Level crossing stupidity...

[stewartingram]

Good reporting again - nearly hit by a freight train.

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, stewartingram said:

Good reporting again - nearly hit by a freight train.

Cattle class?

[PhilJ W]

Actually it was a Network Rail test unit, track recording?

[RJS1977]

Bit of an odd one - it appears the motorist tried to beat the barriers, but instead decided to stop underneath them!!

[jamie92208]

Very fortunately  for all concerned  he was still clear of the tracks. It guess that he was more concerned about scratching the paint on the roof of his pride and joy than anything else.

 

Jamie

[Hobby]

12 hours ago, stewartingram said:

Good reporting again - nearly hit by a freight train.

 

Bearing in mind that both locos had GBRailfreight along their sides you can understand a reporter with very limited knowledge of railway saying that!

[jcm@gwr]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

 

Bearing in mind that both locos had GBRailfreight along their sides you can understand a reporter with very limited knowledge of railway saying that!

 

And it said Network Rail Measurement Train on the side, so still no excuse.

 

Maybe if they had just said 'nearly hit by a train'

 

Although to be fair, I'm not sure what else they might have been

'nearly hit by'? A shunting horse? 

Edited December 19, 2020 by jcm@gwr
further explanation

[Compound2632]

If you're run down by a train, it's of secondary interest what sort of train it is.

[LMS2968]

Unless you really are an anorak!

[melmerby]

Why do people get so uppity about what description a train is?

If I asked my missus, she wouldn't have a clue, so why criticise a news hack?

They are not railwaymen or in most cases probably not even railway enthusiasts.

[LMS2968]

No, but it's their job to report things accurately. If they told you of an air accident involving a Tiger Moth and it turned out to be an A380 full of passengers . . . If they don't know, ask someone who does.

[EmporiaSub]

1 hour ago, LMS2968 said:

No, but it's their job to report things accurately. If they told you of an air accident involving a Tiger Moth and it turned out to be an A380 full of passengers . . . If they don't know, ask someone who does.

Also depends on what they are told by the relevant Press Office.

You only need to see the Press Release, from Network Rail, for the recent Sheffield derailment.

[caradoc]

Surely the only thing the general public, and by extension therefore the media, is interested in is whether a passenger train, ie with risk to people on board, or non-passenger train was involved ? Despite the train comprising coaching stock the media have correctly identified it as a non-passenger train, which is enough of a distinction for 99% of the populace !

 

[melmerby]

5 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

No, but it's their job to report things accurately. If they told you of an air accident involving a Tiger Moth and it turned out to be an A380 full of passengers . . . If they don't know, ask someone who does.

No it's not. Expecting them to know every detail IMHO is just ridiculous. A fully knowledgable person isn't always available.

It's their job to report the salient features of any incident and I doubt whether even the least aircraft aware reporter would have difficulty distinguishing between a Tiger Moth & an A380.

However he does not need to know it's actually an A380, just a very large passenger aircraft, with an approximately figure for the number of people involved.

Most large aircraft are called "Jumbo Jets", even when they aren't a B747.

 

Leave the accurate descriptions to the specialist press, such as:

"A Network Rail track measuring train 1Z45 with locos 37361 & 37133 and three test vehicles......"etc.

Edited December 19, 2020 by melmerby

[96701]

My guess is that the CCTV  footage and the story came from Network Rail, press office, so the main aim is to point out how stupid some people seem to be. This makes those who have behaved similarly, but not been caught on camera will think twice before doing it again. In terms of starting a conversation about what behaviour is unacceptable to the masses, it works.

 

[JDW]

Have to agree this time that 'freight train' is not an unacceptable choice of words. We know what a train that says Network Rail on the side is. We know what ex-Mk2s painted yellow are for. But it says "railfreight" on the side and it's not a passenger train, it has no windows. It's not an unreasonable conclusion. It's not right, but it's not particularly relevant to the story.  The plane comparison, a better one might be someone not recognising a fire-fighting 747 as such and thinking it is a freighter. Or seeing something that says AirTanker on the side and assuming its a tanker (they also operate  planes configured for passengers). And even if they did report that it was a Network Rail test train, few people who didn't already know what one was and what one looks like would know or care what it meant. 

