Network Rail to ban Flying Scotsman?

[duncan]

Maybe this question has been answered befoe, but why can't the trespassers be fined for the delays caused to other operators, surely loosing their savings / house would make the rest of them think twice ?  Not sure if trespassers is the correct description as they are doing it deliberately, possibly criminals is.

[Colin_McLeod]

Nice idea Duncan but I don't see any court making someone homeless for trespassing on the railway!  Once homeless then they would become a burden on the state

 

[jim.snowdon]

5 minutes ago, duncan said:

Maybe this question has been answered befoe, but why can't the trespassers be fined for the delays caused to other operators, surely loosing their savings / house would make the rest of them think twice ?  Not sure if trespassers is the correct description as they are doing it deliberately, possibly criminals is.

Because in this country we have laws, and sentences for those proved to be guilty of an offence are delivered by judges, who have no partiality to either side in the case but are duty bound to determine punishment that is proportionate to the offence. We do not, thankfully, yet live in a police state.

 

I would suggest a read of the CPS guidance on the matter - https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/transport-offences

 

Jim

[DY444]

1 hour ago, jim.snowdon said:

The main line railway, ie Network Rail's infrastructure, is there as a commercial operation and bound by rules of open access. The steam operators are commercial operations in just the same way as any other train operating company and have the same rights to use the railway as any other. Banning steam operation is probably not in NR's gift, any more than a freight operator could be banned for their slow trains getting in the way of a passenger operator's fast trains. The only people who have the power to do anything (probably) are the ORR, and in terms of safety regulation, all they can do is to lean on NR to make the railway boundary more secure (good if you have shares in companies that make and install palisade fencing).

FS may be a pain in the proverbial to both NR and the TOCs, but until it stops being a profitable operation, it isn't likely to go away. Rather than adopting a Canute-like approach, we need to learn how to live with it.

 

Jim

 

NR banned steam on the ECML a few years ago when it was causing repeated lineside fires, access rules and train operator contracts notwithstanding.   I'm sure they can find a way of demonstrating that the mass trespass associated with steam operation is a safety issue and can therefore take whatever action they deem appropriate.  

[Dunsignalling]

3 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

 

 

It boils down to what the main line railway is actually for.  Is it to provide entertainment or is it to transport people and freight?  You simply cannot let idiots engaged in the former continue to negatively affect the latter. 

 

Sooner or later someone is going to be seriously injured or killed doing this and then the whole lot will be stopped anyway without a second thought for the sensible majority.  But for a few millimetres and immense good fortune, the moron who nearly got collected by the 170 (video posted up the thread) would probably have had the dubious and posthumous honour of being the person responsible for a blanket ban.

 

 

It's by no means certain that a steam ban would automatically ensue from trespasser fatalities so long as NR had taken reasonable steps to ensure the offence could not have been committed casually or inadvertently - i.e. it should take some thought and effort to put oneself in jeopardy. That requirement exists for all kinds of rail working and, in legal terms, I would not envisage steam specials being treated differently to any other kind of train. A ban instituted by NR (specific or general) would be another matter entirely, but I suspect that's on the cards with or without fatalities.

 

The railway is fenced because it is a hazardous place to be and those who deliberately place themselves on the wrong side of the barrier are solely to blame for whatever happens to them in the same way as Motor Rally fans who get themselves splattered over bits of forest they know they shouldn't be in.

 

John

Edited June 15, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[DY444]

1 hour ago, beast66606 said:

 

Speed bumps are akin to not publishing times, a minor inconvenience - crushing your car is equivalent to a steam ban, because a few can't follow the rules everyone must suffer the worst possible consequences.

 

The guy with the 170 was not actually trespassing - ironic.

 

BTP arresting every trespasser they see is the answer, the more they do this the more the message will get home.  There will always be morons - killing off steam from the main line is not the answer and comes across as more of a rant than a reasoned argument I'm afraid.

 

Damn right it's a rant.  Reasoned argument and hand wringing don't seem to have effected any change in what happens.  And it's hardly a few.  Every time FS goes anywhere there are hordes of people inside the boundary, usually a few in the cess and sometimes even in the four foot of adjacent running lines.  I have no desire to see steam banned but rumour suggests patience is wearing thin so I would not be at all surprised if it happens or at the very least there is a curtailment of operations.

 

And I don't see any similarity in severity between depriving a group of people of their cars and depriving a group of people of the chance to see a steam engine.

