Flying Scotsman aaround Burton earlier today

[phil-b259]

7 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

No, I do understand that - note I never said anything specific about NR. It's all part of an environment we need to change if we're going to improve matters, because the current situation is blatently not working, and "ban this, stop that then" will merely increase scorn and contempt - as I said you have to consider how people think and behave  to improve the situation rather than simply bunkering down to "this is what the law says". That's why in this case I'm asking to put aside the absolute rights and wrongs and consider pragmatism - because as I said earlier I do believe everyone here is on the same side when it comes to not wanting people in the way of trains. Of course NR (or anyone else involved) can't directly change the bigger picture but it's too easy to fall into the trap of everyone just passing the buck rather than accepting responsibility for what they do - from the trespassing fools upwards.

 

Unfortunately (though perhaps wisely judges) are not elected and as long as the current legal environment stays unchanged, organisations will continue to take the current line as regards being ‘risk adverse’

 

The ONLY way you will change things is if the people we elect to Westminster are able to change the law (and there are plenty of lawyers only too willing to make things difficult by invoking stuff like the UN charter on human rights etc).

 

Asking anyone - be it an individual, a charity, a private company or a government department to go against perceived ‘best practice’ simply will not work however much you complain on here.

 

Finally, lest there is any misunderstanding, I do agree that things have gone too far when it comes to saving folk from their own stupidity - but I am a pragmatist and understand that the changes necessary to reverse it have to come from the political and legal arenas.

[Reorte]

9 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Unfortunately (though perhaps wisely judges) are not elected and as long as the current legal environment stays unchanged, organisations will continue to take the current line as regards being ‘risk adverse’

 

The ONLY way you will change things is if the people we elect to Westminster are able to change the law (and there are plenty of lawyers only too willing to make things difficult by invoking stuff like the UN charter on human rights etc).

 

Asking anyone - be it an individual, a charity, a private company or a government department to go against perceived ‘best practice’ simply will not work however much you complain on here.

 

Finally, lest there is any misunderstanding, I do agree that things have gone too far when it comes to saving folk from their own stupidity - but I am a pragmatist and understand that the changes necessary to reverse it have to come from the political and legal arenas.

I can't argue with any of that, as much as I'd like to for one or two bits.

[adb968008]

I think the point Jim is trying to make is the trespass message is wrong.

 

How many people have taken a short cut through a supermarket or pub car park to get where you want to go....

or walked through a farmers field to take a picture...

 

When you did, you trespassed, but it wasn't dangerous.

So think like a normal...

 

if you take a short cut through a car park, whats the difference to standing in a long since trackless goods yard once in your life some 20 metres from a mainline to watch a steam train ?.. or 10, or 5.. and thats how it happens.

 

That said, those two goons on the track next to the Voyager.. what can I say... all it needs is a gust of wind from a passing train to blow off his hat... then he instinctively reaches to grab it, inadvertently putting himself in gauge....

Edited May 10, 2019 by adb968008

[Ian Smeeton]

Perhaps Network Rail should designate a number of 'safe' areas within the fence. Arrange suitable stewards and charge people to use them, with a zero tolerance approach to those not in the designated areas.

 

Regards

 

Ian

[spikey]

8 hours ago, adb968008 said:

That said, those two goons on the track next to the Voyager.. what can I say... all it needs is a gust of wind from a passing train to blow off his hat... then he instinctively reaches to grab it, inadvertently putting himself in gauge....

 

Which might not be a bad thing, apart from the potential effect on the unfortunate driver of the train.

[beast66606]

I'm of the view that the proliferation of high fences makes these matters worse - in the "good old days" people could lean on a fence and watch the train(s) go by, nowadays that fence is probably more like a prison wall and so people are looking for other vantage points - not that I'm supporting the idiots who go lineside, but if the railway was more welcoming to people watching perhaps the veg wouldn't actually need to go to ridiculous lengths to get "the shot".

 

 

 

[adb968008]

22 hours ago, Ian Smeeton said:

Perhaps Network Rail should designate a number of 'safe' areas within the fence. Arrange suitable stewards and charge people to use them, with a zero tolerance approach to those not in the designated areas.

 

Regards

 

Ian

This fits with the idea of restricting steam to specific routes or zones.

A good example of your suggestion is Glenfinnan Viaduct.

 

Rural locations for steam is generally more sound, as its away from the populace and hard to get to. A heritage diesel can get the train their, and back.

 

Running Scotsman through the heart of the country on a bank holiday weekend and shouting about it, was in my opinion asking for trouble.

 

The lessons are not new, British Rail had its rules..

 

A return of opendays like Coalville, Crewe etc where they can run shuttles, manage crowds, still make money would make sense.

