Cable Thefts, can anything be done?

[John R]

If we can have batteries to power trains, could we have solar panels and batteries to provide signalling and point motor power? I would have thought LED signals are relatively low users of power in comparison to the older type.

 

[LMS 4F]

The fact is that the thief will want to convert the copper into money. The place todo this is of course the scrap metal dealer.
Many years ago where I worked the local Task Force had as part of their regular duties visiting the dealers and making sure they complied with the legislation.
I have no knowledge but I suspect this is no longer the case.
Perhaps something the BTP could take on in areas where this is a particular issue.

 

[D1511]

If we can have batteries to power trains, could we have solar panels and batteries to provide signalling and point motor power? I would have thought LED signals are relatively low users of power in comparison to the older type.

@John Webb mentioned up thread 100V AC for LED signals, so that sounds entirely possible. Even if we stuck with hard wiring, the cable needed to provide 100V AC even with a high current wouldn't be worth nicking.....it wouldn't need to be much more than a cooker cable.

 

[JamesT]

What, really? But that must be really low power?

https://ausoptic.com.au/mhgp-ppm-photonic-power-modules.html appears to be one for sale off the shelf.

The PPM provides up to 20W of optical power output

Basically you’ve got a specialised solar panel to turn the laser back into electricity. Obviously it has limitations, but if you have applications that fit within that kind of power budget then it’s worth considering. If you can take more copper cable out of the system then it’s making it less and less attractive for the thieves.

 

[Skeletor]

And then you get cut cables the next time a project comes along that requires digging. Even with cable markers and CAT scans before breaking ground things go wrong, and best cast scenario it’s a nightmare to find the owner of a cable and prove it’s redundant, worst case you’ve got a cut cable in a hole holding up a job and affecting services.

Correct.

Which is why it isn’t practical. There’s unfortunately always going to be theft.

The justice system has to up the punishments for being caught. Tampering with national infrastructure should carry lengthy jail terms.

 

[styles]

Correct.

Which is why it isn’t practical. There’s unfortunately always going to be theft.

The justice system has to up the punishments for being caught. Tampering with national infrastructure should carry lengthy jail terms.

Interfering with 'Critical National Infrastructure' does attract hefty penalties.

But the CPS does actually need proof before they authorise charging for it. If these blokes were done for conspiracy to commit theft, it suggests there wasn't sufficient evidence to chance for theft, so charging for interfering with CNI is also going to be out of the question. They'd need DNA, CCTV, or something to prove that they actually swiped the cables. It's obviously incredibly likely, but the threshold for a success prosecution in a criminal case in the UK is much higher than that.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What's also frustrating is that the true value will never be recovered, because it was never realised. The people selling this metal will have got nowhere near the £1m value of the cabling, because it'll be melted into a lower value product, and of course selling stolen cable usually means going to some underhand metal merchant who won't even pay the going rate.

Add to this the non-material cost of having cables stolen as you allude to, and I'd be surprised if this lot even gained 10% of what it cost Network Rail in having it nicked. Even if they were given a court order to repay the true cost to Network Rail, they wouldn't have the funds to pay it, so it's all just gone.

But on the other side, if they did have a court order to repay the true cost of their theft to Network Rail, with deductions being made from their wages or anything else they earn for as long as it takes to repay the cost, even if it takes the rest of their lives, and it is very well publicised that this is what has happened to those people, that could at least serve as something of a deterrent to others...

 

[D1511]

Interfering with 'Critical National Infrastructure' does attract hefty penalties.

But the CPS does actually need proof before they authorise charging for it. If these blokes were done for conspiracy to commit theft, it suggests there wasn't sufficient evidence to chance for theft, so charging for interfering with CNI is also going to be out of the question. They'd need DNA, CCTV, or something to prove that they actually swiped the cables. It's obviously incredibly likely, but the threshold for a success prosecution in a criminal case in the UK is much higher than that.

It sounds then like it has to be a case of better surveillance to make sure the charges will stick. CCTV and other HD and IR cameras combined with drones might be the way forward, with drones doing most of the rural observations. Once BVLOS restrictions are lifted, you could have remotely piloted drones patrolling long sections of route, and remote recharging is also now an option so no need to return to base. You could also have your traditional blokes in a van with a drone in a box solution to deploy in the field as required.

I think I'll put a proposal together for NR

 

[styles]

But on the other side, if they did have a court order to repay the true cost of their theft to Network Rail, with deductions being made from their wages or anything else they earn for as long as it takes to repay the cost, even if it takes the rest of their lives, and it is very well publicised that this is what has happened to those people, that could at least serve as something of a deterrent to others...

