Jump to content
 

Flying Scotsman aaround Burton earlier today


Nick L
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hope this is ok in this group, looking for someone "in the know", perhaps signalling the world around Derby earlier.  As everyone knows, the Flying Scotsman was travelling South today (I was at Willington to catch a glimpse).

 

1V06 Nottingham to Cardiff passed Willington 4 minutes late.  It then seemed to come hurriedly to a stand just South of Willington, near a bridge where lots of people were standing.  Because of that, it lost ten minutes around Clay Mills Junction.  Not sure what caused the driver to stop, as he moved after a couple of minutes.  Even less sure what happened after that, but by the time that train left Tamworth, it was 75 minutes late.

 

Meanwhile, two British Transport Police people turned up at Willington by car with blue lights and sirens going.  They stood at the bottom of the steps and watched people leave the station - around 350 people, they reckoned.

 

1E40 Birmingham New Street to Newcastle should have passed Northbound at 13:55 but was delayed between Burton Wetmore Junction and Clay Mills Junction.  I wonder whether that was some kind of caution because of the previous Southbound issue?  It passed Willington at 14:00 - neatly blocking the view of Flying Scotsman from the Northbound platform where the majority of people were.  Well, I guess we were just unlucky!

 

Any ideas what was going on, especially with 1V06?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no wish to encourage anyone to go the wrong side of the railway boundary fence, but I do wish that BTP and the railway could grasp the difference between on or near the track, which is dangerous, and inside the railway boundary but not near the track, which is not inherently dangerous by itself. Simply regarding every instance of trespass inside the railway boundary as dangerous results in people ignoring the real message.

 

Doubtless there are those within NR who would, not unreasonably, like to bar such locomotives as Scotsman from the network, and I would sympathise with them. Whether they legally can may be another matter entirely, as NR is required to be an open access railway. Equally, would it happen so much if events like this were more common.

 

Jim

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In yesterday's FS case, I've seen a vid over on the Nat Pres site which clearly shows a trespasser in the four-foot, under a bridge, on the inside of a bend, in a cutting with vegetation up the sides, peering round to see if there's something coming. 

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's strange how the Germans, for example, manage to run steam services every year on unfenced railways without this sort of thing being a problem. Perhaps they have a better understanding of the difference between "lineside" and "on the track". One is significantly more dangerous than the other, which is arguably safer than walking along the pavement on a busy main road. By lumping everyone who is the wrong side of the railway fence as being in danger simply dilutes the message as to what is and is not dangerous, to the point where people will ignore "advice".

 

Jim

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

So Jim, are you advocating that no action should be taken (eg advising the BT Police, cautioning trains) for people inside the railway boundary, but only when they are actually on the track itself ? And should the message therefore be 'it's OK to climb over the fence and stand, or mill around, or take photos, as long as you don't go onto the line' ?

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In essence, yes. We need to grow up about what is dangerous, and what is not, instead of just branding everything as "dangerous". If you tell people that something is dangerous when it isn't it isn't long before such advice is ignored. When something really is dangerous, and perceived as such, then people listen.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hi All,

 So I presume with that train of thought, it is also presumably  acceptable to wander about inside airport fences, as long as you don't actually walk about the runway?

 It's an operational environment, regardless of public perception that it'll be ok, it should be only trained personnel that should be within trackside fences. There are many risks that the public have absolutley no awareness of, and should somebody be injured or killed, the Railway is liable. The fences are there for a reason.

Gaz.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The counter-argument is that a fence is a clear delineator, which makes for an easy to understand message from Network Rail/BTP/whoever: "Don't stand inside the fence or we'll arrest you if you're not killed or maimed first".

As opposed to "You can stand inside the fence but have a careful think about where you can stand, with your limited understanding of railway operation. You should be alright, but don't come suing us if you get hurt."

 

If only they would arrest and prosecute some FS trespassers.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
28 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

In essence, yes. We need to grow up about what is dangerous, and what is not, instead of just branding everything as "dangerous". If you tell people that something is dangerous when it isn't it isn't long before such advice is ignored. When something really is dangerous, and perceived as such, then people listen.

 

Jim

 

So how do you decide? Is 2 feet from the track dangerous, but 4 feet isn't? What about 3 feet?

 

By using the fence line as the guide, like is quick and simple for 2 Policemen trying to look after a large crowd. Or are you suggesting they wander down the tracks assessing each person individually and hoping that they don't move before they have finished checking every other person on the lineside. 

 

Why does anyone need to be inside the fence anyway? The thing is big enough to get a photo of using a phone, and very few of the "proper" cameras won't have a zoom function.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

So how do you decide? Is 2 feet from the track dangerous, but 4 feet isn't? What about 3 feet?

