West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Almost all premises where there are buildings and it is foreseeable that there will be 200 or more people on the site at any time ( including staff and volunteers) will have from around May 2027 have to comply with the Terrorism Protection of Premises Act. Railway stations are specifically in scope ( but not those on the national network) including all car parks, access roads etc. At the 200 plus level the obligations are similar to having a fire response/ evacuation plan but include the requirement for all front facing staff including volunteers to have received annual training in what to do in the event of a terrorism attack . That will not be voluntary so being “in ticket” will be similar to having a current personal track safety certificate for certain roles. The HRA secured confirmation that each station can be calculated separately and not as the Act is written for the numbers to be calculated from one end of a linear railway to the other.
If at any station the number is expected to exceed 800 at any time, such as at a Gala, the obligations are much more onerous. The railway will have to have its terrorism response plans approved in advance by a new Security Industry Authority which will have the power to prevent an event going ahead if it is not satisfied with the security plans.
It’s another example of the growing cost and compliance burden of well intentioned regulation. The HRA will be issuing further guidance for its members but in the meantime the SIA has made clear that it expects organisations affected to be planning now for how they will comply from 2027 onwards.

 

Some useful and fresh guidance from Historic England on this subject ~ Counter-Terrorism Security | Historic England

 

Exactly; 'good intentions' are one of the major illnesses of our age (post the onset of the Industrial Revolution). The old aphorism 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions', and its implications, doesn't seem to be taught (or, at least, not paid attention to) in this age.

In this particular case, the military maxim 'the best defence is a good offense' seems to have been ignored, too. M. André Maginot could tell people the correctness of that one.

Apologies for wandering off topic; you hit one of my hot buttons.

Noel

 

The ramblings of the bureaucratic brain to give even more power to the safety anoraks. Security guards, bag searches, metal detectors , facial recognition, all platform staff to be trained in unarmed combat , there's no end to the fun that can be had. As usual parliament rushes something through in a knee jerk reaction to enable someone else to be blamed. So you can blow up a few people on Alton Station on the NR side but if it happens on the Mid Hants platform its their fault?

With regard to our legal expert's opinion " include the requirement for all front facing staff including volunteers to have received annual training in what to do in the event of a terrorism attack . That will not be voluntary so being “in ticket” will be similar to having a current personal track safety certificate for certain roles." What happens if the volunteer staff every so politely tell you to go away or find some more volunteers? ( As this one would be doing).

 

as you would expect t

 

Not really, it can just be another competence element in your competence management system, same as PTS or rules & signals. Hopefully most people's rostering systems already have their competencies integrated in one way or another, it certainly is on HOPS. One would imagine a few generic light touch courses will pop up as a result of this rather than each railway having to design their own.

As @brennan says though, the biggest challenge will just be getting everyone to do it. I don't think it's so bad for those of us who've been volunteering for some time, (although obviously @brennan disagrees there!) there's an element of drip-feeding us all these new courses we have to do, and also an existing commitment we want to carry on with. I do really worry about how intimidating it can start to look for a prospective new volunteer though, where depending on how draconian you are there's a considerable amount of up front "boring" work to do before you can even start having fun and enjoying your new hobby.

 

I think heritage railways need to consider the struggles of churches, where the requirements for training (and especially online training) are having a significant impact on peoples' willingness to volunteer.

That said, it is also fair to note that some of the reluctance is caused by the way these requirements are communicated, and the expectations of people set. In the church context, I'm reasonably relaxed about Martyn's law because 90%+ of the requirement is about communicating things that people really ought to know anyway. So, while I agree completely with @Lineisclear about the hard line that needs to be taken in extremis, I'm also very clear that the practical implementation should be much less aggressive, and people the "why wouldn't you" angle should be the emphasis. Just as is being done in many churches with safeguarding, despite the big stick also existing (and sometimes needing to be wielded).

 

Unless people have got more used to endless training since I retired in 2012 I found there was much negativity about it (whatever it was) even when people were being paid to do it. It was viewed by most as a box ticking exercise, if online training many would go straight to the test and depending on the "pass rate needed" just leave it there if they achieved it.
I think you are right a fair number of potential volunteers will look a a long list of training requirements, some such as Martyn's Law that many will feel is not really relevant to what they want to do and say "not for me I left all that sort of stuff behind at work".