Yeah I think the courts fine themselves between a rock a hard place.

They want to issue a sentence which befits the impact of the crime committed.

But at the same time, if somebody has no assets or steady income, giving an order which effectively bankrupts them only serves to increase the homeless population. That's not good for society either.

A custodial sentence is an option for conspiracy to commit criminal damage though, so I'm not sure why this wasn't exercised as I'd argue the custody threshold had been met. Potentially the court felt that a community order would serve as genuine rehabilitation. Plausible.. I guess?

 

[Trainbike46]

Yeah I think the courts fine themselves between a rock a hard place.

They want to issue a sentence which befits the impact of the crime committed.

But at the same time, if somebody has no assets or steady income, giving an order which effectively bankrupts them only serves to increase the homeless population. That's not good for society either.

A custodial sentence is an option for conspiracy to commit criminal damage though, so I'm not sure why this wasn't exercised as I'd argue the custody threshold had been met. Potentially the court felt that a community order would serve as genuine rehabilitation. Plausible.. I guess?

The case referenced in the BBC involved custodial sentence for most defendants, the longest one exceeding 4 years

 

[styles]

The case referenced in the BBC involved custodial sentence for most defendants, the longest one exceeding 4 years

Ah yes sorry I've gone a bit off course and also confused two different cases. In the case of the ULEZ bladerunners, they were found guilty but while one was given an order to repay costs to TfL, it seems the other got away without a financial order and without custodial. Which seems wild to me. In fact without such a penalty, I'd be surprised if he wasn't out the same week torching cameras.

If the cable thieves here got custodial of up to 4 years, that seems pretty reasonable to me. The £1m+ it cost Network Rail won't be recoverable as they won't have made £1m on the scrap sale.

 

[Bald Rick]

If a just stop oil protester can receive 5 years in prison for climbing onto a motorway gantry, surely cable thieves can get similar sentences?

Typically you need to catch the thieves in the act, with the tools, on railway property. Otherwise they ‘just found it’, or are ‘just out for a walk’ (with bolt croppers?).

BTP often know who is doing it, but want to catch them fully pants down in order to succeed in prosecution and get the highest penalties. When I learned that BTP knew who the culprits were for a spate of thefts on my patch a long time ago, I did offer to the local BTP inspector (who later rose to be very senior in the force) that I would lend him some of my orange army, all of whom were somewhat aggrieved about being called out night after night to make repairs to cables being cut / damaged / stolen, and wanted to right a few wrongs. The inspector concerned gave me a look that made my heart stop and informed me that under no circumstances would such action be considered.

I note the ringleader got a decent sentence of 4 1/2 years, but the accomplices got about a year each, so they'll be out after 6/7 months to spend all the cash they made flogging copper. If everyone involved got three years at least, then it becomes a deterrent. It's not just theft, it's disruption of vital national infrastructure and should have specific jail tariffs defined.

What you and I, as well adjusted people*, think of as a deterrent simply does not apply to some people. A week, a month, 20 years - if you think you won’t be caught it’s irrelevant.

*I’m sure you are well adjusted, Sir; I was perhaps being somewhat assumptive on my own part.

 

[Magdalia]

What you and I, as well adjusted people*, think of as a deterrent simply does not apply to some people. A week, a month, 20 years - if you think you won’t be caught it’s irrelevant.

Norman Stanley Fletcher, you have pleaded guilty to the charges brought by this court and it is now my duty to pass sentence. You are an habitual criminal who accepts arrest as an occupational hazard and presumably accepts imprisonment in the same casual manner.

 

[styles]

And what did Fletcher do when he got out?

Straight onto a train and into trouble muling.

 

[thenorthern]

On thing to rememebr is that metal theft is a lot less common than it was 10/20 years ago. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 reduced metal thefts a lot as for the first time it wasn't possible for scrap dealers to pay for scrap metal in cash.

 

[norbitonflyer]

On thing to rememebr is that metal theft is a lot less common than it was 10/20 years ago. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 reduced metal thefts a lot as for the first time it wasn't possible for scrap dealers to pay for scrap metal in cash.

It's always possible - but it is no longer legal. Doesn't mean it doesn't still happen. (Or it is fenced by someone who is not a licenced dealer will sell it to one)

 

[Trainbike46]

Typically you need to catch the thieves in the act, with the tools, on railway property.

There can be a tension between preventing disruption (by catching people early, before damage has been done to railway infrastructure), and getting people convicted. What decisions get made then depends on the priorities, among other things.

This is why a conspiracy charge is ideal, if the evidence can be secured. There is no need for the damage or theft to have actually happened, so arrests before the disruption are possible.

