7 ms·

Theft will always happen, it'll happen more when it's made easy. The actual issue here is train companies have cut staff down to almost nothing while simultane

Theft will always happen, it'll happen more when it's made easy. The actual issue here is train companies have cut staff down to almost nothing while simultaneously increasing train length to miles and miles. (And they are trying to cut staff even further). A train with 2 miles worth of cargo and 2 people to defend it ends up being SUPER easy for a thief to target and rob. It takes an hour just for someone to figure out what's happening to the train. What's the solution? How about the train companies employ more people, install more cameras, or shorten their trains? Or they can use their insurance to cover the cost of lost goods (as they are almost certainly already doing). Train companies are trying to operate like the dollar general and are putting on surprised pikachu faces when they get robbed like a dollar general store. Almost certainly what they want to happen is the offloading of their security problems onto the public. We the public should not be subsidizing private monopolies because their bad business decisions make them particularly vulnerable to crime. A company that earns 25 billion dollars of revenue a year can afford moving back to older business practices to avoid theft.

Baader-Meinhof 3y ago
I'm not disagreeing with your overall point but this reads a bit like victim blaming. "Those sexy trains were manned so skimpily, and going down those long routes all alone at night, they were just asking for it!"
- huytersd 3y ago
  I think you’re making the exact opposite point you’re trying to make that’s reaching back to skimpily dressed women in a way you don’t intend.
- cogman10 3y ago
  Certainly, because it is. I don't think it's wrong to view companies responsibilities as being different from those of an individual. For example, if a company chooses to ignore a RCE vulnerability in their software for years, are they to blame when that vulnerability is exploited? I'd say absolutely they are.
- morkalork 3y ago
  At the same time, banks and other business take responsibility and pay for armored cars to do pick-ups. They don't just wing it and hope for the best. One question though, what are the laws like surrounding security for trains in the US? In Canada, security employed by rail companies actually have actually been granted all the powers of a police officer by the government.
  - zadokshi 3y ago
    The cost of the losses are likely less than the cost of increased security. If it was more profitable to use “armoured cars” they would be doing it. No company willingly chooses the less profitable option.
- dwater 3y ago
  The railroad companies have their own police forces to protect them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#United_States Your analogy doesn't quite hold up here.
- theamk 3y ago
  Companies are not people. The multi-billion companies should be held responsible for the problems caused by their decisions.
- graemep 3y ago
  That is a stretch. 1. we do expect people to take preventative measures. I think this is more like someone being blamed for a burglary because they left their house unlocked. I have had car insurance policies that excluded theft resulting from leaving the key in the car. 2. Businesses are not individuals.
colpabar 3y ago
I think a good first step would be to repeal the law that allows the federal government to deem a strike by rail workers "illegal" so that those workers can fight for better conditions.
bsder 3y ago
When insurance gets expensive enough, the companies involved will put forth the needed effort to fix this. Until then, this is a no-op.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Can't both insurance and theft be balanced out in accounting terms? In other words, they have to move more freight... but it's after-tax profit neutral for them whether they have a huge amount of theft or a little.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    Definitely. This reminds me of patio11’s assertion that the optimal amount of fraud in a system is not 0 because the marginal price of reducing fraud to 0 is far higher than the amount lost to the hardest to eliminate fraud. The key is to make sure that the costs of eliminating theft are internalized. So as long as the train company reimburses everyone fully then I would imagine they will quickly figure out what the correct level of security is.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  At the scale these corporations operate, does it even make sense to insure against theft? The overhead must be significant and on other side premiums should pretty much always be more than claimed.
  - bsder 3y ago
    I would expect that insurance carriers get involved because the load passes through so many hands. Each "hand" needs their own insurance so that they won't just walk off with the load. However, if it gets expensive enough, I would expect that the parent companies will start to self-insure.
justrealist 3y ago
Why would this fix anything? This is exactly like shoplifting at Target — thieves now know the employees are not allowed to violently engage them, so there's absolutely no deterrent. If you think 4 unarmed railway employees are going to take it upon themselves to defend train cargo against cartel thugs or mentally ill and drugged out looters, you are insane.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  Cameras, shorter trains, more personnel. They all make it more likely that certain details about the thieves' operation are documented; how many people are involved, in what direction they traveled, etc.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Railway police are often certified law enforcement officers with police and arrest powers. And armed.
  - missedthecue 3y ago
    Not having their own courts seems to be a problem though. No one can get convictions anymore.
- mrexroad 3y ago
  My understanding is that Target’s loss prevention forensics team makes some police departments look amateur. Also, the aggregate shoplifting for an individual is “allowed” until the dollar amount crosses the line for it to be considered a felony. At that point, the fat stack of evidence is handed to local DA/PD. The same tech used for tracking your browsing and purchase behaviors also works pretty well for identifying and tracking known shoplifters. I’d wager that going after every instance of misdemeanor theft would be an ineffective use of resources at their scale. With that said, it makes less than zero sense for Target to ask retail employees to risk their lives in order to stop someone stealing a cart full of Tide or pockets full of sonicare replacement heads. Not to mention, the potential for interventions to quickly escalate and become a danger to other shoppers.
