Civil Nuclear Police Authority

[cjp]

Having had some idle moment I went to the Civil Nuclear Police Authority
web site. On the site was

Provide armed escort for movements of nuclear materials

So my question is do trains that move the Flasks about have an on board armed guard (presumably in the cab with the driver)?

 

[thenorthern]

Having had some idle moment I went to the Civil Nuclear Police Authority
web site. On the site was
So my question is do trains that move the Flasks about have an on board armed guard (presumably in the cab with the driver)?

I have never seen an armed guard in the cab although I wouldn't be surprised if there is one.

 

[Trucker Glen]

They do escort the road transport of flasks, I've seen a CNC police car following a truck between Dounreay and Georgemas. This also including guarding the railheads while flasks are being loaded onto trains.

Here is a Google Streetview capture of a train being loaded with armed police at the gate.

 

[6Gman]

There have always been various levels of security for various types of traffic.

For reasons which I would hope are obvious I'm not going into any more details.

But, anyone thinking of doing anything silly around a sensitive train, needs to be aware that the consequences can be serious.

 

[Bertie the bus]

So my question is do trains that move the Flasks about have an on board armed guard (presumably in the cab with the driver)?

Almost certainly not, no. However some movements of nuclear material include 2 DRS carriages which I believe do carry escort personnel.

 

[221129]

There are the two types of Nuke trains, The regular Low Level stuff from Power Stations and then the Other Type which does have the DRS Carriages. The Latter do often contain Escorts but not from the CNC (Civil Nuclear Constabulary)

 

[cf111]

As an aside, the officers are part of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which is overseen by the Civil Nuclear Police Authority.

The trains are very well guarded.

 

[lordbusiness]

I suggest further discussion on an open forum is not a good idea.

 

[najaB]

I suggest further discussion on an open forum is not a good idea.

I agree that specific details such as the number of guards shouldn't be posted, but there is little harm and possibly some benefit in publicising to the 'bad guys' the fact that nuclear trains are not a soft target.

 

[thenorthern]

Its important to note in any case that the flasks themselves are so secure that even in the highly unlikely event that an unauthorised person came into contact with a Flask it would be almost impossible for them to do anything dangerous with it. IIRC the flasks are guaranteed survive being hit by a train, being dropped from height and being in a tunnel fire.

 

[strowger]

There was a hugely entertaining TV programme some years ago in which Mark Thomas ridiculed and made obvious the complete lack of security surrounding some of these train movements.

It's possible that the railways and the nuclear industry now take matters more seriously.

Possible.

 

[cjp]

I agree that specific details such as the number of guards shouldn't be posted, but there is little harm and possibly some benefit in publicising to the 'bad guys' the fact that nuclear trains are not a soft target.

I agree particulary since the presence of such armed guards is suggested on the CNPA's own website.
Any bad guys could do their own research by going out with some binoculars to verify what I asked about from the comfort of my home.

Interesting that this obscure thread prompted a new member

Welcome.

 

[higthomas]

There are people who watch these sort of things carefully, although normally for different reasons.
One interestign lot are Nukewatch who examine the transport by road of nuclear warheads. It seems safe, but is still a little surprising.

 

[6Gman]

There was a hugely entertaining TV programme some years ago in which Mark Thomas ridiculed and made obvious the complete lack of security surrounding some of these train movements.

It's possible that the railways and the nuclear industry now take matters more seriously.

Possible.

I've seen the Mark Thomas report. I doubt it changed anything.

 

[fsmr]

On another note off topic slightly

If anyone fancies an escorted trip around a nuclear power station You can apply online. Its free , very interesting if you are into engineering and you get to meet the Nuclear Police as well as seeing the reactor refuelling rig and steam turbine house
We did a trip combined with going on the channel tunnel in the summer around Dungeness. the day before the crossing

The down side is you need to book well in advance due to the obvious background security checks etc but other than that and a formal interview on site so you need to take ID . I had worked there in the 80s as a contractor so it was quiet funny as when the guide found out prior to the tour she got me to stand up and explain it all LOL Anyway wife and teenage son were quite surprised and impressed by the tour Certainly something different http://www.edfenergy.com/energy/education/visitor-centres

 

[eastdyke]

On another note off topic slightly

If anyone fancies an escorted trip around a nuclear power station You can apply online. Its free , very interesting if you are into engineering and you get to meet the Nuclear Police as well as seeing the reactor refuelling rig and steam turbine house
We did a trip combined with going on the channel tunnel in the summer around Dungeness. the day before the crossing

