Sonik
Member
Interesting insights, thanks.Yes, less cables should in theory reduce the level of the problem. However, in my experience, generally speaking, cable routes in the middle of the countryside are less likely to be attacked. It’s town and city urban and suburban areas where we normally have the most problems. Unfortunately a significant number of complex junctions are in these areas.
Not all areas have an alternative route. And not all signalling systems support data being diverse routed. If the fibre-optic cable is carrying fibres leased to other telecom companies, its often more expensive to the railways for the penalty payments to the telecom companies than the disruption to the train services.
Then there’s the idiots that open a cable route, chop multiple cables with a hacksaw, try to drag some of the cables along the track, then either get disturbed and run off, or give up because the cable is too heavy. So they put a bit of effort in, risk their life, but leave with nothing.
In principal, anything that makes cable theft more difficult/risky and/or less lucrative, should have some effect on reducing the motives for people to attempt it. Not that thieves are so rational of course, but Darwinian principals eventually have an effect.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'd expect that word does eventually get around in such circles. Such low level desperado crime isn't very organised, but birds of a feather and all that. It's often a relatively small group of loosely linked individuals that are involved in a large number of incidents.It matters more what the thieves think they're made of rather than what they're actually made of. It might stop thieves bothering a second time if they discover that they're not copper but it doesn't stop that first attempt, or the next person trying their hand at stealing them.
Last edited: