermittent TOLs, bringing a RR division down to restricted speed. It doesn't take a genius to see how a slow-moving train in a remote area would allow someone to board it, or to see potential risk if a train is exposed outside the boundaries of a more-secure metro area.

I am sure that things could be run by DCT, but that isn't the point. The point is for terrorists to create even more-extreme paranoia, and create unreliability and panic in people's minds every time they see a train. Look what happened to the airline industry after 9/11. Lest you assume that computer or GPS satellite systems provide redundancy, I direct you to the systemwide signal outage on CSX due to a computer virus. I also remember how we were told in our friendly employee newsletter that NYC would run out of food in 4 days if the RRs couldn't run, because there weren't enough trucks to make up the difference.

One of the ways I see to combat this is to use encrypted PTS to verify signals, but cost has kept the railroads from implementing it, and security resources are limited.

All terrorists have to do is create an economic disincentive or disruption to one part of the transport system in order to manipulate people's behavior. All it takes is for persistent, catastrophic derailments near populated areas or at strategic traffic choke- points to create problems. This would be an easy way to sway public opinion against the RRs, as a form of public-relations and industrial sabotage.

But the larger purpose served would be to overwhelm an already-burdened infrastructure and create record-deficits (which we have to pay back to foreign lenders). Isn't that happening already? Remember, the way the Cold War was ended was by outspending the Soviet Union. An enemy requires depletion of his opponent's resources in fighting a threat.

For instance, an interview on NPR with a former intellligence insider revealed a story about how the US burst an oil pipeline in the USSR, destabilizing its pressure along its length, by using a trojan horse within oil industry software-code that was stolen from us by the Russians. The economic impact was to reduce the Soviet's ability to exchange oil for grain with other countries, thereby increasing their dependence upon imports of US-financed grain shipments.

The indirect effect of chaos is to increase costs and cause people to lose money or shift business, induce artifical recessions, create trade restrictions and subsequent diplomatic hostilities (witness the port inspection system that the US has mandated for other countries, or VISA backlash from countries such as Brazil), and further restrict law-abiding citizens of the US.

The fact that railroad policies lead to egregious carelessness in the way new hires are treated, is what allows people to slip through the cracks and take advantage of disorganization in an industry that gets rid of its route redundancies and human redundancies quite easily.

[Anonymous]

Lets be clear. I didn't imply you were being paranoid, I said so and I stand by that statement.

Anything is available for a price. How do you think so many terrorists penetrate places?!
People on the inside helped them, they bought fake ID, made copies of keys or bribed people. Look at the Saudi kidnappings, the terrorists drove actual police cars and wore real police uniforms. They got them from sympathizers already in the police service. If somebody wants to blow up a train, they are gonna do it. Pure and simple. Why bother to have "imbedded" terrorists on the train crew? Terrorists plan simple plans. For 9/11 it was necessary for the terrorists to have rudimentary flying skills to aim their missles. No such skills are needed to wreck a train or use a train in mayhem. Look at Madrid. All that took was leaving a bit of unattended luggage on trains in a busy terminal. They didn't try to sabotage the trains or interlockings, that would be too difficult and likely require more work and planning and a much higher likelihood of being caught. The best security for that in the way of background checks is already done by RRs. I still have my old CR photo ID, and I look for that to make a comeback together with other metrics (at least a thumbprint) when new IDs come out.

So why dwell on it. The average freight railroad employee will never see a terrorist. Why? Because that isn't where the action is. Look to the large gatherings of people for targets. Most railroads don't even come close. In the areas they do, security is enhanced. Ever taken a stack train to NJCT? When we did it the cops followed our train in groups of at least 4. I haven't been that way in a while but I doubt that has changed. Cops ride commuter trains now, like never before.

None of this justifies a lack of security or watchfulness, but I find it insulting that you could suggest that I should now be watching my fellow employees to insure they aren't going to blow something up. In any event, everyone is already watching each other as you point out the RR is a CYA environment for many reasons. If someone gets squirrely he'll be picked out FAST.

Insurance increases after 9/11 had nothing to do with increased risk. It had to do with insurance industry issues including competition between insurers and the industry wide denial that terrorism was a real risk coupled with the economic downturn devaluing the insrers asset values and requiring increases in premiums. This is illustrated by the fact that not only RR premiums increased, there were significant increases in virtually every industry. If you believe there is actuarial data showing a specific increase in RR risk where's the data? I'd sure love to see it.

LC

[Anonymous]

First of all, while some may consider it paranoid to question what people do with the knowledge they learn on the RR, it is a well-known fact that railroad keys, equipment, etc. are available for a price.

I had my switch keys stolen from my car after 9/11: included were a Conrail divsionwide key and an old PRR key that could be used to get into switch cabinets. It is certain that these have been fenced through the usual underground of collectors.

Second, I never said that railroaders were not interested in protecting security. In fact, we have seen all sorts of things happen, so everything is CYA and the grapevine travels faster than official circles when it comes to protecting one's job. Everyone is already constantly on edge, but that doesn't necessarily prevent problems. The rumors that Conrail was to be sold off to NS began several years before the final sale.

