Police to take on Railway Security Role - Attempt 2

[Longreach]

Hi all,
They didnt muck around with PORS Zulu then, it was at the Academy the next day.
cheers
Matt

[cartman]

With all the reporting about the terrible assault incident at Strathfield, it is pretty well obvious that there is a "visibility" problem with the 387 police officers .... very rare to see them patrolling suburban trains ie walk throughs, especially away from friday and saturday nights ... clearly not enough numbers to patrol all public transport

http://www.news.com.au/national/commute ... 6809057723

Just for the record the last of the railway transit officers (Blue shirts) finished up in early December (talkgroup 11107)
The folk in white shirts are the 150 transport officers who enforce ticketing matters ... they have no security role (talkgroup 11115) and from my observation travel in numbers greater than 2-3 ... i have always seen four as the minimum
The station "contract security" guards at the larger stations and train stabling yards (talkgroup 11108) still have no authority, beyond asking people to desist from whatever illegal act they are carrying out on railway property and move on, while at the same time reporting the incident to the RMC Security desk (who i understand have had their staffing numbers cut from 25 to 15 ... only 3 per shift instead of 5), who then phone it onto police.

[rustynswrail]

With all the reporting about the terrible assault incident at Strathfield, it is pretty well obvious that there is a "visibility" problem with the 387 police officers .... very rare to see them patrolling suburban trains ie walk throughs, especially away from friday and saturday nights ... clearly not enough numbers to patrol all public transport

http://www.news.com.au/national/commute ... 6809057723
Just for the record the last of the railway transit officers (Blue shirts) finished up in early December (talkgroup 11107)
The folk in white shirts are the 150 transport officers who enforce ticketing matters ... they have no security role (talkgroup 11115) and from my observation travel in numbers greater than 2-3 ... i have always seen four as the minimum
The station "contract security" guards at the larger stations and train stabling yards (talkgroup 11108) still have no authority, beyond asking people to desist from whatever illegal act they are carrying out on railway property and move on, while at the same time reporting the incident to the RMC Security desk (who i understand have had their staffing numbers cut from 25 to 15 ... only 3 per shift instead of 5), who then phone it onto police.

The most idiotic decision made regarding rail security since 1988. And no doubt 25 years into the future someone will say the most idiotic decision made regarding rail security since 2013. Because everything old is new again.

R

[Garry]

and today, the police released this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AASe7irn ... ubs_digest

[cartman]

I forgot to mention the old grml positions (group monitoring locations) ... Centralised into one location ... Down from 96 to 40

[Scotty]

The Transit Police of the 80's had full police powers, but my understanding is only relating to the railways. Just like the old Parking Police they were dispensed because the Government only wanted one 'police force' and not 'quasi' police forces. That decision makes sense when you view it from outside the railways.

The more recent RailCorp Transit Officers were little more than semi-armed security. Anything requiring police intervention (ie: more than issuing a ticket to a compliant person) still required the police, so one has to question their real worth short of revenue protection. In that sense removing the Transit Officers and replacing them with police, revenue protection officers and security guards makes sense.

[rustynswrail]

The Transit Police of the 80's had full police powers, but my understanding is only relating to the railways. Just like the old Parking Police they were dispensed because the Government only wanted one 'police force' and not 'quasi' police forces. That decision makes sense when you view it from outside the railways. The more recent RailCorp Transit Officers were little more than semi-armed security. Anything requiring police intervention (ie: more than issuing a ticket to a compliant person) still required the police, so one has to question their real worth short of revenue protection. In that sense removing the Transit Officers and replacing them with police, revenue protection officers and security guards makes sense.

As one of the "Transit Police" of the 80's we in fact had greater powers than the police of the day. For example, we could stop search and detain any person, vehicle etc without warrant whether on the railway or not simply based on suspicion of it / they about to or having committing an offence against the railway whether that offence was seen by us or not. Something the police could not do at the time.

We could arrest for any offence, but could not investigate death, because we were not agents for the coroner, only the police were. We did get involved in some serious matters, for example numerous significant larceny, robbery whilst armed, serious assaults, and more serious drug offence than I care to remember, I was even involved in the Town Hall Woolworths bombing investigation. The positive aspect of having a dedicated railway police agency (as opposed to state police assigned to transit duties) is that all your primary duties relate to the railway or transit system, therefore you become a specialist in that field and are able to see and detect things that the ordinary police officer doesn't see because they are not aware of it.

Another negative is that state police assigned to transit duties are often pulled from their transit duties to perform non transit policing roles. Thereby leaving the railway or transit systems vulnerable. Public confidence is eroded and everyone suffers, the roads become more congested because commuters will avoid the trains and buses etc. How many on this group would consider going to a social function by bus or train on any Friday or Saturday night throughout Sydney? No many I bet.