Similarly not running steam through suburbs of cities, and reducing risk like off third rail and electrified lines.

These weren't rules made for fun, but decisions made by experienced railwaymen.

 

There are good examples, look at the Cumbrian Mountain Express.. Electric to Carnforth, and back over the S&C to London in a day. 

I know a lot of people have an attachment to Shap, but lets face it, in a sealed air con coach, you cant hear, see, smell or touch it, so whats the point.. sending the train via Barrow reduces risk, and at least you get to see the coast and hear/feel the jointed rail... then back down the S&C.

 

Now if steam was restricted to this route.. (and others) you could have 3 or 4 steam workings on a weekend either way, pasengers being able to change trains, do photo stops etc... then its a product...

And it could get more exciting.. it could justify a 2-6-4T doing an all stations.. and before you know it you have recreated a real world speed preserved operation on quieter mainlines...how is that a bad thing ?

 

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by adb968008

[18B]

On ‎05‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 20:55, jim.snowdon said:

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.

 

Jim

 

The rule book was changed a decade or more ago for the very point you make, and now includes the line

 

"If you believe, or are told, that trespassers are in danger from passing trains" only then are signallers required to stop and caution trains.

[phil-b259]

31 minutes ago, 18B said:

 

The rule book was changed a decade or more ago for the very point you make, and now includes the line

 

"If you believe, or are told, that trespassers are in danger from passing trains" only then are signallers required to stop and caution trains.

 

The key word there is "believe"

 

What one person 'believes' can be very different from another - and the ultimate arbitrator of whether such a belief is justified is not the train drivers, signallers, the BTP or NR - its the people with funny wigs sat in court!

 

There are plenty of court cases on all sorts of subjects where relying on 'belief' rather than facts / rules has been found inadequate by said folk with the funny wigs - so companies need to be careful about using what amounts to personal opinions as the basis for defending actions that may have taken place.

 

Granted the courts do not always find against the use of personal opinion when deciding on subsequent actions, but the mere fact they can sometimes means its more effective for individuals and organisations to err on the side of caution / seek to tighten the rules so as to limit the room for manoeuvrer.

 

 

 

 

 

[bobthesod4479]

Spikey said earlier

 

Speaking as an ex-professional photographer, the one thing that always puzzles me about these idiots is what's the tripod for? 

 

Hmm as an ex professional Photographer also , i am baffled by your statement

 

I regularly use a tripod,   2  in fact  one for the video, one for the camera on motor drive. Both giving me rock steady shots and the added bonus of actually watching the train with the Mk1 eyeball and keeping a good watch around me. I did once at Twyford have a 3 tripod set up with the two videos overlapping so i got a coming and going shot with no need to pan..except my head.

 

I also carry a monopod just in case i have to tie it to a fence where it is impractical to set up a tripod. 

 

Mind you I did get escorted ( sorry man handled) off Woking Station years ago while  waiting for Scotsman as and i quote

 

'As the foot of your tripod was over the yellow line ( it was i agree by one inch, but it WAS over) I have had to stop ALL the up trains from  Basingstoke until you are off the station' He claimed that he had been giving me fair warning over the tannoy, but as i was at the London end of the platform i couldn't hear it

 

The funny part was as he was walking me out, i did point out to him that there were about 100 people right on the edge of the platform, and what was he going to do about it. At least i was behind the yellow line and always have been, AND if i have to set up on the same platform as the train is running through . i hold the tripod as well...just in case BUT i am always the right side.  Idiots like the ones Andrew took a pic of needed a wake up call. Had i been the driver , i might have 'stumbled' into the gear and unfortunately knocked it over

 

A week or so later i was relating this to the staff at Farnborough , and they said they had heard through the grapevine that his action had been the last straw for the bosses and he is now cleaning carriages away from the public. It seems that he had a list of complaints about his attitude that could fill a book. Farnborough and Twyford (GWR) staff were great. Announced how long it would be, if it was on main or slow ( relief at Twyford!!) but in all my years of videoing i have only knowing  got over the fence, It was an insane distance from the track , set up the video and started it and got back behind the fence. The camera was NOT conspicuous. Also whist i have been correct side, the monopod has ventured over to get past vegetation, again nowhere near the line. Not sure though if that constitutes a trespass, but if it does, i would stop doing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SM42]

On 07/05/2019 at 10:08, adb968008 said:

... This weekend is Wolsztyns annual parade and 10k plus people will be all over the trackside and embankments, in the presence of large amounts of beer, and dozens of unpredictable and conflicting movements,but somehow people don’t need to throw themselves in front of a train for a selfie or a  picture for a Facebook page.

 

 

 

Wolsztyn is indeed a different environment. It would be difficult to get into conflict with a train around the station due to the temporary fencing and armed security staff every 10m or so. They can really get in the way of the shot sometimes, but that is life and a mark of how seriously crowd control is taken, even if everything else seems a little haphazard (it undoubtedly isn't )

 

Away from the station people are a reasonable distance from the line, or maybe at a level crossing barrier and views aren't often blocked by vegetation (this in no excuse for the behaviour seen here) . The whole train, (usually short)  not the loco seems to be the target of the camera. A subtle but telling difference perhaps.

 

As for being inside the fence but not on the line, how do you assess the intentions of those who are mobile enough to get inside the fence? Will they stay 30 ft from the track, safe from being hit by a train (yet committing a criminal act) or will they decide they need to get a bit closer for that crucial shot and move? 

The fence line is just that. It marks the legal boundary. Wrong side of it is a criminal offence and you are a potential risk.  People move around, people lose awareness of their surroundings when concentrating  on getting a good shot (bit like driving and using a phone) 

 

There are  rules for a reason. They are enforced for a reason. Just because you can't see the reason doesn't make them any less valid.

 

Andy

[jim.snowdon]

3 hours ago, SM42 said:

The fence line is just that. It marks the legal boundary. Wrong side of it is a criminal offence and you are a potential risk.

I believe you will find that it is merely an offence against the railway byelaws, except possibly in Scotland, due to its different legal system.

 

Jim

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, jim.snowdon said:

I believe you will find that it is merely an offence against the railway byelaws, except possibly in Scotland, due to its different legal system.

 

Jim

 

Nope. It's a Crown offence.

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/transport-offences

 

 

Jason

[Steamport Southport]

All academic if it's banned. Which they are now threatening.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-48229400

 

 

Jason

[SM42]

1 hour ago, jim.snowdon said:

I believe you will find that it is merely an offence against the railway byelaws, except possibly in Scotland, due to its different legal system.

 

Jim

 

Prosecutions related to the Railway Byelaws can (and do) end up being heard at the magistrates court and the Byelaws are created under statutory instruments. Trespass is not mentioned per se  in the Byelaws but it is alluded to under 13 as regards "No person shall enter or remain on any part of the railway where there is a notice: (i) prohibiting access; "

 

I believe a notice at the nearest station  is sufficient under the law. There are many more than this dotted around the network

 

Trespass is also covered in other statute as alluded to above and a fine / penalty not exceeding £1000 can result ( is that level 3?) 

 

Being a fine / penalty  the money goes to the crown not the railway company.

 

For other non criminal  trespass (into your garden for instance) summary damages may be awarded (these are often trivial amounts) to the injured party  and these cases are heard in the civil courts. 

 

Andy

[Mike Bellamy]

 

I see the BBC are using Andrew's photo and have captioned it as coming from BTP.

 

This is taken from the CPS site referenced above

 

Quote

 

Railway Trespass

In assessing the public interest in taking criminal proceedings the circumstances of each case should be considered carefully. In particular:

the age of the offender

the risk of injury to himself or others

the likelihood of disruption to rail services.

Those factors should be weighed together with the broader public interest factors set out above.

 

 

Railway Trespass

Several summary offences deal with this (Stones 7-7041):

 

Section 16 Railway Regulation Act 1840: it is an offence to wilfully trespass on any railway or premises connected therewith and to refuse to leave when asked to do so by any officer or agent of the railway company. 'Wilfulness' can be proved by the refusal to leave. The offence is punishable by one month's imprisonment

 

Section 23 Regulation of the Railways Act 1868: this prohibits passage upon or across any railway line except for the purpose of crossing the line at an authorised point. A person commits an offence by so doing after having once received warning by the railway company, their servants or agents, to desist

 

Section 55 British Transport Commission Act 1949: this penalises trespass on railway lines or property in dangerous proximity to such lines or electrical apparatus. Evidence is required of a notice exhibited at the station nearest the place of offence providing a clear public warning not to trespass on a railway. Punishable by a fine.

 

 

 

.

[rob D2]

Cross the fence......two years in jail.

 

You can’t trust these people to risk assess themselves.

[298]

I see that attempts to fit it with cameras that are in keeping with it's vintage are going well....

[298]

55 minutes ago, rob D2 said:

Cross the fence......two years in jail.

 

You can’t trust these people to risk assess themselves.

 

Their attitude seems to be "I wasn't hit by a train, therefore it's fine". I doubt there was any consideration of risk involved, as for starters that'd take thought and intelligence, and secondly those trespassers and their cohorts seem unable to heed more knowledgeable advice. 