The fact that everyone is spread too thin is also not something that is an uncommon refrain. We know this. Stories abound, and even if some are not true, the fact that other railroaders tend to believe their own stories is indication that it is too easy to expect the worst. Many times these fears are not unfounded.

So I take offense when it is implied that I am being paranoid, as if this is solely a problem of my imagination. That is obviously an absurd statement in the face of crew room BS. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black don't you think? Yeah, nobody could imagine that people would fly planes into buildings either. Inconceivable paranoia, I guess. The problem is, if it is conceivable, it may very well be considered by a terrorist.

And it is true that turnover is more fluid than people would like to admit. When I was qualifying, the rumors also flew about high dropout rates of new hires in the class ahead of us (50%). The two-tier pay scale was still in place, and it tended to demoralize people when the union was split between newbies and old heads. I believe the problem is a real one.

So the question remains: when newbies come in and out so rapidly that it is difficult to keep from tripping over them, who trains them well to begin with? It isn't the rules instructor with his well-polished lectures that carefully avoid certain topics. We all know that things work differently in the field than in class. So again, a railroader who needs to train a newbie wille eventually explain the subtleties. For example, signal shunting, switch mechanisms, or how electric switchlocks are triggered, how to easily open frozen padlocks without a key-- in brief, how short cuts can be used the sake of expediency when the dispatcher is breathing down your neck-- you will find a railroader giving information over a period of time that is potentially useful.

How is someone supposed to be vigilent if they are asleep in the cab because they are worn out from extra-board turns? Or if their judgment (and certainly their mood) can be recklessly affected by fatigue? Who hasn't seen a TM scream at a crew? Or demand things that don't make sense? How many times has your own brain panicked from being overly or underly-cautious, only to realize later the irrationality of it all? Don't tell me it doesn't happen.

When you don't have a chance to get to know new hires (even if you do), the risk of embedded terrorists increases, just as the risk of ordinary injury would increase. This issue should be a statistical factor in any RR's business plan. Since insurance coverage elevated after 9/11 (in some cases, nearly bankrupting some shortlines), it is apparent the the RR's insurance company has already considered the risk. Are they paranoid if they review a company's safety record on the actuarial expectation of potential attacks?

The fact that terrorists were patient enough and led ordinary lives while being members of sleeper cells was a factor in 9/11, however improbable the conspiracy was. The fact that it was relatively easy for well-educated and trainable, ordinary middle-class terrorists to achieve the hatred of their goals is what bothers me.

[88gta350]

You want to talk about a security risk? Talk about the 200% turnover the Nuclear Security industry is seeing. these people know the ins and outs of defending nuclear plants and they stay for a few months then leave.

[kenneo]

UP's turnover rate is retirement related. Generally, once a person hires out, he stays. I hired out with the SP in 1963 for summer only telegrapher job and stayed for nearly 30 years until my job was sold to a short line.

[Anonymous]

While I don't think all of the labor-management relationships at railroads are all that great, implying that railroad employees don't have concern for the security of their country or even of their railroad is a poor argument at best. Also, your argument that a small group of people is more easily infiltrated flies in the face of logic. Last time I checked most railroads require a good deal of training these days, both classroom and on the job and I don't know about you, but there are darn few people I work with I don't know and have history with. Even in the event I don't know someone, it's a sure thing that one of my close friends does. Sounds like another half baked paranoid idea to me and there are plenty of those around already.

LC

[Anonymous]

A basic question that no one familiar with railroad practices seems to have mentioned:

Does the turnover rate for hiring employees on the Class 1's create a security risk?

With the turnover of new employees at UP approaching 30%-- as some insiders have said-- driving away the loyalty of good employees means that the ones left over either can't or don't want to leave.

There are several reasons, but I think the biggest one is time vested and lack of transferable job skills. Because most T & E are treated as if they have no brains by management, and are worked to the point of exhaustion, there is no reason to expect that employees will be able to readily prevent those who were once in their ranks from using that field knowledge detrimentally.

Without going into great detail, there are unfortunately many ways that people could cause problems, by knowing a few simple bits of information. It worries me as a former railroader, that people could easily infiltrate the railroad employment structures because there is no redundancy built in for the human factor.

A minimum number of people are watching the railroad infrastructure due to reduced crew size (unlike highways), and while efficiency isn't a bad thing, the deficiency of over-capacity and underutilization of human resources is leading to a national security crisis.

Punishing existing employees with testing designed to fail, or an abusive lack of people-skills, is not the way to maintain confidence. Fortunately, most railroaders are dedicated to their craft.

But the equivalent of hiring and overworking temps due to traffic fluctuations, is a recipe for disaster. Defense against terrorism depends on a vigorous economy. This economy has increasingly relied upon railroads to alleviate highway constraints.

If the railroads are not prepared for humane growth, then they are not prepared at all.

What are your thoughts, fellow forum members?