 

By using the fence line as the guide, like is quick and simple for 2 Policemen trying to look after a large crowd. Or are you suggesting they wander down the tracks assessing each person individually and hoping that they don't move before they have finished checking every other person on the lineside. 

 

Why does anyone need to be inside the fence anyway? The thing is big enough to get a photo of using a phone, and very few of the "proper" cameras won't have a zoom function.

You need to think on a broader scale than the problem as it is currently.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
Just now, jim.snowdon said:

You need to think on a broader scale than the problem as it is currently.

 

Jim

 

I'm not sure what you mean, but if it is that we need a better understanding and acceptance of risk among the general public then I don't disagree - but it's not going happen.

 

More to the point, we are discussing a very specific situation on this thread, not a general philosophical position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
13 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

So how do you decide? Is 2 feet from the track dangerous, but 4 feet isn't? What about 3 feet?

 

 

 

Railway staff with Personal Track Safety training are instructed as to what a safe distance from the line is.  According to that training, it varies depending on the line speed at the point.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 minute ago, 31A said:

 

Railway staff with Personal Track Safety training are instructed as to what a safe distance from the line is.  According to that training, it varies depending on the line speed at the point.

 

That's fine for trained staff. Now imagine you are single-handedly faced with a large untrained crowd and need to assess each one. Remember, this is a live line so as well as chuffers, there can be service trains running. And you need to explain to each and everyone how far they can go. How would you handle that?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

I'm not sure what you mean, but if it is that we need a better understanding and acceptance of risk among the general public then I don't disagree - but it's not going happen.

 

More to the point, we are discussing a very specific situation on this thread, not a general philosophical position.

We need a lot less dumbing down about what is dangerous. The specific situation arises because we, society, have been branding activities that are not dangerous as "dangerous" when plainly they are not. Going the wrong side of the railway fence is not itself dangerous, so why get worked up about it; getting into a position to be hit by a train is, and that is where to concentrate the effort. The rest of Europe understands that.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

As has been proved, there are a number of "enthusiasts" incapable of realising that standing close enough to be hit by a train is dangerous.

 

I still come back to the practical problem of dealing with a big crowd. As eastwestdivide says, the fence provides a handy guide that everyone should be able to understand, even stupid people. And stupid people are just as difficult and unpleasant for a crew to clean out of the workings of a steam locomotive as anyone else.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

As has been proved, there are a number of "enthusiasts" incapable of realising that standing close enough to be hit by a train is dangerous.

 

I still come back to the practical problem of dealing with a big crowd. As eastwestdivide says, the fence provides a handy guide that everyone should be able to understand, even stupid people. And stupid people are just as difficult and unpleasant for a crew to clean out of the workings of a steam locomotive as anyone else.

At which point, it might just dawn on the stupid that railway tracks are dangerous. Sorry, it's not PC, but unless an activity is perceived as being dangerous, it isn't. You can tell people until you are blue in the face, but unless people aren't injured from time to time, it isn't dangerous.

 

Jim

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

In essence, yes. We need to grow up about what is dangerous, and what is not, instead of just branding everything as "dangerous". If you tell people that something is dangerous when it isn't it isn't long before such advice is ignored. When something really is dangerous, and perceived as such, then people listen.

 

Jim

 

Sorry, but I cannot for one moment agree with that, and I speak as an ex-Controller, part of whose job involved receiving reports of trespass and in some circumstances deciding what action to take. The Great British Public does not have the foggiest idea of how railways operate, or how dangerous they are; Without actually being in the four-foot there are plenty of other hazards, eg poor underfoot conditions, the third rail, red bonds, uneven troughing routes. The only possible course of action is one clear and simple instruction; Do not ever cross the railway boundary, you are trespassing and yes, it is dangerous, and not necessarily just from the obvious hazard of being struck by a train. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 8
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A significant amount of the railway network is now hidden behind six-foot high security fencing, installed at a cost of many millions of pounds, the cost of which is ultimately borne by passengers, freight users and the taxpayers. Anyone who manages to get past that deserves to be prosecuted, as there is no ambiguity as to its function.

 

As I've posted elsewhere, however, there are situations where very significant risks are still present. A crowded, narrow platform with non-stop trains passing at 70mph or more felt very unsafe indeed to me yesterday. 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple solution would be banning the rust bucket until people learn how to behave. But how many will think that's unfair? I would be pretty peeved if it was banned because of the action of a few idiots. It'll happen if the TOCs get fed up with delays and paying out refunds.

 

Just one accident and that's it. No more steam on the mainline.

 

I also reckon the landowner here isn't going to be exactly happy. Looks like a farm to me.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-48170533

 

 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...