Should the railway set up its own security company?

[Bletchleyite]

All the time we see comments about the poor conduct and professionalism of contract security guards on the railway, and yet these companies no doubt make a fat profit out of this incompetence. And at the same time, the BTP are unable to attend a lot of calls, many of which are just about removing someone from railway premises rather than anything specifically policing-related.

Therefore, as DB did years ago, should the railway set up its own contract security operation, allowing for better trained staff, staff in locations where (a bit like the National Highways Traffic Officers) they can cover some of the BTP's role at a lower cost yet more effectively, and yet a lower cost too?

 

[Grumpy Git]

It’ll never happen.

All big business loves to contract-out as much as possible. No problem ‘getting-rid’ then when it suits them, plus other ‘perks’, but we won’t go into that!

 

[Ivor]

Should the railway set up its own contract security operation, allowing for better trained staff, staff in locations where (a bit like the National Highways Traffic Officers) they can cover some of the BTP's role at a lower cost yet more effectively, and yet a lower cost too?

Yes I agree considering the response times or if at all of the BTP & local police (currently being discussed on another thread)

I have found Network Rail’s Land Sheriffs very good in my experience but seem only to show a presence where ongoing issues or special projects, I’m not even sure how their work is allocated & they are not seen a great deal around the network.

Not sure the TOCs will invest though in their own security companies.

 

[dosxuk]

How would

its own contract security operation

solve the problem of

poor conduct and professionalism of contract security guards

?

The existing contracts can be set up any way the railway wants (providing they're willing to pay for it) - if they wanted minimum standards of professionalism, or to have a robust disciplinary procedure with their oversight, they could do it by changing the terms of their contacts with the suppliers.

 

[pdeaves]

I have found Network Rail’s Land Sheriffs very good in my experience but seem only to show a presence where ongoing issues or special projects, I’m not even sure how their work is allocated & they are not seen a great deal around the network.

Land Sheriffs is a contracted-in company, not NR's own, as far as I can tell.

 

[Irascible]

Who actually pays for the BTP?

 

[Halifaxlad]

TOC's could just hire a decent company!

Does the railway even need them anyway ?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Who actually pays for the BTP?

Basically Network Rail and the TOCs. (Yes, I know that there are other bits, like London Underground and so on.)

On the general subject, the Trespass & Welfare Officers on South Western Railway wear Network Rail-branded tabards and enforce rules such as the photography ban as noted in another recent thread.

So, as I understand it, 'The Railway' already has its own security staff, at least in some areas.

 

[Hadders]

Sounds attractive but who's going to pay for it?

To have a better response you need more staff. They cost money, and lots of it.
Better trained staff means more training which costs money.
If you take the operation in house there will be a call for better T&Cs, better pay, more holiday, enhanced sick pay, staff travel. I'm not saying that's bad but where is the money coming from?

The railway is short of money. It won't happen.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Better trained staff means more training which costs money.

It's not the training, it's the people.

That industry is full of people who are incapable of doing their jobs!

A lot of good ones too but as for TOCs obviously they just arn't bothered who they employ as most of these contracts were done to meet franchise agreements with the DFT!

 

[Irascible]

Basically Network Rail and the TOCs. (Yes, I know that there are other bits, like London Underground and so on.)

So rather than duplicating the BTP in an agency with no concept of a warrant, there needs to be a little more accountability to it's sources of funding, perhaps.

 

[Gloster]

My personal opinion on this is that taking security in house and so having control over recruitment, training, deployment, discipline, etc., would probably cost more, but there would be the potential for a more effective operation. However, as cost seems to the main consideration in this area, it probably would end up as the worst of both worlds: unavoidably costing more but not spending that little bit extra that would produce a good result. And of course, as soon as there is an economy drive it will all race back to the bottom.

 

[zwk500]

It partly depends what you expect these security guards to be doing - preventing vandalism is a very different task to preventing suicides which is different again from securing operational sites like depots.

I personally don't see the value here for the railway. It can specify minimum standards of training and so forth when contracting out at the moment, and out-sourcing allows the railway to be flexible with providers, including dropping a company if it repeatedly falls short. Yes the contractor will make a small profit on the job, but that's how the world runs. The railway is already arguably too large an organisation, taking security in house as well isn't going to help matters.

 

[Backroom_boy]

I've recently seen security guards with Tfl branding on I think the tube (or Elizabeth line, or Overground) probably private contractors but with the tfl corporate look.