 

Anyway I'm done with this thread.  Flame away to your hearts content.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

The main line railway, ie Network Rail's infrastructure, is there as a commercial operation and bound by rules of open access. The steam operators are commercial operations in just the same way as any other train operating company and have the same rights to use the railway as any other. Banning steam operation is probably not in NR's gift, any more than a freight operator could be banned for their slow trains getting in the way of a passenger operator's fast trains. The only people who have the power to do anything (probably) are the ORR, and in terms of safety regulation, all they can do is to lean on NR to make the railway boundary more secure (good if you have shares in companies that make and install palisade fencing).

FS may be a pain in the proverbial to both NR and the TOCs, but until it stops being a profitable operation, it isn't likely to go away. Rather than adopting a Canute-like approach, we need to learn how to live with it.

 

Jim

Provided an operator has a licence and an Access Contract they onluy nbe got rid off if they fail to comply with various operational safety requirements or they are unable to meet their financial obligations.  It can be done as was the case with West Coast a while back.

 

What could however be very easily changed is the cap on charges arising from delay minutes although various past attempts to get rid of it have been rebuffed.  However if, say today, GWR suffer umpteen hundreds, or thousands, of delay minutes there might yet again be a cry for 'something to be done'.  Thus steam tours could literally be priced off the network although I think it is still unlikely.  Alas I think it far more likely with he recent sorts of trespass that some brain donor of a trespasser will meet his end or be seriously injured and change will be forced by the ORR (and not NR) on safety grounds.

Edited June 15, 2019 by The Stationmaster

[jim.snowdon]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Provided an operator has a licence and an Access Contract they onluy nbe got rid off if they fail to comply with various operational safety requirements or they are unable to meet their financial obligations.  It can be done as was the case with West Coast a while back.

 

What could however be very easily changed is the cap on charges arising from delay minutes although various past attempts to get rid of it have been rebuffed.  However if, say today, GWR suffer umpteen hundreds, or thousands, of delay minutes there might yet again be a cry for 'something to be done'.  Thus steam tours could literally be priced off the network although I think it is still unlikely.  Alas I think it far more likely with he recent sorts of trespass that some brain donor of a trespasser will meet his end or be seriously injured and change will be forced by the ORR (and not NR) on safety grounds.

From what I can remember, the issue with WCRC was that the ORR withdrew acceptance of their safety case, possibly triggered by the run through at Wooton Bassett, and without a safety case, no operator can run trains, let alone gain access to the national network. NR didn't have a hand in it.

 

As far as delay minutes are concerned, I would have expected those for delays due to trespassers to fall on NR, and not the TOCs. Granted, they are liable to suffer all manner of consequential delays, but their claim is against NR. They are not, and can never be, responsible for an event this is beyond their control, both as regards its happening in the first place and the subsequent actions - it is Network Rail's railway and they only run on it, they do not control it.

 

As far as what would happen in the event of a trespasser being injured, a factor would be how they got onto the railway in the first place, and in particular the adequacy and integrity of the fencing. The railway may be required to be fenced, but the type of fencing is only required to be sufficient for the normal needs of the location. Palisade fencing is not, as far as I am aware, a mandatory requirement in any NR standard. The problems arise when the fence, whatever type it may be, is in bad repair such that a person can easily get through it without trying. Otherwise, getting to the wrong side of the boundary fence is considered a wilful act. So is entering onto the railway via a public foot crossing if the purpose of doing so is other than to cross the line, which makes photographing from a public foot crossing as much of an offence, in legal terms, as doing so by standing anywhere on the railway side of the fence.

 

So far, the only reference to trespass that has made the BBC is a single incident at Carpenders Park, where one person closed Euston completely. That is, as much as anything else, a situation exacerbated by the railways' current approach of stopping everything and, potentially also turning the power off, whereas in the past trains would have been kept running, but under caution.

 

Jim

[John Tomlinson]

This is an interesting read, particularly for someone outside the industry listening to opinions of those within it.

 

What I've never understood in trespass discussions is that many overseas railways don't have fencing at all by lines. I'm not thinking of third world places here, but rather the likes of Germany, Austria and Switzerland. I'm not aware of widespread slaughter on these railways - perhaps I'm wrong - so is the problem simply that there are a disproportionate number of idiots in the UK? Or is it the mentality, mentioned by at least one poster above, that we've eroded much of our sense of personal responsibility?