- 3y ago
legitster 3y ago
What are more trains and staff going to do? Conductors and engineers aren't going to start tackling thieves on moving trains. The train companies already have their own police forces, but if they can't get convictions in court, all they can do is scare away the least coordinated thieves. So it's hard to understand what security investments are supposed to achieve.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  To expand on the above a bit, retail (and presumably freight rail?) security still has to refer cases through public law enforcement for prosecution. Given limited resources and varying priorities, public law enforcement follow-through can range from helpful to apathetic to non-existent. Even major, national retail chains with clear video evidence of organized theft rings can have issues getting local PD to pursue prosecution. Edit: Courtesy of dwater's note up-thread, railroad police can indeed be empowered by states as law enforcement. Though I expect at some point prosecution still reverts to state/federal authority. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#Jurisdiction_and_authority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#Jurisdiction...
  - linkjuice4all 3y ago
    Sorry but the railroads don't get to hide behind the "we need the cops to fix this" crap. In the US many railroads have their own police force with full arrest and police powers[0]. They can literally throw their own money and bodies at this problem if they really wanted to fix it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#Jurisdiction_and_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#Jurisdiction_a...
    - justrealist 3y ago
      > Sorry but the railroads don't get to hide behind the "we need the cops to fix this" crap. 1. Why should individuals and companies be responsible for their own law enforcement? That's literally the point of government. 2. They still rely on the court system and prosecutors. The railway companies aren't allowed to execute looters on sight.
dmitrygr 3y ago
Maybe you want to live in the world where “theft happens and it is your fault for not providing enough guards” but some of us would much prefer a high trust society. It doesn’t have to be this way.
7thaccount 3y ago
Yeah it's crazy. The John Oliver segment was eye opening about the myriad of issues. At 3 miles long with 1 engineer, they sometimes have to walk miles to the end and then of course back in order to fix something. They frequently block roads and emergency responders for hours sometimes and people die. The trains are essentially ticking time bombs as they commonly carry flammable/toxic/explosive materials with no tracking and they go through towns where the tracks weren't designed for trains of that length. The end of the John Oliver skit has them do their own very dark episode of Thomas the Train that satirizes these issues. Edit: I think there may be 2 staff, but they're trying to change it to 1 and you basically aren't allowed to ever call in sick or else you're fired.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Trains shouldn't have any crew at all. They can't do anything useful when the train is moving now that we have modern automatic train control. (they cannot hit the brakes fast enough to stop if someone is on the tracks). Unlike cars, self driving trains is an easy problem that was solved 20 years ago. If a train brakes down send a mechanic to the train - they only need a couple in every state. They train companies should still have crew, but they should be for use on secondary lines and the crew lives near that line and just works 1 week a month (most of that time doing mandatory training). With a little work on scheduling they can find local farmers looking for a side job when there isn't farming to do.
  - networkchad 3y ago
    I can't tell if this is sarcasm or an actual idea you are proposing.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Serious. Fully automated trains have been aroud for 20 years.
      - 7thaccount 3y ago
wnc3141 3y ago
eventually the cost benefit of insurance will change as thefts increase. Otherwise couldn't trains have better locks?
AlchemistCamp 3y ago
> ” Almost certainly what they want to happen is the offloading of their security problems onto the public. We the public should not be subsidizing private monopolies because their bad business decisions make them particularly vulnerable to crime.” Law enforcement is the state’s job, and companies do pay taxes. Blithely ignoring train robberies on the premise that if it gets bad enough, the company will hire private armed forces won’t lead to the kinds of societal changes you’re hoping for. The kinds of theft happening in LA on a regular basis are essentially unheard of in places like Japan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong or Taiwan. Any such occurrence would be shocking news and police would be all over it.
- throwup238 3y ago
  The railroads have a unique security arrangement with the state and law enforcement is their responsibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#United_States
  - AlchemistCamp 3y ago
    It’s an interesting division, and the wiki rabbit hole is fascinating. It doesn’t appear the system has been very effective in recent years, compared to other approaches internationally, unfortunately.
    - throwup238 3y ago
      According to [1] there's fewer than 2,300 railroad police officers in North America now (under 1,000 in the US) compared to 9,000 in the mid-1940s. How much of that is the switch to cars and how much is reduction in work force is unclear but today's number does include the East coast Amtrak security which sees a ton of ridership and there is much more freight these days. It doesn't seem like they hire enough people. [1] https://www.therailroadpolice.com/history https://www.therailroadpolice.com/history
      - 4d4m 3y ago
tejtm 3y ago
bull. no, not like that. (old hobo "bull" "yard bull") private corporate police. not convinced re-normalizing that is a good idea. Come to think of it, that may be why this behavior is being encouraged. "the people" insisted we militarilized to protect their stuff. I am off to ground my tinfoil hat now.
ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
John Oliver did a segment on trains[0]. He noted that rail companies are actively trying to lengthen trains, and reduce the staff to 1. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ2keSJzYyY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ2keSJzYyY
coliveira 3y ago
This is a problem in other areas too. I believe a lot of the current theft on big box stores comes to very few workers on each store. Once people realize it is very easy to pick anything without any worker even seeing it, part of society starts to think of theft as an easy possibility.