Otherwise they ‘just found it’, or are ‘just out for a walk’ (with bolt croppers?).

Having seen examples from places where the required standard of evidence is lower, I think it is good the UK still insist on a very high standard of evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) for criminal cases, and I would oppose any proposals to reduce that.

 

[Bungle]

Must say, the advertising algorithm is working very well on this page!

(Attached screenshot shows an advert from immediately below this thread for a cable supplier with an image of a multitude of cut cables showing their cross-section and a large “Save 50% on surplus cables” message)

 

[Trainman40083]

If we can have batteries to power trains, could we have solar panels and batteries to provide signalling and point motor power? I would have thought LED signals are relatively low users of power in comparison to the older type.

There are already batteries used for point motor power.. To give some extra ooomph. Used to be Nicad and Cyclon cells.

 

[ainsworth74]

A week, a month, 20 years - if you think you won’t be caught it’s irrelevant.

This is something I witter on about from time to time. People go on about how sentences "aren't tough enough" and how we're "soft on crime", etc etc. In reality though you could make the sentences for various crimes very harsh (lets say a mandatory 20 years for bike theft, 30 years for cable theft, etc etc) but if people don't think they'll be caught it isn't going to deter anyone. Sentencing reform no doubt has a place in some of the way that our criminal justice system works but it's not the root of all our problems.

I do think some sentences seem light whilst others are so short that they seem more geared to making sure someone is dislocated enough from their life to cause them serious issues (loss of housing, jobs, family, partners, etc) but not long enough to actually enable them to undergo any kind of rehabilitation (assuming our overcrowded and underfund prison estate is capable of providing rehabilitation). This of course helps trap them in cycles that no doubt help contribute to even more crime. Equally we have a problem with a hardcore of repeat offenders who just seem to float from one sentence to another whilst making life miserable for all they come in contact with.

However, if the police are unable to catch people, and when they do catch them it takes years for cases to be heard, the forensics are slipshod and rushed, the prosecution are overworked and under resourced then the odds of them ever facing the actual sentences proscribed are slim. And those that are caught are therefore often the "unlucky" few. We need to start actually getting the police side of the equation working again first and then getting the prison estate up to scratch so they're not just pure warehouses.

But, that's expensive and difficult. Far easier (and better headlines) to just witter on about how we'll make the sentence for this, that, and the other "tougher" and so we'll "crackdown" on whatever is agitating people this week.

 

[Deepgreen]

No they'll lay sections of cable over the track and the wheels will cut it quite easily. Not sure how common it is but I've heard about being done, presumably by slightly less prepared gangs! It's in the dark as obviously if a driver saw a cable on the line they'd throw in the emergency brake but in the dark, particularly with older trains with poor headlights, they might not even notice anything untoward.

Wow - I hadn't even considered that! Thanks.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Sep 2025 ==

There are already batteries used for point motor power.. To give some extra ooomph. Used to be Nicad and Cyclon cells.

Yes, but to move a set of points is not a small power job - they weigh a huge amount, even sliding on greased bases.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Sep 2025 ==

This is something I witter on about from time to time. People go on about how sentences "aren't tough enough" and how we're "soft on crime", etc etc. In reality though you could make the sentences for various crimes very harsh (lets say a mandatory 20 years for bike theft, 30 years for cable theft, etc etc) but if people don't think they'll be caught it isn't going to deter anyone. Sentencing reform no doubt has a place in some of the way that our criminal justice system works but it's not the root of all our problems.

I do think some sentences seem light whilst others are so short that they seem more geared to making sure someone is dislocated enough from their life to cause them serious issues (loss of housing, jobs, family, partners, etc) but not long enough to actually enable them to undergo any kind of rehabilitation (assuming our overcrowded and underfund prison estate is capable of providing rehabilitation). This of course helps trap them in cycles that no doubt help contribute to even more crime. Equally we have a problem with a hardcore of repeat offenders who just seem to float from one sentence to another whilst making life miserable for all they come in contact with.

However, if the police are unable to catch people, and when they do catch them it takes years for cases to be heard, the forensics are slipshod and rushed, the prosecution are overworked and under resourced then the odds of them ever facing the actual sentences proscribed are slim. And those that are caught are therefore often the "unlucky" few. We need to start actually getting the police side of the equation working again first and then getting the prison estate up to scratch so they're not just pure warehouses.

But, that's expensive and difficult. Far easier (and better headlines) to just witter on about how we'll make the sentence for this, that, and the other "tougher" and so we'll "crackdown" on whatever is agitating people this week.

Agreed entirely, but also - bring back 'anging.