 

John.

[wombatofludham]

Surely the solution to the continuing problem with Flying Jockstrap lies with the NRM?  Here we have two arms of the State - Network Rail and the Science Museum Group - charged with running their operations in the public interest with financial probity and the need to generate income important whilst managing their day to day job.  So Network Rail, at it's simplest, must satisfy it's contractual obligations to the TOCs whilst maintaining it's assets, and generate enough finance to undertake it's asset management, including selling open access paths, whilst minimising costs as best it can.  The Science Museum Group needs to maximise the commercial income from it's activities to ensure the upkeep of it's artefacts and offset reductions in grant aid from the Department for Fun, and running Flying Jockstrap has to date been a lucrative way of doing this.

 

However, when those objectives cause problems and costs for one arm of the equation, we must take an objective view of what is happening and if necessary make a collective decision on whose objectives carry the greatest weight.

 

From NR's perspective, they are being put to additional costs by the need to compensate the TOCS with whom they have access contracts for delays caused by trespass.  The additional policing costs will also be coming out of the public purse.  TOCs are being put to additional costs caused by delays, and passengers are also being put to additional stress and anxiety, and possible additional costs, which they may or may not get back.  The primary cause is Flying Jockstrap and the idiot sheeple who follow it.  It's a readily identifiable cause.

 

From the NRM's perspective, they see it as increasing public access to an artefact that a substantial amount of public money went into securing for the future, and it is a valuable source of income for the museum.  It also complies with their Government set objectives to raise commercial income and independent finances.

 

Now, we have two arms of the State seemingly in a degree of conflict with each other and whilst NR has an obligation on it to facilitate, wherever possible, subject to abstraction of revenue rules, open access for private operators, and therefore help the NRM to raise income by enabling Flying Jockstrap to run, there must come a time when either the NRM accepts it is no longer tenable to run the loco on the main line because people are too stupid to live, or NR will need to go to the ORR to seek an adjudication on whether it is within it's rights to ban Jockstrap from the main line due to the onerous financial burden it is placing on the public purse in delay compo and policing costs.  The third way would be to work out the true costs of policing, delay minutes and compo and wrap all that up into the access charge the NRM must stump up to run the loco on the main line, thereby either pricing it off the main line, or if the sums still stack up for the NRM, at least not impacting on the real railway financially, and possibly allowing for more funding for extra stewarding or security along the route.

 

Whatever the current situation can't be allowed to continue and given the NRM and NR are both state regulated, it needs putting in front of the ORR and getting them to adjudicate before many more people are inconvenienced by this frankly over-rated tea urn.  

[jim.snowdon]

16 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

This is an interesting read, particularly for someone outside the industry listening to opinions of those within it.

 

What I've never understood in trespass discussions is that many overseas railways don't have fencing at all by lines. I'm not thinking of third world places here, but rather the likes of Germany, Austria and Switzerland. I'm not aware of widespread slaughter on these railways - perhaps I'm wrong - so is the problem simply that there are a disproportionate number of idiots in the UK? Or is it the mentality, mentioned by at least one poster above, that we've eroded much of our sense of personal responsibility?

 

John.

It is, and as you note, the rest of Europe, in fact the world, gets by without fencing its railways, other than the high speed lines in Europe. The sad part is that much of the debate on here is not informed debate, but opinion coloured by the unthinking attitude that everywhere inside the railway fence is dangerous. In a way, it is part of the whole dumbing down of the railway rule book to the point where it is not how you know how to apply the rules that matters, but whether you follow every last dotted i and crossed t without question. Thinking no longer comes into it. It leads into such sillies as it being acceptable for a member of the public to stand next the yellow line on a platform whilst a train goes through at 125mph but not acceptable for a member ofthe public to stand on theground the same distance from the railway line. Just because they are on a station doesn't make them any less of a risk than if they were at the side of the track. Others will doubtless disagree.

 

Jim

[Dava]

Have there actually been authenticated trespass incidents or related delays on any recent. 60103 tours? Either the Surrey Hills or. Gloucestershire tour? 

 

Dava

[rab]

Woman filmed in near miss with Flying Scotsman - https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/watch-woman-grabbed-safety-near-2983466?utm_source=sharebar&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=sharebar

 

What is it about this thing that leads people

to take leave of their senses???!!

