Trains already have deputized private police forces, just a matter of staffing up again

What if it costs more to employ the right amount of people than the losses from robbery?

The reason it’s bad in LA is that Union Pacific “saved” money by firing the defense:

> The Union Pacific Police department has jurisdiction over the 32,000 miles of track Union Pacific owns. Many of these "special agents" used to patrol this now infamous stretch of track. According to the source, the number of patrolling officers has been cut from 50 to 60 agents to eight, which the worker thinks has led to an increase in train robberies.

https://www.lataco.com/union-pacific-theft-police-laid-off/

"The" reason seems implausible given even back then you would have an officer per 500 miles, which doesn't seem useful.

You don’t need the same level of coverage on the thousands of miles of track in deserted rural areas as you do where the trains are frequently stopped in urban areas where millions of people live. As trains have been getting longer to reduce staffing costs they have been leaving them on the tracks rather than in fenced in yards, so those specific areas are where they need security guards.

Or maybe stop having miles long trains (which current crossings and side-rails weren’t really designed for anyway), or stop having only two people operate miles long trains, or… lots of other possible solutions.