The down side is you need to book well in advance due to the obvious background security checks etc but other than that and a formal interview on site so you need to take ID . I had worked there in the 80s as a contractor so it was quiet funny as when the guide found out prior to the tour she got me to stand up and explain it all LOL Anyway wife and teenage son were quite surprised and impressed by the tour Certainly something different http://www.edfenergy.com/energy/education/visitor-centres

Yes, back in the day I have toured both Bradwell and Sizewell 'A' (am an old g**). They were both good but I did find Drax better! None of the visits even came close to being as exciting as going 'along the cinder path' on a quiet Sunday.

 

[Bertie the bus]

I suggest further discussion on an open forum is not a good idea.

Would that be because the trains are so secretive?

So secretive that Baker's rail atlas shows the terminals where flasks are loaded and unloaded and Network Rail's own website has publically accessible timetables that include flask trains.

 

[38Cto15E]

Just put some Hereford based security on the trains, that's what I say.

There was a film from 3 or 4 years ago about a train carrying dangerous cargo which was the subject of an armed attack, too many sleeps since then to remember the plot.

 

[kevconnor]

I've seen the Mark Thomas report. I doubt it changed anything.

It hasn't been privatised to G4S quite yet however.

 

[Murph]

There have always been various levels of security for various types of traffic.

For reasons which I would hope are obvious I'm not going into any more details.

But, anyone thinking of doing anything silly around a sensitive train, needs to be aware that the consequences can be serious.

The consequences can be deadly. Anyone thinking of doing something silly should be aware that the long standing policy is "shoot to kill", if you meet the rules of engagement. Armed police and the British military only ever "shoot to kill" when protecting these things, if/when it becomes necessary to open fire, no action film shots to legs or arms to disable and capture, only centre mass with the intent of entirely neutralising the threat. If you are challenged and you desire to keep drawing breath, stopping instantly and fully complying with orders are your only chance at survival.

 

[cjp]

The consequences can be deadly. Anyone thinking of doing something silly should be aware that the long standing policy is "shoot to kill", if you meet the rules of engagement. Armed police and the British military only ever "shoot to kill" when protecting these things, if/when it becomes necessary to open fire, no action film shots to legs or arms to disable and capture, only centre mass with the intent of entirely neutralising the threat. If you are challenged and you desire to keep drawing breath, stopping instantly and fully complying with orders are your only chance at survival.

But to put this possibility in perspective I have not heard of any deaths caused but such events, nor for that matter have I been able to track down any attempts at interference with such trains - unlike the road convoys - a good thing that perhaps is a validiction of the railway procedure.

 

[Carlisle]

It's possible that the railways and the nuclear industry now take matters more seriously.

Possible.

Some types of nuclear flask trains must have carried armed escorts for years as I remebrr seeing them back in about 1991

 

[TheEdge]

There are the two types of Nuke trains, The regular Low Level stuff from Power Stations and then the Other Type which does have the DRS Carriages. The Latter do often contain Escorts but not from the CNC (Civil Nuclear Constabulary)

But I suppose the "Other Type" is a slightly more, weaponised, version of nuclear material!

Some depleted Magnox cells are one thing, a warhead a whole other!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some types of nuclear flask trains must have carried armed escorts for years as I remebrr seeing them back in about 1991

The difference is the type of material. Some, the FNA flasks, carry material for the power industry. The larger (KUA?) wagons are solely for carrying material for the Royal Navy, I think mainly reactor fuel for the subs and are therefore a whole different kettle of fish.

Despite my previous post I don't think weapons are actually carried by train and are carried on the road in convoys.

 

[ainsworth74]

But I suppose the "Other Type" is a slightly more, weaponised, version of nuclear material!

Some depleted Magnox cells are one thing, a warhead a whole other!

Warheads go by road rather than rail.

 

[jopsuk]

In doubt an assembled warhead would ever be transported by rail. Hell, other than in a missile or slung on the belly of a plane a fully assembled warhead won't be transported- far better to transport detonators seperately.

Most of the waste taken by train will be low level. Even making an effective dirty bomb from it would be hard- mostly it won't even be spent fuel.