[newbryford]

Waits for the topic to return to discussing automatic gearboxes......................................

[RJS1977]

39 minutes ago, JDW said:

Have to agree this time that 'freight train' is not an unacceptable choice of words. We know what a train that says Network Rail on the side is. We know what ex-Mk2s painted yellow are for. But it says "railfreight" on the side and it's not a passenger train, it has no windows. It's not an unreasonable conclusion. It's not right, but it's not particularly relevant to the story.  The plane comparison, a better one might be someone not recognising a fire-fighting 747 as such and thinking it is a freighter. Or seeing something that says AirTanker on the side and assuming its a tanker (they also operate  planes configured for passengers). And even if they did report that it was a Network Rail test train, few people who didn't already know what one was and what one looks like would know or care what it meant. 

 

the trouble is though, when we see something being reported that we know is wrong, even if - in this case - it's a relatively insignificant detail - it raises questions as to how accurate their reporting of other events is, that we know much less about.

[kevinlms]

9 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

the trouble is though, when we see something being reported that we know is wrong, even if - in this case - it's a relatively insignificant detail - it raises questions as to how accurate their reporting of other events is, that we know much less about.

It depends.

 

A news item such as the above, needs to get the information out to the general public ASAP, either for safety reasons or to assist people to avoid the area. Speed is of the essence, not 100% accuracy, so no time to find accurate information, from 'experts'.

 

If something is taking weeks/months to prepare, there is plenty of time to be 100% correct. Examples include a bridge reconstruction or another common cause of complaint on RMweb.

 

That is a film made, which shows Mk1 coaching stock, on a scene set in the 1920s! But maybe a particular preserved railway has no suitable 1920s stock, so they roll out their Mk1s, to comply with a contract.

Perhaps it isn't correct, but the income probably makes the operating trust happy!

[TheQ]

The press have always been highly inaccurate, during the firemen's strike we were asked what regiment we were from.. we had RAF in 4ft high dayglow letters on the green Goddess and an RAF flag flying from the back...

[jamie92208]

If it's an NR video to highlight stupidity andvpromotecsafety, surely something along thevlinescof " A train weighing 220 tons travelling at 60 mph." Would be a better way as it emphasises the danger.  

 

I have no idea what the actual train weight was.

 

Jamie

[boxbrownie]

5 hours ago, TheQ said:

The press have always been highly inaccurate, during the firemen's strike we were asked what regiment we were from.. we had RAF in 4ft high dayglow letters on the green Goddess and an RAF flag flying from the back...

Well maybe they thought you were “the regiment” 

[jcredfer]

10 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

Well maybe they thought you were “the regiment” 

 

You could be forgiven for coming to that thought.   Part of the RAF Regiment duties involved defensive measures for Harriers, remote, in the field.  Whilst back on Base the policing of all aircraft [any type ] on any airfield was the responsibility of the RAF Police.  One of our "brilliant" Air Marshals was on a visit to one of the RAF Germany stations saw the Harriers in the field, with "defence" provided by the RAF Regiment and back on base with "Security" by the RAF Police.  He went back to M-o-D and arranged the amalgamation of th RAF Police and RAF Regiment into one Branch.

 

The Fire Flights were, apparently, viewed as some form of defence for aircraft and became part of RAF Regiment responsibility, too.

 

Julian

 

[Damo666]

On 19/12/2020 at 17:57, LMS2968 said:

No, but it's their job to report things accurately. If they told you of an air accident involving a Tiger Moth and it turned out to be an A380 full of passengers . . . If they don't know, ask someone who does.

 

And neither did the report suggest that it was Stephenson's Rocket involved in the incident. (I dislike Hyperbole / extreme exaggeration, but you started it ).

 

I agree that a general description of 'Freight Train' was perfectly adequate to convey the storey. The incident, danger and message looses nothing by an incorrect description on the type of rail transportation.

[LMS2968]

Hyperbole? For saying that someone reporting something should do so accurately, especially if they do this for a living?

 

Actually, it wasn't a train at all, it was a flying saucer from Mars which just happened to be following the tracks . . . Now there's a story to sell the papers!