Baader-Meinhof 3y ago

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point but this reads a bit like victim blaming. "Those sexy trains were manned so skimpily, and going down those long routes all alone at night, they were just asking for it!"

huytersd 3y ago
I think you’re making the exact opposite point you’re trying to make that’s reaching back to skimpily dressed women in a way you don’t intend.
cogman10 3y ago
Certainly, because it is. I don't think it's wrong to view companies responsibilities as being different from those of an individual. For example, if a company chooses to ignore a RCE vulnerability in their software for years, are they to blame when that vulnerability is exploited? I'd say absolutely they are.
morkalork 3y ago
At the same time, banks and other business take responsibility and pay for armored cars to do pick-ups. They don't just wing it and hope for the best. One question though, what are the laws like surrounding security for trains in the US? In Canada, security employed by rail companies actually have actually been granted all the powers of a police officer by the government.
- zadokshi 3y ago
  The cost of the losses are likely less than the cost of increased security. If it was more profitable to use “armoured cars” they would be doing it. No company willingly chooses the less profitable option.
dwater 3y ago
The railroad companies have their own police forces to protect them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#United_States Your analogy doesn't quite hold up here.
theamk 3y ago
Companies are not people. The multi-billion companies should be held responsible for the problems caused by their decisions.
graemep 3y ago
That is a stretch. 1. we do expect people to take preventative measures. I think this is more like someone being blamed for a burglary because they left their house unlocked. I have had car insurance policies that excluded theft resulting from leaving the key in the car. 2. Businesses are not individuals.