[adb968008]

First reaction, i doubt an all out ban will happen, but then second thought...

yes it can, it has twice already, WCRC vs NR EC following the fire risk, then followed by WCRC vs NR post Wootton Bassett.

 

Indeed I suspect a steam ban is the only way to force the message across as it focusses minds.  Its not right that an event organiser can put on a festival but shirk the responsibilities of event security, even for those not paying to attend the event but trying to see it for free.

 

A defence of its a railway and thereby NRs responsibility cant be right, hence NR is justified in banning it.

 

Scotsman is the worst offender, but its by no means exclusive, even a humble Black 5 draws crowds that are like lemmings off the platform edges.

 

its not Police on trains, its a combination of road and rail based support.. the 47 with a “lock up” BG and a TSO with Police could make sense running ahead of the train, no excuses, bang em up, supported by a riot van with dogs support hitting obvious spots by road.  

If trespassers found themselves delivered to a cell at railtours end, at the other end of the country...

At a minimum if people know its coming they will delay trespass, which means they are reducing risk... With that kind of response, very quickly the problem will fade.

 

One plod seated in first class wont achieve anything, whilst delaying the tour as he flips his notebook in front of the awaiting train taking photographers notes one person at a time.

 

Cant believe those guys haven't been found yet, that said scapegoating them for everyone else's behaviour smacks of unfairness.

 

Edited May 12, 2019 by adb968008

[Andymsa]

Is it really worth it to put yourself danger for a better photo, would someone stand next to the runway at Heathrow, would you stand next to the race track at siverstone. The arnswer is no, so why next to the railway line, to be blunt if someone wishes to be so stupid and gets themselves injured or worse killed then on there head be it. If NR are thinking of taking a view of a ban it is the fault of those who act in this stupid way, all the delays caused inconvenienced to those fair paying passengers and the penalty payments for delayed trains must be a factor too and the possible safety concerns how can they not be thinking in this way.

[Steamport Southport]

4 hours ago, rob D2 said:

Cross the fence......two years in jail.

 

You can’t trust these people to risk assess themselves.

 

If I risk assessed myself, then I would lock myself up and throw away the key! 

 

 

 

Jason

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, rob D2 said:

Cross the fence......two years in jail.

 

You can’t trust these people to risk assess themselves.

That is exactly the point I think.

 

The boundary fence is precisely that - a defined boundary that is obvious to all but the dimmest members of the human race.   Once you are beyond that fence you don't have a clue unless you have been properly trained in respect of safety on or near the line.  So the simple situation is to go for the obvious safest line of demarcation - that boundary fence once again.

 

Having come across some of these idiots in the past the more determined ones seem to have a one track mind - getting 'the shot' and they are often not only oblivious to anything around them but labour in the belief that the only train running on the railway is the one they are there to photograph.  As I have related in another thread I found the best answer in such cases (fortunately fairly rare) was to 'help them on their way.  However one chap who I had 'helped' was rather upset when he landed in a bramble bush although he didn't seem at all grateful to have not be spread over/under a D10XX which arrived a minute or two later.  I suggested to him that if he wished to complain he should contact British Transport Police and I'd be happy to tell him where they could be found locally - he didn't take up my offer.

 

People on stations are however, in my experience, likely to be even more stupid.  At Hook some years ago I saw a couple, standing down the platform ramp, who narrowly escaped adding to the lubrication of 'Tornado's valve gear;  they were extremely lucky that the train was not going very fast at that location.

 

Stick to the simple and readily understood rules - that is the boundary fence and do not cross it.  if you do so you could be putting yourself in a position of danger, and you might not even realise you are doing so.  The fence is obvious, a 'position of safety' isn't. 

[royaloak]

15 hours ago, adb968008 said:

First reaction, i doubt an all out ban will happen, but then second thought...

 

Cant believe those guys haven't been found yet, that said scapegoating them for everyone else's behaviour smacks of unfairness.

 

No need to ban steam, just make the tour operators responsible for any and all delays caused by trespassers out to see their tour, they would all be skint in a month or two so no more tours. They could then sell their steam engines to Booths etc who could 'section' all the locos.

 

They are not being scapegoated, they have committed offences and the Police would like to interview them, I am sure the Police would like to interview many more of the trespassers but they dont have photographic evidence.

Edited May 12, 2019 by royaloak

[Wheatley]

On 10/05/2019 at 17:21, royaloak said:

Unfortunately the tour operators dont pick up the tab for the delays, Network Rail do.

You're right if course, my delay attribution is a bit rusty.  In that case the ban may happen a lot faster,  as evidenced by the statement over the weekend.