TransLink gave up on a common Revenue Protection/Security a few years ago, hence why funding the Bus Companies to employ their own Network Officers living in those respective regions.
Bus “Network Officers”; are funded by treasury (TMR) but are employed by the bus companies (Kinetic, Clarks, Bus Qld, etc). The Network Officers generally have their employer (The bus company) displayed above the Network Officers logo on their uniforms
TransLink Senior Network Officers (SNOs) are direct TransLink/TMR employees that has jurisdiction over all modes of transport.
QR’s Authorised Officers (AOs) and G:Link’s Customer Service Officers (CSOs) are employed by those companies directly and only have jurisdiction over the trains and trams respectively.
In my experience riding Clarks buses, the buses are now much, much better patrolled by Clarks’ own Network Officers than they ever were by Translink’s own officers.
More diffusion of responsibility by Translink further eroding any perceived integrated network. Not to mention more brands/names across the network - and are any of names sensible for the public to understand their role?
That’s probably a function of TL funding them more. I don’t think that many SNOs were ever employed.
TL could still fund operators to employ and manage these officers but with consistent naming, role structures and appearance.
It’s insane. I knew each mode had its own NOs but the fact that it’s then broken further down into each bus operator also having their own network officers is so unnecessary.
Since they’re TMR funded anyway why not just have a state pool of translink officers that are capable of working across rail, bus, ferry, tram, etc? (like how the current Translink SNOs operate… sort of).
At Helensvale you could, technically, see a QPS Railway Squad officer, QR Authorised Officer, Translink Senior Network Officer, G:Link Network Officer and Kinetic Network Officer all working in their own jurisdiction
Unfortunately consolidation was thrown in the “too hard” basket, hence TMR establishing and funding the Bus ‘Network Officers’ (“BNOs”) for most operators comprised of those living in those regions rather than sending the Brisbane based Translink SNOs up or down the Coast.
Originally the QR employed group of officers, then called the “TransLink Transit Officers" (TTO) did all modes of Transport prior to TransLink/TMR setting up their own unit called Senior Network Officers (SNOs). G:Link’s Customer Service Officers (CSOs) came about around 2014.
When the TMR led SNOs got up and running, the QR Group of officers were split into other parts of QR and the remaining QR TTOs (now a smaller group) were rebranded to “QR Authorised Officers (AOs)”
There shouldn’t be private security. Like Perth and Melbourne we need properly trained transit officers / police who are on the public payroll and who have limited police powers relevant to their duties (move-on, arrest, detention etc). Perth went for having them on all trains in the evening, Melbourne went for posting them to most metropolitan stations. I would be going with some compromise position between those 2.
My experience with the perth ones were very good. The ones I have encountered during my travels to perth at least. They had a good balance between approachable customer service staff that you can ask for directions, updates etc, and a proper security force that has enough powers to move on problem travellers.
Unfortantly many of our current translink SNO’s, and police simply are not approachable and are really on useful for fare enforcement and security.
I would be a big advocate of replicating the perth system.
QR seems to have a new auto voice announcement (or I havent been paying attention…)…city bound on an NGR arriving at South Bank and the announcement talked about ‘transferring to frequent services along the south east and eastern busway to Brisbane City, Woolloongabba and Brisbane suburbs’.