The two reasons the state police are policing the transit systems is politics and empire building. Every other excuse is just that an excuse. Around the world in cities and countries where a non dedicated force is assigned to transit policing it has not been as successful as having a railway or transit police force in place. And don't let the statistics rolled out by various administrations fool you. I know from my last roll as a drug investigator on the railway that management only quote those numbers that are favourable to their needs. Governments irrespective of their political colour do the same.

R

[Scotty]

The positive aspect of having a dedicated railway police agency (as opposed to state police assigned to transit duties) is that all your primary duties relate to the railway or transit system, therefore you become a specialist in that field and are able to see and detect things that the ordinary police officer doesn't see because they are not aware of it.

I'm not sure how the new police transport command is different? Their primary duty is the railway and transit system so they become specialists in their field. They don't get given other duties, their role is solely patrolling transit systems. No different to the highway patrol, water police or forensic services - ie, they don't attend to calls outside of their scope of work.

The benefit is they also have access to all other police information and holdings, which means (at least in theory) they are far better equipped with information. They are also full police officers who can also exercise their powers off railway property, allowing them to take action on the entire transport system.

The two reasons the state police are policing the transit systems is politics and empire building. Every other excuse is just that an excuse.

Having a separate railway police force would be considered far more 'empire building' than having the state police force conduct the same role. Where should it end? Bus police, taxi police, ferry police? It may sound a bit sarcastic putting it that way, but why should the railway be different to everything else? It just doesn't make sense in this State to having separate police forces conduct different roles.

As I mentioned earlier, having not been in the railways I see it from a different angle. I'd assume though that you would agree disbanding the Transit Officers was beneficial.

[rustynswrail]

The positive aspect of having a dedicated railway police agency (as opposed to state police assigned to transit duties) is that all your primary duties relate to the railway or transit system, therefore you become a specialist in that field and are able to see and detect things that the ordinary police officer doesn't see because they are not aware of it.

I'm not sure how the new police transport command is different? Their primary duty is the railway and transit system so they become specialists in their field. They don't get given other duties, their role is solely patrolling transit systems. No different to the highway patrol, water police or forensic services - ie, they don't attend to calls outside of their scope of work.

The benefit is they also have access to all other police information and holdings, which means (at least in theory) they are far better equipped with information. They are also full police officers who can also exercise their powers off railway property, allowing them to take action on the entire transport system.

The two reasons the state police are policing the transit systems is politics and empire building. Every other excuse is just that an excuse.

Having a separate railway police force would be considered far more 'empire building' than having the state police force conduct the same role. Where should it end? Bus police, taxi police, ferry police? It may sound a bit sarcastic putting it that way, but why should the railway be different to everything else? It just doesn't make sense in this State to having separate police forces conduct different roles.

As I mentioned earlier, having not been in the railways I see it from a different angle. I'd assume though that you would agree disbanding the Transit Officers was beneficial.

This is my final comment on this and without getting too deep into whys and wherefores. I don't agree disbanding the Transit Officers was beneficial, far from it. And if you honestly believe that PTC officers will not be assigned other duties then so beit. Again previous employment experience tells me otherwise. I have seen it from inside the police and inside the railway and it is not going to work they way it is being sold to the general public. Sarcastic - yes, cynical - yes, realistic - yes.

R

[centralcoastscanman]

The positive aspect of having a dedicated railway police agency (as opposed to state police assigned to transit duties) is that all your primary duties relate to the railway or transit system, therefore you become a specialist in that field and are able to see and detect things that the ordinary police officer doesn't see because they are not aware of it.

I'm not sure how the new police transport command is different? Their primary duty is the railway and transit system so they become specialists in their field. They don't get given other duties, their role is solely patrolling transit systems. No different to the highway patrol, water police or forensic services - ie, they don't attend to calls outside of their scope of work.

The benefit is they also have access to all other police information and holdings, which means (at least in theory) they are far better equipped with information. They are also full police officers who can also exercise their powers off railway property, allowing them to take action on the entire transport system.

The two reasons the state police are policing the transit systems is politics and empire building. Every other excuse is just that an excuse.

Having a separate railway police force would be considered far more 'empire building' than having the state police force conduct the same role. Where should it end? Bus police, taxi police, ferry police? It may sound a bit sarcastic putting it that way, but why should the railway be different to everything else? It just doesn't make sense in this State to having separate police forces conduct different roles.

As I mentioned earlier, having not been in the railways I see it from a different angle. I'd assume though that you would agree disbanding the Transit Officers was beneficial.

This is my final comment on this and without getting too deep into whys and wherefores. I don't agree disbanding the Transit Officers was beneficial, far from it. And if you honestly believe that PTC officers will not be assigned other duties then so beit. Again previous employment experience tells me otherwise. I have seen it from inside the police and inside the railway and it is not going to work they way it is being sold to the general public. Sarcastic - yes, cynical - yes, realistic - yes.

R

It was cost cutting to get rid of the railcorp transits plain and simple, cheaper to disband rather than look at where the problems were if any existed and work on fixing those. That appears to be the hallmark of the current govt, if it seems too hard to fix either disband or privatise it