colpabar 3y ago

I think a good first step would be to repeal the law that allows the federal government to deem a strike by rail workers "illegal" so that those workers can fight for better conditions.

bsder 3y ago

When insurance gets expensive enough, the companies involved will put forth the needed effort to fix this. Until then, this is a no-op.

ethbr1 3y ago
Can't both insurance and theft be balanced out in accounting terms? In other words, they have to move more freight... but it's after-tax profit neutral for them whether they have a huge amount of theft or a little.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  Definitely. This reminds me of patio11’s assertion that the optimal amount of fraud in a system is not 0 because the marginal price of reducing fraud to 0 is far higher than the amount lost to the hardest to eliminate fraud. The key is to make sure that the costs of eliminating theft are internalized. So as long as the train company reimburses everyone fully then I would imagine they will quickly figure out what the correct level of security is.
Ekaros 3y ago
At the scale these corporations operate, does it even make sense to insure against theft? The overhead must be significant and on other side premiums should pretty much always be more than claimed.
- bsder 3y ago
  I would expect that insurance carriers get involved because the load passes through so many hands. Each "hand" needs their own insurance so that they won't just walk off with the load. However, if it gets expensive enough, I would expect that the parent companies will start to self-insure.

justrealist 3y ago

Why would this fix anything? This is exactly like shoplifting at Target — thieves now know the employees are not allowed to violently engage them, so there's absolutely no deterrent. If you think 4 unarmed railway employees are going to take it upon themselves to defend train cargo against cartel thugs or mentally ill and drugged out looters, you are insane.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
Cameras, shorter trains, more personnel. They all make it more likely that certain details about the thieves' operation are documented; how many people are involved, in what direction they traveled, etc.
SoftTalker 3y ago
Railway police are often certified law enforcement officers with police and arrest powers. And armed.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  Not having their own courts seems to be a problem though. No one can get convictions anymore.
mrexroad 3y ago
My understanding is that Target’s loss prevention forensics team makes some police departments look amateur. Also, the aggregate shoplifting for an individual is “allowed” until the dollar amount crosses the line for it to be considered a felony. At that point, the fat stack of evidence is handed to local DA/PD. The same tech used for tracking your browsing and purchase behaviors also works pretty well for identifying and tracking known shoplifters. I’d wager that going after every instance of misdemeanor theft would be an ineffective use of resources at their scale. With that said, it makes less than zero sense for Target to ask retail employees to risk their lives in order to stop someone stealing a cart full of Tide or pockets full of sonicare replacement heads. Not to mention, the potential for interventions to quickly escalate and become a danger to other shoppers.
3y ago

legitster 3y ago

What are more trains and staff going to do? Conductors and engineers aren't going to start tackling thieves on moving trains. The train companies already have their own police forces, but if they can't get convictions in court, all they can do is scare away the least coordinated thieves. So it's hard to understand what security investments are supposed to achieve.

ethbr1 3y ago
To expand on the above a bit, retail (and presumably freight rail?) security still has to refer cases through public law enforcement for prosecution. Given limited resources and varying priorities, public law enforcement follow-through can range from helpful to apathetic to non-existent. Even major, national retail chains with clear video evidence of organized theft rings can have issues getting local PD to pursue prosecution. Edit: Courtesy of dwater's note up-thread, railroad police can indeed be empowered by states as law enforcement. Though I expect at some point prosecution still reverts to state/federal authority. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#Jurisdiction_and_authority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#Jurisdiction...
- linkjuice4all 3y ago
  Sorry but the railroads don't get to hide behind the "we need the cops to fix this" crap. In the US many railroads have their own police force with full arrest and police powers[0]. They can literally throw their own money and bodies at this problem if they really wanted to fix it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#Jurisdiction_and_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#Jurisdiction_a...
  - justrealist 3y ago
    > Sorry but the railroads don't get to hide behind the "we need the cops to fix this" crap. 1. Why should individuals and companies be responsible for their own law enforcement? That's literally the point of government. 2. They still rely on the court system and prosecutors. The railway companies aren't allowed to execute looters on sight.

dmitrygr 3y ago

Maybe you want to live in the world where “theft happens and it is your fault for not providing enough guards” but some of us would much prefer a high trust society. It doesn’t have to be this way.