 

I bristle at some activities and expectations of volunteers but having to be prepped for a once in a life time (if ever) event and effectively becoming a line of defence in the war on terror is several steps beyond what should be asked of volunteers. I dont want to be glib about numbers but there is a massive scale of difference between a steam gala spread out and a large concert at a massive venue.

"Come see our restoration of a railway station to how it was. But first you have to navigate ugly anti terror devices because we named a law after a victim because our security apparatus got caught with their pants down."

 

Which is why that training needs to be kept light touch and clear - and fit in to their existing duties, rather than be "different". One example discussed has been evacuating a station. My view is that, if something major happened at a station, the staff and volunteers at that station would still have to sort things out for the people there - Martyn's Law doesn't so much change that as bring it into sharp focus

 

I agree. But if that terror event happens at their station, they will be on the front line. Just the same as I will be if it happens at my church.

That's not about bollards and other stuff, but it is about how you look after those who are there. And as there are non-terror reasons why that might be needed (anyone seen the footage of the Bradford fire?), some level of awareness and training is sensible.

 

I was out of venue management before it came in. And the capacity was lower than the legal requirement for the law. Im sure there is some genuinely useful stuff buried in there but the pitch has made it sound like paranoia against a shadowy enemy.

 

Some of that pitch is, but the limited briefings I’ve had from a church perspective (and all churches are classified as “medium” under the legislation) leaves me feeling both that it’s a waste of time*, and that the stuff that matters is pretty well motherhood and apple pie.

Where I do expect it to bite is for “large” venues, but after the Manchester arena bombing and the deaths at Brixton Academy, I think those standards do need to rise and this is a vehicle for that. The edge cases, such as a station with two full trains in, need thought but not panicked over.

* - like all <name’s> law legislation, it is not well thought through and the result of emotive campaigning that has led politicians to suspend their disbelief.

 

However, despite NR staff already having training in this area, it is still the case, as far as I know, that there has never been a terrorist attack on a heritage railway, which statistically, makes the probability of one happening to be less than that of a staion being struck by lightning, which is the accepted standard of something so unlikely as to be not worth worrying about. After all, why cause widespread disruption by blowing up a major rail terminus when you can blow up a steam railway station and spoil quite a few people's day out?

I fail to see any good intentions here, only malign ones. When the IRA was operating in mainline Britain, blowing up pubs, shops, city centres, churches, hotels etc., there was not felt to be a need for such training. In any case, it is very much shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Would it not be better for the government to try and concentrate on stopping such things happening in the first place? Moreover, it smacks of blame shifting: your loved ones are dead because people were not trained to deal with a terrorist incident, not because the government has failed in its duty to keep us safe. This seems to be very much designed to spread an unrealistic fear of terrorism together with providing work for "security" contractors.

 

Indeed, which only makes it all the more ridiculous that the measure is being focused on terrorism.

 

Manchester Arena is 23000 cap and Brixton is 5000. I'm not sure what the busiest single day on any of our heritage railways was (different topic I suspect) but 5000 would be a tough one to meet.

Correct.

 

The intent is good. But we know how the road to hell is paved.

The legislation has got legs because the private security at the Manchester Arena was deficient. That was then compounded by the failures of the emergency services. The duty to look after one’s guests* is reasonable. The question, which @Lineisclear has stated that HRA have raised on behalf of the sector, is then of proportion.

My perspective is from a church angle, where my church can take a thousand people for major services. We already take special measures for Christingle (cocktail stick studded oranges carried by small kids wearing flammable outfits definitely feature on our risk register); this is a formalisation of that.

Until recently, we didn’t think places of worship were subject to terrorist attack. Then came Heaton Park. “It'll never happen here” isn’t considered risk management but wishful thinking.

* - we’d do well to reflect on the language of hospitality. It imposes duties on hosts, and one of the basic ones is protecting them from harm.

 

Agreed, which is why I question the proportionality. But as the legal threshold for “large” venues has been set at 800 (including staff), @Lineisclear is not wrong to think there’s a possibility it may be triggered in some circumstances (for reference, 800 is 12.5 fully laden Mk1 TSOs)