 

[styles]

This is something I witter on about from time to time. People go on about how sentences "aren't tough enough" and how we're "soft on crime", etc etc. In reality though you could make the sentences for various crimes very harsh (lets say a mandatory 20 years for bike theft, 30 years for cable theft, etc etc) but if people don't think they'll be caught it isn't going to deter anyone. Sentencing reform no doubt has a place in some of the way that our criminal justice system works but it's not the root of all our problems.

I do think some sentences seem light whilst others are so short that they seem more geared to making sure someone is dislocated enough from their life to cause them serious issues (loss of housing, jobs, family, partners, etc) but not long enough to actually enable them to undergo any kind of rehabilitation (assuming our overcrowded and underfund prison estate is capable of providing rehabilitation). This of course helps trap them in cycles that no doubt help contribute to even more crime. Equally we have a problem with a hardcore of repeat offenders who just seem to float from one sentence to another whilst making life miserable for all they come in contact with.

However, if the police are unable to catch people, and when they do catch them it takes years for cases to be heard, the forensics are slipshod and rushed, the prosecution are overworked and under resourced then the odds of them ever facing the actual sentences proscribed are slim. And those that are caught are therefore often the "unlucky" few. We need to start actually getting the police side of the equation working again first and then getting the prison estate up to scratch so they're not just pure warehouses.

But, that's expensive and difficult. Far easier (and better headlines) to just witter on about how we'll make the sentence for this, that, and the other "tougher" and so we'll "crackdown" on whatever is agitating people this week.

Indeed.

One of my gripes with politicians and the justice system is also all the additional laws whose sole or primary aim is just to make an existing offence attract a harsher sentence in some specific case.

Take assault for example. Assault has been an offence for hundreds of years. Yet in 2018 we decided that we needed to make a separate specific offence of assaulting an emergency worker, which is aggravated and attracts a different penalty. Perhaps there's some merit in giving emergency workers special status, but I would be surprised if this change in the law could be attributed to even a tiny reduction in assaults on emergency workers. This year, the government that this is also the solution for shop workers, and made assault on a retail worker a separate offence. One question I would have is why don't we have one for say bus drivers, driving instructors, social workers, or anyone in a public-facing role for that matter? And if we do expand it to anybody in a public-facing role, that's nearly two-thirds of the working population, so at what point do we just say the sentence should apply to everybody?

I'm not convinced that somebody who, in the process of nicking from a Tesco Express assaults a security guard is really going to pause and think about the length of sentence they're likely to get. If they think they'll get away with it, they'll carry on doing it.

The only real benefit to these things is that it'll separate out specific types of assault in reporting statistics, but creating new offences just to get better reporting out of crime data feels like a sledgehammer for a nail.

The introduction of the offences usually come with the phrase, "This will send a strong message.", as if thieving, assaulting, thugs will listen and suddenly change their ways. You also don't really need to send the message that assaulting people isn't acceptable; it's obvious. If you want to send a strong message, fund the police, run schemes to get people help before they end up committing crimes.

 

[Trainbike46]

Indeed.

One of my gripes with politicians and the justice system is also all the additional laws whose sole or primary aim is just to make an existing offence attract a harsher sentence in some specific case.

Take assault for example. Assault has been an offence for hundreds of years. Yet in 2018 we decided that we needed to make a separate specific offence of assaulting an emergency worker, which is aggravated and attracts a different penalty. Perhaps there's some merit in giving emergency workers special status, but I would be surprised if this change in the law could be attributed to even a tiny reduction in assaults on emergency workers. This year, the government that this is also the solution for shop workers, and made assault on a retail worker a separate offence. One question I would have is why don't we have one for say bus drivers, driving instructors, social workers, or anyone in a public-facing role for that matter? And if we do expand it to anybody in a public-facing role, that's nearly two-thirds of the working population, so at what point do we just say the sentence should apply to everybody?

I'm not convinced that somebody who, in the process of nicking from a Tesco Express assaults a security guard is really going to pause and think about the length of sentence they're likely to get. If they think they'll get away with it, they'll carry on doing it.

The only real benefit to these things is that it'll separate out specific types of assault in reporting statistics, but creating new offences just to get better reporting out of crime data feels like a sledgehammer for a nail.

The introduction of the offences usually come with the phrase, "This will send a strong message.", as if thieving, assaulting, thugs will listen and suddenly change their ways. You also don't really need to send the message that assaulting people isn't acceptable; it's obvious. If you want to send a strong message, fund the police, run schemes to get people help before they end up committing crimes.

I agree with all of this, and there are multiple other examples where the government has created new offences that are effectively just higher sentences for existing offences, but with more administrative mess called in.

