They’re a common sight in industrial areas.

Their orange glow shining onto locked up warehouses.

From atop power poles.

But with no power meter to be found anywhere.

And an answer

Well, I finally found the backstory to these lights in the State Electricity Commission of Victoria’s 1989 annual report, under their list of electricity tariffs – it was a fixed service charge.

Security Lighting (Watchman Floodlighting)

Generally available to all customers, except private domestic premises, for all night security floodlighting of buildings, property, etc.

Initial charge per lamp
$150.50

Charge per month according to Lamp type/size as follows:

125W mercury
$8.75

250W mercury
$15.05

400W mercury
$21.30

150W sodium
$15.00

250W sodium
$18.00

400W sodium
$22.05

*Initial charge covers the provision, erection and eventual removal of the lamp.

The difference between sodium vapour and mercury vapour lamps is the colour temperature – yellow versus blue.

And that led me to Ergon Energy in Queensland, also uses the ‘Watchman’ lighting brand.

Watchman lights are different to street lights. Street lights are used to illuminate public thoroughfares such as streets and roads. Watchman lights can be used for security or safety to illuminate areas such as public parks, private car parks, and pathways.

Watchman lights are installed and maintained by us. We will be able to advise you on the type and size of watchman light you might need once we receive your connection enquiry or application.

Watchman lights are usually connected to our network via an unmetered supply (UMS) connection, meaning it doesn’t need an electricity meter. This is because the electricity usage is predictable or can be accurately calculated without a meter.

And despite the privatisation of Victoria’s electricity network, the ‘Watchman Floodlighting’ name is still used today by Powercor.

Agreement for the Installation of (Watchman) Security Floodlighting

An Installation Charge will be payable for each light prior to installation. This installation charge applies to
each light and excludes ongoing charges applied by the electricity Host Retailer.

LED medium output
$ 2,597.10

LED high output
$ 3,115.20

That’s some massive cost inflation!

So who foots the power bill?

Officially, these lights are considered a “franchise unmetered load“:

electrical installations that are connected to the distribution network without an energy meter and must purchase the energy through the respective local retailers. Examples include bus shelter lights, public phone booths, traffic lights and some public electric barbecues.

Or an “unmetered supply“:

The power supply to lighting is not metered. Instead, distributors bill Council with an estimated average of energy consumption per light multiplied by total number of lights and hours of usage. The estimated average is a scientifically determined standard for each light type, agreed to by the regulator and published in ‘load tables’

So the beneficiary of the watchman lighting has to pay a monthly charge, but can’t choose their energy retailer.

In most cases, you can’t switch retailers with an unmetered supply.

Most unmetered supplies (UMS) are linked to a specific retailer based on location and the distribution patch you’re in. There are some exceptions, for some devices. You’ll need to ask your retailer about your particular UMS device.

But there is an incentive to audit these lamps, as sodium vapour and mercury vapour fixtures are costly to run. In 2020 the City of Merri-bek audited the ‘watchman’ lights paid for by Council, upgrading some lights while removing those no longer needed, achieving estimated savings of $30,000 a year and 100 tonnes of carbon emissions.

Further reading

The ‘Flood Lighting’ section of the Queensland Public Lighting Construction Manual has examples of ‘watchman’ floodlight installs.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Private security lighting on public poles appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

It is part of a Victorian Government scaremongering campaign, which was launched after the national terrorism alert level was raised to “high” last month.

As a regular reader of my blog, you should know that that seeing ‘something’ is what I do best.

In this case, the thing I saw was a low bluestone platform on the edge of Flagstaff Gardens, next door to Flagstaff station.

So what can I say about it? It is actually a ventilation structure for the City Loop, with a vertical shaft ending about 13 metres below the surface, where another tunnel heads sideways towards the underground draught relief structure.

Foonote

The access hatch into the ventilation structure is both locked and fitted with an alarm – you didn’t think something like this would be just laying around unsecured, would you?

As for the cost of the “See Something, Say Something” campaign:

Final costs for the campaign are not expected to be available until next year’s annual department report.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post ‘Something, Say Something’ at Flagstaff station appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

The problem itself isn’t new: here is an article on the issue from The Age a decade ago:

The continuing war against graffiti on trains

April 23 2003
By Jamie Berry

The charging of six people from NSW following a spate of graffiti attacks on Melbourne trains over the Easter weekend has pleased train companies, which admit they are fighting a constant battle with aerosol sprayers.