7thaccount 3y ago

Yeah it's crazy. The John Oliver segment was eye opening about the myriad of issues. At 3 miles long with 1 engineer, they sometimes have to walk miles to the end and then of course back in order to fix something. They frequently block roads and emergency responders for hours sometimes and people die. The trains are essentially ticking time bombs as they commonly carry flammable/toxic/explosive materials with no tracking and they go through towns where the tracks weren't designed for trains of that length. The end of the John Oliver skit has them do their own very dark episode of Thomas the Train that satirizes these issues. Edit: I think there may be 2 staff, but they're trying to change it to 1 and you basically aren't allowed to ever call in sick or else you're fired.

bluGill 3y ago
Trains shouldn't have any crew at all. They can't do anything useful when the train is moving now that we have modern automatic train control. (they cannot hit the brakes fast enough to stop if someone is on the tracks). Unlike cars, self driving trains is an easy problem that was solved 20 years ago. If a train brakes down send a mechanic to the train - they only need a couple in every state. They train companies should still have crew, but they should be for use on secondary lines and the crew lives near that line and just works 1 week a month (most of that time doing mandatory training). With a little work on scheduling they can find local farmers looking for a side job when there isn't farming to do.
- networkchad 3y ago
  I can't tell if this is sarcasm or an actual idea you are proposing.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Serious. Fully automated trains have been aroud for 20 years.
    - 7thaccount 3y ago

wnc3141 3y ago

eventually the cost benefit of insurance will change as thefts increase. Otherwise couldn't trains have better locks?

AlchemistCamp 3y ago

> ” Almost certainly what they want to happen is the offloading of their security problems onto the public. We the public should not be subsidizing private monopolies because their bad business decisions make them particularly vulnerable to crime.” Law enforcement is the state’s job, and companies do pay taxes. Blithely ignoring train robberies on the premise that if it gets bad enough, the company will hire private armed forces won’t lead to the kinds of societal changes you’re hoping for. The kinds of theft happening in LA on a regular basis are essentially unheard of in places like Japan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong or Taiwan. Any such occurrence would be shocking news and police would be all over it.

throwup238 3y ago
The railroads have a unique security arrangement with the state and law enforcement is their responsibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#United_States
- AlchemistCamp 3y ago
  It’s an interesting division, and the wiki rabbit hole is fascinating. It doesn’t appear the system has been very effective in recent years, compared to other approaches internationally, unfortunately.
  - throwup238 3y ago
    According to [1] there's fewer than 2,300 railroad police officers in North America now (under 1,000 in the US) compared to 9,000 in the mid-1940s. How much of that is the switch to cars and how much is reduction in work force is unclear but today's number does include the East coast Amtrak security which sees a ton of ridership and there is much more freight these days. It doesn't seem like they hire enough people. [1] https://www.therailroadpolice.com/history https://www.therailroadpolice.com/history
    - 4d4m 3y ago

tejtm 3y ago

bull. no, not like that. (old hobo "bull" "yard bull") private corporate police. not convinced re-normalizing that is a good idea. Come to think of it, that may be why this behavior is being encouraged. "the people" insisted we militarilized to protect their stuff. I am off to ground my tinfoil hat now.

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago

John Oliver did a segment on trains[0]. He noted that rail companies are actively trying to lengthen trains, and reduce the staff to 1. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ2keSJzYyY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ2keSJzYyY

coliveira 3y ago

This is a problem in other areas too. I believe a lot of the current theft on big box stores comes to very few workers on each store. Once people realize it is very easy to pick anything without any worker even seeing it, part of society starts to think of theft as an easy possibility.