[royaloak]

8 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

The main line railway, ie Network Rail's infrastructure, is there as a commercial operation and bound by rules of open access. The steam operators are commercial operations in just the same way as any other train operating company and have the same rights to use the railway as any other. Banning steam operation is probably not in NR's gift, any more than a freight operator could be banned for their slow trains getting in the way of a passenger operator's fast trains.

Jim

Except that railtour operators are not responsible for any delays their service causes to other operators, Network Rail are and it is costing NR an obscene amount of money.

 

In my books Network Rail are entitled to 'cost' services so they dont cost NR money in allowing OA operators access to the network, so maybe NR should increase the charges to cover all the delay minutes this loco causes.

[royaloak]

1 hour ago, jim.snowdon said:

It is, and as you note, the rest of Europe, in fact the world, gets by without fencing its railways, other than the high speed lines in Europe. The sad part is that much of the debate on here is not informed debate, but opinion coloured by the unthinking attitude that everywhere inside the railway fence is dangerous. In a way, it is part of the whole dumbing down of the railway rule book to the point where it is not how you know how to apply the rules that matters, but whether you follow every last dotted i and crossed t without question. Thinking no longer comes into it. It leads into such sillies as it being acceptable for a member of the public to stand next the yellow line on a platform whilst a train goes through at 125mph but not acceptable for a member ofthe public to stand on theground the same distance from the railway line. Just because they are on a station doesn't make them any less of a risk than if they were at the side of the track. Others will doubtless disagree.

 

Jim

As has been mentioned many times before (which you continue to ignore) the no win no fee solicitor is only interested in which box isnt ticked so they can sue the arse off the corporate giant, hence the obsession with  ensuring the boxes are ticked, you might not like it but it is what Britain has become so get used to it!

[caradoc]

2 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

It is, and as you note, the rest of Europe, in fact the world, gets by without fencing its railways, other than the high speed lines in Europe. The sad part is that much of the debate on here is not informed debate, but opinion coloured by the unthinking attitude that everywhere inside the railway fence is dangerous. In a way, it is part of the whole dumbing down of the railway rule book to the point where it is not how you know how to apply the rules that matters, but whether you follow every last dotted i and crossed t without question. Thinking no longer comes into it. It leads into such sillies as it being acceptable for a member of the public to stand next the yellow line on a platform whilst a train goes through at 125mph but not acceptable for a member ofthe public to stand on theground the same distance from the railway line. Just because they are on a station doesn't make them any less of a risk than if they were at the side of the track. Others will doubtless disagree.

 

Jim

 

I think we have discussed this before !

 

I have to ask, again, what then should the message put out by Network Rail, the rail industry in general, or the BT Police, be regarding trespass ? Bearing in mind that the general public do not have the foggiest idea about railways; How fast trains go, how quiet they can be, how long they take to stop, which direction each line is for, what that extra rail in some parts of the country is for, etc. Therefore the message has to be simple and clear; Do not go beyond the boundary fence, ever.

 

The difference between standing behind the yellow line on the platform, and the same distance from the track within the fence, is that the former is a clear demarcation of a place of safety, while when trespassing there is nothing; Once someone is within the fence there is no boundary, either visible or actual, to prevent them straying too close to trains.

 

And regarding the railway rule book, whether it has been dumbed down is debatable, but what is undisputable is that in the UK staff rail safety is at a higher level than it has ever been at any time in the history of railways. 

 

 

[royaloak]

As Caradoc has stated the modern trains are very quiet, just the other day I was talking to an NR chap who was having a cab ride inspecting his patch and we talked at length about the issues his staff are having hearing the new IETs approaching, so if trained staff cant hear the modern trains what chance Bert and Aida with their backs to the trains as they relive the 1960s?

 

But as Jim has stated many times, its just the modern railway being risk averse!

[Budgie]

1 hour ago, royaloak said:

As has been mentioned many times before (which you continue to ignore) the no win no fee solicitor is only interested in which box isnt ticked so they can sue the arse off the corporate giant, hence the obsession with  ensuring the boxes are ticked, you might not like it but it is what Britain has become so get used to it!

 

Isn't it time the government changed the law so that people who are trespassing on the railway can't sue if they get hurt?

[brianusa]

Fencing - UK .v. the rest.  Apart from the UP Challengers and other well known engines, steam locos don't excite the locals in the US as much as a lot of trains in the UK.  It usually takes the like of FS, for some reason, to elicit any crowds there other than enthusiasts.  The UK is comparatively well fenced compared with the rest of the world but still seems to have the worst offenders.