For example, in many cases Interference with Key National Infrastructure is just a new offence covering the exact same conduct that used to lead to Willful obstruction of the Highway charges, with a slightly higher sentence (up to 1 year for Intereference with Key National Infrastructure, instead of up to 6 months imprisonment for Willful obstruction of the Highway), however the former offence is an either way offence that often ends up in the Crown Court, taking up restricted court time and further exacerbating court backlogs for way more serious matters.

 

[styles]

I agree with all of this, and there are multiple other examples where the government has created new offences that are effectively just higher sentences for existing offences, but with more administrative mess called in.

For example, in many cases Interference with Key National Infrastructure is just a new offence covering the exact same conduct that used to lead to Willful obstruction of the Highway charges, with a slightly higher sentence (up to 1 year for Intereference with Key National Infrastructure, instead of up to 6 months imprisonment for Willful obstruction of the Highway), however the former offence is an either way offence that often ends up in the Crown Court, taking up restricted court time and further exacerbating court backlogs for way more serious matters.

Yeah not very well thought out.

Though magistrates can now deal with cases carrying a maximum 12 months the instead of 6 months as of last year. A pretty sensible change I feel as can't see many more ways to clear the crown court backlogs.

 

[Trainman40083]

Wow - I hadn't even considered that! Thanks.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Sep 2025 ==


Yes, but to move a set of points is not a small power job - they weigh a huge amount, even sliding on greased bases.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Sep 2025 ==


Agreed entirely, but also - bring back 'anging.

Sorry, I meant the batteries were there as well as the power. Double power

 

[alxndr]

Sorry, I meant the batteries were there as well as the power. Double power

Not exactly. The batteries alone are sufficient to throw the points, the power supply is to continually charge the batteries. The purpose of the batteries are to provide the required brief high load while allowing the remainder of the system to be designed for just the charging load.

 

[rower40]

37 years ago, when I joined the railway, my boss had recently completed a trial installation of a ‘wiggly wire’ control system on the Styal line. The comms loops used extremely cheap aluminium-based wire. He had been told by the local track gangs to leave very many off-cuts of the wire lying around, especially next to the access points. This was so that the local nocturnal wire recyclers could take a sample of the wire (to find it was worthless) so as not to cut into the operational comms loops.
Is this still standard operating procedure?

 

[Technologist]

Seems each time it happens we also have another thread like this one. A forum search finds 27 threads with Cable Theft in the title.

Fibre optics will usually be mentioned as an obvious solution, but they can’t transmit power to point motors.

Solution would be to locally power points with a solar panel and battery.

Typical motors are around 500w. If we assume a 10 second cycle and 10 moves an hour we need about 0.33 of a KWh a day assuming 24hr operation. Average insolation in UK in December is 0.52KWh per day so accounting for efficiency we’d need about 2-3m2 of solar panels and probably about 1Kwh of battery to deal with a few dull days in row.

The battery would be about £100 including the charger and the solar panels would be £400-600.

The most basic question at that point would be why have we even got the signal cables?

4/5G connections are £’s to add to the device and satellite connections are pretty cheap too, I don’t see why you wouldn’t have both. Also if the battery starts running low in an unseasonably murky winter the system could call for a charge and someone(thing) could go out there with a booster battery.

Local power and wireless connections are taking over most cost conscious applications, rail should be going in this direction. It’s not like we have wired connections in ATC so it’s not like there isn’t precedent.

 

[renegademaster]

If a just stop oil protester can receive 5 years in prison for climbing onto a motorway gantry, surely cable thieves can get similar sentences?

They had like 50 priors in that case.

 

[TPO]

Solution would be to locally power points with a solar panel and battery.

Typical motors are around 500w. If we assume a 10 second cycle and 10 moves an hour we need about 0.33 of a KWh a day assuming 24hr operation. Average insolation in UK in December is 0.52KWh per day so accounting for efficiency we’d need about 2-3m2 of solar panels and probably about 1Kwh of battery to deal with a few dull days in row.

The battery would be about £100 including the charger and the solar panels would be £400-600.

The most basic question at that point would be why have we even got the signal cables?

4/5G connections are £’s to add to the device and satellite connections are pretty cheap too, I don’t see why you wouldn’t have both. Also if the battery starts running low in an unseasonably murky winter the system could call for a charge and someone(thing) could go out there with a booster battery.

Local power and wireless connections are taking over most cost conscious applications, rail should be going in this direction. It’s not like we have wired connections in ATC so it’s not like there isn’t precedent.

Yeah, then they'd prob just nick the solar panels and batteries instead......

..... and in some parts of GB (i.e. the west), we can have several days with rain and no sun.

TPO