The trains that do carry the guards, meanwhile... They're not messing around. Best that stuff is kept secure

 

[nottsnurse]

The consequences can be deadly. Anyone thinking of doing something silly should be aware that the long standing policy is "shoot to kill", if you meet the rules of engagement....

"Shoot to kill" isn't a "long standing policy", it's a basic marksmanship principle! When you're trained to shoot you shoot at centre mass, which happens to be where all the soft, delicate bits are. As for the additional "if you meet the rules of engagement", if you don't meet them they wouldn't shoot, "to kill" or otherwise!

...Armed police and the British military only ever "shoot to kill" when protecting these things, if/when it becomes necessary to open fire, no action film shots to legs or arms to disable and capture, only centre mass with the intent of entirely neutralising the threat. If you are challenged and you desire to keep drawing breath, stopping instantly and fully complying with orders are your only chance at survival.

There you go, that first bit you wrote WAS completely pointless, although to be picky, Armed Police and British Military only shoot to kill full stop (not just when guarding nuke convoys) because as you later alluded to, centre mass is the target and "...if you are challenged and you desire to keep drawing breath, stopping instantly and fully complying with orders are your only chance at survival..." is a little dramatic.

The days of 'death lines' in the instant bottled sunshine compounds are gone. The use of armed force has to be proportional to the threat. A bloke walking up to a nuke train to have a look isn't going to get brassed up by a carriage full of Booties (even if they ignored calls to stop). The principles for use of deadly force relate to protection from immediate threats to life (ie: said booties defending themselves) rather than the protection of 'things', regardless of what said 'thing' is.

Having dealt with a few WE177's in my previous career I can tell you they are both bloody heavy in their transit cases and can take a serious kicking without becoming 'unsafe' (watched a few movers unloading one from a VC10 wit out putting the stops up on the non-aircraft facing side of the cargo lifter. Slid straight off and some feet down onto the aircraft pan). No one is going to run off with the far larger MIRVs that are carted about these days without serious lifting equipment and they are very unlikely to damage them in situ in a means that would cause significant issues (well of the kind any likely bad guy would consider worthwhile).

 

[jon91]

There you go, that first bit you wrote WAS completely pointless, although to be picky, Armed Police and British Military only shoot to kill full stop (not just when guarding nuke convoys) because as you later alluded to, centre mass is the target and "...if you are challenged and you desire to keep drawing breath, stopping instantly and fully complying with orders are your only chance at survival..." is a little dramatic.

Aye, what's more likely is that anyone inquisitive and stupid enough to ignore the shouting of an armed escort will quickly find themselves in cuffs, like any other criminal. Only difference being that the guy doing the arrest will have lots of armed friends keeping an eye on the detainee...

 

[Murph]

There you go, that first bit you wrote WAS completely pointless, although to be picky, Armed Police and British Military only shoot to kill full stop (not just when guarding nuke convoys) because as you later alluded to, centre mass is the target and "...if you are challenged and you desire to keep drawing breath, stopping instantly and fully complying with orders are your only chance at survival..." is a little dramatic.

What I posted above is basically the relevant section of the security briefing I was given at one of HM's "prohibited places" back in the cold war days (paraphrased from distant memory). We were very sincerely told to immediately obey any and all orders from the servicemen guarding the perimeter or run a very high risk of 5.56mm ventilation from a SA80, and I have never seen any reason to doubt the sincerity of that warning.

That said, I do agree that doing something silly but not highly terroristy around nuke transports is more likely to involve a lot of shouting, significant bruising, tightly applied cuffs, and a change of underwear. Of course, do something silly on the wrong day, when there has been some sort of other threat or heightened security, etc, and there's still a fair chance of getting shot if you're unlucky. You don't have to actually be a real threat, only perceived as an immediate and sufficiently serious threat by one of the guards.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

"Shoot to kill" isn't a "long standing policy", it's a basic marksmanship principle! When you're trained to shoot you shoot at centre mass, which happens to be where all the soft, delicate bits are

Actually, since 9/11 armed police training has changed. They do not tend to shoot at the torso anymore given the risk of suicide bombers.

 

[thenorthern]

Even if someone detonated a bomb next to one of the containers the risk of nuclear contamination to the general public would be minimal and almost non-existent.

I know the DRS fuel trains always operate with at least 2 locomotives so that if one fails en-route they still have the other one.

I think there was some controversy after Greenpeace or CND found out that the trains were being kept overnight in goods yards or something like that but I can't remember.