Trains could be bomb proofed

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From the Scotsman

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/trains-could-be-bomb-proofed-say-engineers-1-2751706

TRAIN carriages could be bomb-proofed to prevent a repeat of the carnage left by the London Underground terrorist attacks.

British engineers have developed blast-resilient rolling stock after drawing on lessons learned from the July 7, 2005 suicide bombings.

[snip]

^A bomb on a train is always going to be devastating but what we are trying to do is find a way in which the vehicle itself can help to mitigate the impact of an attack.

^These are all low-cost, simple solutions that can be put on existing trains which could not only save lives but also reduce the attractiveness of our railways for potential terrorist attacks.^

also reported elsewhere.

Interesting to compare the heading - "Trains could be bomb proofed" with the text - "A bomb on a train is always going to be devastating".  How far should we go / expenditure (that could make a service unviable) v safety against terrorist attacks?

[thetrout]

Sorry to sound completely callous here, not my intention at all. But prior to July 2005. When was the last terrorist attack on a moving or stationary Rail Vehicle in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)?

Since July 2005 how many terrorist attacks have there been on a moving or stationary Rail Vehicle in the UK?

Whilst I am not suggesting by any means that the actions of July 2005 where a one off or should be put down to bad luck. But compare the terrorism incidents against rail accidents or crashes (Hatfield, Ufton Nervert and Great Heck) to name a few... Perhaps that might be a better area in which to look at improving safety?

My personal view on terrorism is that aviation is a much bigger target for a terrorist...

[stebbo]

I would agree that overground trains are not such a likely target but I think the Underground (or any similar high density metro system) is a target - especially in rush hour - as you get lots of people in a confined space underground so the ability to cause carnage is much greater.

[eightf48544]

Another factor to consider in the list of reasons for not doing this is, if a bomb does unfortunately go off on a train it is still going to cause chaos.

[grahame]

Video report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21156908

[TonyK]

Having seen the video report, and having a very limited experience of working with explosives (long time ago in a mine), I would not like to be in a carriage where the blast was contained. I would prefer it if I were in the next carriage, but all those windows blowing outwards are letting the energy dissipate. Wouldn't reinforcing the carriage concentrate the blast with in the carriage, affecting more people than would be the case otherwise? If a bomb is set off randomly, there is a very small likelihood of it being done in a station, although if the bomber intends to go up with it, it would probably... let's not talk about that.

The best defence against this is vigilance without paranoia. Of the 60 million or so people in England and Wales, the number who would dream of doing such a thing is vanishingly small. Whether action is justified is a matter for informed debate here and in other circles, political and academic. New trains will be constructed with any positive results in mind, but un-bomb-proofed trains will be with us for decades.

[trainer]

It seems to me that the best way to spend scarce resources when it comes to safety from outrages of this sort is on general counter-terrorism measures and intelligence, not expensive rail projects. I very much like FTN's expression: 'vigilance without paranoia'. 

[Phil]

I have to say, I personally feel a far more potentially devastating terrorist target than a moving train would be to bomb a station (in terms of potential lives lost) or blow up infrastructure as a train or trains pass by (in terms of disruption).

We're all too aware of the mayhem a single person on the line can cause at Hayes & Harlington, for example. I daren't even imagine the lasting disruption to services that even a small explosion might cause there. Or consider what might happen if the Maidenhead bridge was lost. Or indeed any number of other potential "single points of failure". I can't see that spending money on bomb-proofing the interior of train carriages can be money well spent by any stretch of the imagination.

[TonyK]

I very much like FTN's expression: 'vigilance without paranoia'. 

Thanks, Trainer. I was thinking of putting on the family crest, but mixing Latin and Greek brings bad luck, I'm told (although "television"?).

[paul7575]

... I can't see that spending money on bomb-proofing the interior of train carriages can be money well spent by any stretch of the imagination.

I think they were implying that there were a few things that could be done at very little cost when building a new carriage, so the medium term idea might be just to adopt slightly different specifications for new builds or major overhauls.  Some proposals will probably be equally valid for accidental damage anyway.

Paul

[Chris from Nailsea]

I personally share these doubts that trains can realistically be made 'bomb-proof'.

And it's not just trains that can be targeted by terrorists: it was a waiting room at Bologna in 1980.

[JayMac]

You can use all the engineering solutions in the world to make a rail carriage bomb-proof, but you will never make the human body bomb-proof.