     Brian.

[royaloak]

16 minutes ago, Budgie said:

 

Isn't it time the government changed the law so that people who are trespassing on the railway can't sue if they get hurt?

Unfortunately that ship has sailed, due to the wife of an ex Prime Minister making sure the land/home owner is responsible for the safety of anyone 'visiting' their property whether invited or not!

 

Common sense doesnt come into it, something certain posters cannot/will not get in their heads.

[rockershovel]

One thing I do notice repeatedly with European colleagues, is that they are accustomed to a much looser attitude to legal obligations and liabilities than in the U.K., sometimes to the point of outright negligence by U.K. standards. I’ve recently been riding shotgun (driving, mostly) for an American colleague who is astonished by the panoply of flashing lights, cones and the rest which deface UK highways, every time any activity takes place and often when no activity is visible at all. If a litigious country like the US doesn’t need all this, and they don’t on my experience, why do we? 

 

I suspect that its because we have an adversarial legal system. Most European countries (and Scotland, for that matter) have an official called the Inspecting Magistrate whose role is to examine the evidence and determine whether an offence has taken place, and a court case is warranted. Often they don’t, and the case never proceeds, or is settled out of court. 

 

Our transatlantic cousins have a system like ours but they are great believers in plea bargaining and settling out of court. They also don’t bother with niceties like “no man shall be fined to his utter ruin” (or however it is phrased) which engenders a healthy caution in respect to the civil law. 

 

Edited June 15, 2019 by rockershovel

[south_tyne]

These folk are muppets and unfortunately if a (hopefully temporary) hiatus on mainline steam is the only way to curb trespassing then I would support it. If it were 'youths' being so stupid then there would be uproar..... it is no different just because it is sad middle-aged blokes trainspotting with a camera. They are only putting themselves and others in danger and ultimately for what purpose!? Another example of our increasingly selfish society where a handful of idiots spoil things for the silent majority. 

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, south_tyne said:

These folk are muppets and unfortunately if a (hopefully temporary) hiatus on mainline steam is the only way to curb trespassing then I would support it. If it were 'youths' being so stupid then there would be uproar..... it is no different just because it is sad middle-aged blokes trainspotting with a camera. They are only putting themselves and others in danger and ultimately for what purpose!? Another example of our increasingly selfish society where a handful of idiots spoil things for the silent majority. 

I disagree, as I don't see why the vast majority of people that merely turn up, to watch a steam locomotive (any one, not just the FS), should be punished for an indefinite period (with nothing to say that it will ever be a temporary one), for what must be a very small minority.

 

Not sure what the answer is (presumably some sort of education), but I don't believe bans are the answer, unless it is proven, that those responsible for the maintenance & operation of FS are somehow encouraging . such practice. This seems most unlikely.

 

The video quoted above gives an example of the difficulty, as the woman in question, was not trespassing, but her actions were totally stupid. Not only could she have been hit by the train, but could have lost her balance, or even been pushed (accidentally or otherwise!).

 

That video to me, highlights the issue that a station platform, is a very poor location to view a passing steam locomotive, it is very dangerous with so many people and you can't see much anyway! But no one is breaking the law! 

 

A possible solution, is to have some sort of crowd control, perhaps lines of people at say 30 degrees across the platform at 10 metre intervals, would allow people to actually see the train, comparatively safely.

 

Maybe the above video could be used as a railway safety training video, with perhaps the woman in questions co-operation, because she must realise now, how fortunate she was. I DO hope someone showed her the video.

[Colin_McLeod]

Don't get me wrong, I abhor trespass on the railway, but I have one straightforward question:

 

How do these trespassers cause delays? Surely the train can continue at speed without being slowed down by the presence of trespassers.  

 

[tongue in cheek mode]  Even if one of them gets hit, the loss of momentum to the train would be so negligible as to not even be noticed [/tongue in cheek mode]

 

I am not advocating deliberately mowing down people on the track, but that is not the case here.  We are talking about people on the wrong side of a fence, who are much further from the tracks than people standing on a platform.

[caradoc]

Because when Network Rail becomes aware of trespassers, whether they are actually on the track or not, in most circumstances Signallers will advise Train Drivers to proceed at caution through the affected area. Imagine the ramifications if a trespasser was killed by a train at line speed and Network Rail admitted that they were aware the person was there but decided to take no action.