SAFES • 71
PROUD SPONSORS
OF THIS PAGE
was blown away, the wires were released,
allowing the bolts so shoot and engage
in the bolt-work, jamming it so it could
not be withdrawn. Placing a glass plate
in front of the lock, however, significantly
improved their efficiency. The re-lockers
were now anchored to the glass, which
would shatter in an explosion allowing
all the bolts to engage. But glass would
also shatter if touched by the heat of an
oxyacetylene torch or the tip of a drill bit.
The percussive shock of a hammer would
also be sufficient to shatter this glass
shield.
As these innovations were introduced,
so the number of successful attacks on
high security safes slowly dwindled.
Insurers began to extend indemnity levels.
Where they once insured the contents of
a safe for £10,000, they were now happy
to extend it to £15,000 or more. Sales of
safes began to fall. Profits declined and
share prices fell. The major manufacturers
were in trouble with SLS being the first to
fold. Chubb and Tann struggled on but
the introduction of Europeans standards
for testing and rating safes sounded their
death knell.
Where the battle had once been to
produce the most technically advanced
safe, now the rush was on to produce the
cheapest safe to get through the test. By
discarding any technical elements that
were not directly relevant to passing the
After the war, many servicemen
returning to civilian life faced
unemployment and disillusionment.
Many had been trained in the art of
sabotage and were skilled in the use of
explosives. This had led to a nationwide
rise in the number explosive attacks
on safes which continued well into the
1970s.
Safe makers responded by the devising
simple anti-explosive re-lockers. They
were small spring-loaded bolts retained by
stainless steel wires trapped and retained
by the lock mounting. When the lock
test, costs could be reduced. The likes of
Chubb and Tann were rapidly outclassed
by foreign competitors who faced lower
labour rates and could buy cheaper
steel. Soon, both Chubb and John Tann
had been gobbled up by Gunnebo,
the Swedish conglomerate; likewise,
Churchill, Rosengrens and Fichet Bauche.
The vacuum at the lower end of the market
was quickly filled by cheap imports from
Eastern Europe. Inevitably, the quality
of safes being sold in the UK declined
alarmingly. But bizarrely, the number of
raids on safes continued to remain low.
locksmithjournal.co.uk | SEP/OCT 2015
Sponsored by TradeLocks
It seemed that the old-fashioned safe
cracker was either imprisoned, retired
or had taken to robbery with violence.
In spite of the fact that today’s safes are
unarguably far less secure than they used
to be in the heyday of British safe making,
insurers remain complacent and end
users, not realising that they are getting
far less bang for their buck, are content
to buy cheap, poor quality safes over the
internet.
ANOTHER PREDICTION…
Having accurately predicted that
European standards would ruin the
British safe industry, I now make another
prediction. Sometime in the future, maybe
quite soon, the pendulum is going to swing
the other way and when it does, insurers
are going to be caught with their trousers
down. Since standards for testing and
rating safes were drafted, a whole bunch
of new and more efficient attack tools
have been developed. Many of them are
expensive and currently beyond the reach
of the average villain, but some are very
cheap and highly cost-effective.
We have also seen the introduction of
lightweight, cordless grinders. At first
they were not powerful enough to cause
problems but now the latest models are
greatly improved and used in conjunction
with ultra-thin titanium-coated disks,
can cut through lower grade safes with
consummate ease. Any safe cabinet tested
in accordance with EN14450 and rated
S1 or S2 would be vulnerable, as would
most sub-Grade 0 safes. Grade 0 and most
Grade I safes would also be likely targets perhaps even some Grade II.
At the moment there seems to be a sort
of hiatus while we wait for the criminals
to play catch-up and discover the bounty
that awaits them. Meanwhile, working
groups formed by various bodies including
Eurosafe and Eurosafe UK are debating
how they should revise EN14450 and
EN1143-1/2 to incorporate some of
these new tools into their standard test
procedures. At best, it is going to take a few
years to bring these revisions into force.
So the big question is, “Will criminals
cotton on before the revised standards
are introduced and manufacturers start to
improve the quality of their safes?”
You can email him at:
[email protected]