M>Train said 11 carriages had been hit in an “out-of-the-ordinary attack” in North Melbourne and Werribee.

Police said a large number of trains parked at railway stations including Eltham, Hurstbridge, Camberwell, Epping and Williamstown were also damaged.

Connex said yesterday that vandalism was one of the largest causes of train service disruption and delay. Cleaning up vandalism has cost the company more than $13 million since August 1999. “We’ve had a lot of graffiti on certain trains last week, which obviously causes delays and headaches to us because we have to take them out of service to clean them,”Connex spokesman Arthur Bruce said.

Back then, vandals would hit trains parked in sidings, sneaking their way past security patrols to do their work.

But today the vandals are getting more brazen, as made public in this early 2013 piece from the Herald Sun:

Graffiti gangs stop trains full of commuters to spray carriages

March 8, 2013
By Amelia Harris

Brazen graffiti gangs are holding up commuters by forcing trains to stop so they can get their spray-can kicks.

The alarming trend – dubbed “in runnings”, as the incidents occur when the trains are in service – involves vandals tripping signals to trigger red lights, bringing trains to a halt and giving them an opportunity to spray-paint.

Metro statistics seen by the Herald Sun – after six weeks of trying to obtain them – reveal there were 518 “in runnings” last year and 531 in 2011 – up from 347 in 2010.

Almost 100 have been recorded so far this year, an indication that the trend is growing.

Police sources said it was only a matter of time before someone would be killed. “This graffiti isn’t about art. It is about causing maximum damage and inconvenience to as many people as possible,” a source said.

Sometimes drivers discover the sabotaged signals, the murals, or even catch vandals in the act, while investigating their hold-up.

Vandals also target known locations where trains stop for signals, and isolated end-of-line platforms. Police sources said “in runnings” gave vandals the added kick of seeing their murals and tags travelling around the network until the train was cleaned – and a chance to photograph them and post the images online.

They said the trend emerged after Metro staff and police increased CCTVs and patrols at sidings, forcing vandals to look for new alternatives.

The issue of vandals hitting in-service trains was brought up again by The Age a few weeks ago:

Train vandals create havoc for Metro

December 3, 2013
By Adam Carey

Graffiti vandals are causing mayhem on Melbourne’s rail network by tampering with signals and train braking systems, breaking into driver’s cabs and tagging windscreens while riding on the backs of trains.

The trail of destruction has been revealed by a small posse of tech-savvy trainspotters, who hack into Metro’s internal radio network to expose raw and sometimes startling details about the daily disruptions to the rail network.

Last week the group revealed a flurry of troubling incidents on one evening, including graffiti vandals breaking into the rear driver’s cab on a Frankston train; drivers being warned to go slow because youths were putting debris on the tracks near Elsternwick; a family’s near-miss with a train after dashing across a pedestrian crossing at Edithvale; a smashed train window; and vandals’ attempts to kick in the door of a rear cab at Balaclava. All of this was reported in just over an hour between 7.50pm and 9pm on November 27.

Metro staff have also provided information to the group, including a recent internal alert that revealed vandals were using guerilla tactics to disable trains so they could graffiti them.

Titled “Recent spike in vandalism”, the alert said: “Graffiti vandalism is occurring to trains when they are stationary at red signals mid section. Vandals are known to tamper with signals to cause them to remain at stop, often by placing objects under the train stop arm.”

Metro confirmed that graffiti vandalism had risen this year. Figures it provided to Fairfax Media show graffiti attacks peaked in September, when 59 trains were vandalised, well above the monthly average for the past two years of 35 attacks.

So why are vandals becoming more brazen? One possible reason is the long period of time between graffiti murals appearing, and when they get cleaned off.

The following is from the ‘Invitation to Tender’ document issued in October 2008 as part of the lead up to Metro Trains Melbourne taking control of the train network – note the section I have bolded:

8.10 Infrastructure and Rolling Stock Upkeep

Infrastructure and rolling stock standards focus on the presentation and amenity of the public transport network.

