[Bodie]

I read yesterday on BBC text that 'Campaigners' fear armed guards will be needed on the expected trains from Dounreay in Caithness to Sellafield in Cumbria.

Now my first reaction was to smack whoever wrote it, and I was very tempted to call this thread - Lies, Lies and more Lies

However I don't want to jump the gun, so is this indeed dreadful reporting or the truth???

Because from my limited knowledge, these trains will be no different to the ones that run every day all over the country and i've never read of armed guards being aboard those trains.

The reason I suspect lies, is the BBC don't always speak the truth when it comes to nuclear and railways.
Plus the report gave only 'Campaigners' as it source, which is a little vague to say the least.

Bodie

[johnnychips]

Originally Posted by Bodie

Plus the report gave only 'Campaigners' as it source, which is a little vague to say the least.

Bodie

This is not necessarily incorrect reporting, as the BBC has indeed quoted the campaigners' fear. Whether their speculation deserves such publicity is another matter. What's the problem with armed guards anyway if it is deemed necessary for security?

[tsr]

I would say that it is quite likely that armed guards will be used, given the existing precautions taken elsewhere, albeit in different circumstances (e.g. armed staff are used to protect the road convoys that are sometimes used for nuclear materials' transportation). Obviously the railways are a generally safe and reasonably secure (depending on criteria considered) environment, but that doesn't mean they are without risk as a method of secure transportation.

I doubt that the issue of whether or not campaigners like the possibility of armed guards has anything much to do with the risk assessments that would define if they were needed, but then again, a protest on railway land about this issue would have an unknown impact (minor or not so minor). Unfortunately the security of any such materials that may be attractive to criminals (whether or not they would actually be usable by them) will be more important than considering some types of campaigners.

Let's hope that if you aren't doing anything illegal, you have nothing to fear from any guards.

I shall remain positioned neutrally in terms of my opinions and thoughts on this matter.

[gordonthemoron]

wouldn't Dounreay-Windscale nuclear fuel transports go by sea?

[Trog]

Safer by rail less chance of shipwreck, and if an acident did happen it would be in a much more controlable environment. Lifting a flask off the rocks in an Atlantic winter would be a nightmare, and any leakage would be spread by the ocean currents.

[gordonthemoron]

nuclear transports from Japan are by sea to Barrow

[HSTEd]

It appears the armed guards might be required for the still relatively highly enriched uranium in the spent "driver" fuel from the Dounreay breeder reactors that needs moving to Sellafield for reprocessing and disposal.
This is a very small portion of the total material.

And noone complains (that I know of) about those convoys of HGVs with armed escorts that move nuclear weapons up and down the country to Faslane (that sort of traffic should be on the railways in my opinion, not just for safety reasons).

[DownSouth]

Originally Posted by Trog

Safer by rail less chance of shipwreck, and if an acident did happen it would be in a much more controlable environment. Lifting a flask off the rocks in an Atlantic winter would be a nightmare, and any leakage would be spread by the ocean currents.

Ah, but taking it by ship would reduce the chance of there being a rail crash.

It would be interesting to compare incident rates per tonne kilometre carried on rail and sea, I wouldn't be putting my money on rail coming out better.

For security purposes I would favour taking it by ship. Rail has the distinct disadvantage of the exact route being known well in advance, using fixed infrastructure along the entire route and the vehicles having no manoeuvrability. Sea transport also has the advantage of being able to class any problems as piracy and solve them using high explosive.

[Domeyhead]

Total overreaction by camapaigners, the BBC....even one or two posters. Do we post armed guards today to accompany takkers shifting caustic soda? Nitric acid? Well supposing somebody stole a tanker load of arsenic and tipped it into Rutland Water before anyone even knew where it had gone? ....There are risks all around every day and many are far more damaging than spent nuclear fuel in a highly secure container. The only thing you can do with it that could be as damaging as the above scenario is put it into a dirty bomb, and if you have the the knowledge and material to do that Including the plastic explosives) I'd say you were a pretty dangerous person already.

[Hydro]

There aren't armed guards on non-MoD flask movements anyway.

[route:oxford]

Originally Posted by Bodie

'Campaigners' fear

The average campaigner is likely to be terrified of their own shadow.

[6Gman]

Originally Posted by route:oxford

The average campaigner is likely to be terrified of their own shadow.

Nice one!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Originally Posted by Hydro

There aren't armed guards on non-MoD flask movements anyway.

Some years ago, when I had responsibility for movement of ... er ... sensitive materials some had armed guards, some didn't, according to the risk assessment.

Mind you, since we now tolerate armed policemen standing around at Euston these days why would armed guards on a freight movement be a cause for concern?

[DaveNewcastle]

I suspect someone's experience of risk assessments is informed more by an active imagination than by training and research:-

Originally Posted by DownSouth

Ah, but taking it by ship would reduce the chance of there being a rail crash.

It would be interesting to compare incident rates per tonne kilometre carried on rail and sea, I wouldn't be putting my money on rail coming out better.

For security purposes I would favour taking it by ship. Rail has the distinct disadvantage of the exact route being known well in advance, using fixed infrastructure along the entire route and the vehicles having no manoeuvrability. Sea transport also has the advantage of being able to class any problems as piracy and solve them using high explosive.

"taking it by ship would reduce the chance of there being a rail crash". A rail crash? Where does that come into it?
Transporting waste by horse and cart or cancelling trains will reduce the chance of there being a rail crash! So what?

And where does high explosives at sea come into it?

We're discussing taking expired material from a former power station to a waste processing facility.

[mbonwick]

Worth pointing out that the materials in queestion are so called "exotics", rather than the more bog-standard spent fuel shipped by rail.

[WatcherZero]

Its a pretty moot question really, even if there wernt armed guards on the train they would be on standby as part of a rapid response unit.