8.10.1 Franchise Agreement Standards

The standards required by the Franchise Agreement vary, with infrastructure and assets which are publicly accessible having higher upkeep standards than areas which are not publicly accessible.

The tables below summarise the standards by asset class:

Rolling Stock

Graffiti	Offensive graffiti to be removed by the end of the first peak period after occurrence. Excessive graffiti to be removed within 48 hours of occurrence. Other graffiti to be removed within 72 hours of occurrence.
Damage /Vandalism	Excessive levels of scratching or etching on glass to be rectified by the earlier of 14 days from occurrence or the next workshop exam. Excessive damage to seat covers to be rectified prior to the first peak period of the next weekday. Vandalism that creates a hazard or offensive image to be repaired prior to the first peak period of the next weekday.

Stations

Graffiti	All graffiti on publicly accessible areas to be removed within 24 hours of occurrence. Offensive graffiti on non-publicly accessible areas to be removed within 7 days of occurrence. Within the first two years of the Franchise, all graffiti on non-publicly accessible areas to be removed. From then, all fresh graffiti on non-publicly accessible areas to be removed on a monthly basis.
Damage /Vandalism	Rectified as soon as reasonably practicable after occurrence, having regard to the nature and extent of the vandalism.

With a 48 hour window between vandalism being identified then removed, the end result is more graffitied trains on the tracks – as of the beginning of 2012 I’ve stumbled upon ‘muralled’ trains in service roughly every second month.

So what is the best solution to the problem? Spokesman for then-Melbourne rail operator M>Train Andrew Cassidy hit the nail on the head a decade ago:

The aim of the vandals is to get their mural and tag out there in circulation (and) obviously we would like to deny them that.

We’re doing our best to combat vandalism and one way to combat graffiti vandalism is to deny the individuals the profile.

More proof the Metro Trains Melbourne is just about the money?

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Why are Melbourne’s trains covered with graffiti? appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Meanwhile at the next station over, some vandals managed to make their way into Parliament Station after the last train, and spray paint the walls with graffiti.

So how the hell did the the vandals get in there? Getting in via the tunnels after the last train has run is the most likely explanation, since this security vulnerability has been frequently abused by both graffiti vandals and urban explorers since the City Loop has opened.

The evidence of previous trespassers inside the tunnels is easy to see from a slow moving train – many tunnel walls have are covered with scrawled graffiti instead of bare concrete. You can also see the evidence on websites dedicated to urban exploration in Australia, where I found a dozen or so photos taken inside suspiciously familiar looking railway tunnels.

An example of urban explorers making their way into the City Loop is this photo, supposedly taken back 2004, showing a Connex liveried Comeng train at the junction of the Clifton Hill and City Circle Loop tunnels, just a short distance from Parliament Station. (to avoid any unwanted attention I’m not going to link back to the original photographer)

So if someone back in 2004 got into the City Loop tunnels, why aren’t we seeing every man and their dog down there today? The reason is a round of security upgrades carried out in 2005/06 for the Commonwealth Games.

The most obvious change was the addition of dozens of new CCTV cameras at each underground stations and the installation of new directional signage inside the tunnels themselves. Another less visible change was the upgrade of alarm systems to each emergency exit, and improved motion detector systems to pick up trespassers trying to walk down the tunnels.

So did the security upgrades work? The number of people sneaking in to take photos seem to have dried up, but Wednesday’s vandals still found a way to get in. The security arms race continues…

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Security in the City Loop (or lack thereof) appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

I saw this the other day, and couldn’t help taking a photo:

Now, if only I could ride my bike down the platform, while wearing rollerblades, with a skateboard under my arm, a beer in one hand, and my camera in the other…

On a serious note, this is a sign in the Flagstaff underground railway station.

All of the underground stations have bans on photography bans, for supposed "security" reasons. And now you are not allowed to take photos at any other train station in Melbourne without a permit.

However, there is no laws enabling Connex to ban photography. You could technically tell them to "shove off" but that’s not very nice. It’s much easier to just move elsewhere, and start taking more photos…

Anyway, if they are going to play the terrorism card, I think there is more important things they should be concerned about.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post I don’t know of any photography ban appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.