Flying Scotsman aaround Burton earlier today

[jim.snowdon]

On 12 May 2019 at 08:35, adb968008 said:

 

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.

 

 

 

I may be wrong, but were not both of those down to WCRC having their safety case as an operator withdrawn by the ORR due to failings on the part of WCRC management?

As it is, whilst barring the locomotive from the network might have its virtues, can NR, within the requirements of being an open access operator, actually do that on grounds other than on technical grounds, i.e. incompatibility with the infrastructure? Or is it possibly a case of the ORR restricting any safety case for its operation on the basis that the consequential safety risk is not tolerable?

 

Jim

[Reorte]

11 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

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. 

 

That just brings us back full circle, and a bit of preaching to the converted. It's those people who are crossing the fence you need to be looking at and thinking about why they're doing it, why the message hasn't got across. "Wrong side of the fence" might be simple and obvious but it clearly isn't being effective for certain people and no-one's said anything to change my mind that such a rigid approach doesn't have a "boy who cried wolf" effect that results in less, rather than more compliance.

 

I've said it before and got very frustrated with people who stick rigidly with "those are the rules" (as opposed to saying something along the lines of "those are also the rules NR have to work with"). That's why I've mentioned respect several times, and how it simply cannot be demanded no matter how much those running the show say "we know what we're doing, you don't, so do what you're told." Human nature simply doesn't respond well to the appeal to authority and the result is that the rules get increasingly treated with contempt and consequently become less effective, no matter how sensible they are. Creating an environment based around how people should behave rather than how they do isn't going to create progress here.

 

And of course there'll still be a few idiots who'll pay no attention no matter what, draconian measures are needed for them (and them alone).

[Andymsa]

3 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

That just brings us back full circle, and a bit of preaching to the converted. It's those people who are crossing the fence you need to be looking at and thinking about why they're doing it, why the message hasn't got across. "Wrong side of the fence" might be simple and obvious but it clearly isn't being effective for certain people and no-one's said anything to change my mind that such a rigid approach doesn't have a "boy who cried wolf" effect that results in less, rather than more compliance.

 

I've said it before and got very frustrated with people who stick rigidly with "those are the rules" (as opposed to saying something along the lines of "those are also the rules NR have to work with"). That's why I've mentioned respect several times, and how it simply cannot be demanded no matter how much those running the show say "we know what we're doing, you don't, so do what you're told." Human nature simply doesn't respond well to the appeal to authority and the result is that the rules get increasingly treated with contempt and consequently become less effective, no matter how sensible they are. Creating an environment based around how people should behave rather than how they do isn't going to create progress here.

 

And of course there'll still be a few idiots who'll pay no attention no matter what, draconian measures are needed for them (and them alone).

 

The actions of the few spoil it for everyone, happens all the time. But the simple way to educate is let them look at a body of someone hit by a train and its effects on those involved from the driver to those who clean all the mess up. Maybe then the message may get across but being the old cynic I am I don't think it would.

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, Andymsa said:

 

The actions of the few spoil it for everyone, happens all the time. But the simple way to educate is let them look at a body of someone hit by a train and its effects on those involved from the driver to those who clean all the mess up. Maybe then the message may get across but being the old cynic I am I don't think it would.

 

It'll only get the message across if they don't think "well my behaviour isn't that stupid (even if it is) so that won't happen to me." Although making them do the cleanup to spare someone else having to would be justified IMO (but probably far too impractical).

 

Hmm, I wonder if putting them in the cab of a train doing 125 mph with some dummies fixed in a similar position to where they were might do something? I'm thinking of the sort of situation where someone might do something themselves willingly but swear when they see someone else do it (such as pulling out of a side road and making another car brake). Again probably not practical.

[SM42]

9 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

 Creating an environment based around how people should behave rather than how they do isn't going to create progress here.

 

And of course there'll still be a few idiots who'll pay no attention no matter what, draconian measures are needed for them (and them alone).

 

Surely by that logic all rules are a waste of time. The whole of society is based around how people should behave, whether that be at the dinner table, driving or taking a photo of a train. A world without boundaries would be utter chaos

 

Not using a hand held phone whilst driving is a very important rule. People do it and get away with it and don't kill innocent bystanders in the process. Next time they might not be so lucky.  Does that make the rule any less important?

Does it stop the majority not dismissing it as silly government interference on our freedoms? I would hazard a guess that it doesn't.

 

In all walks of life there will people who rebel against authority, there will be those who act out of stupidity or ignorance, a superior sense that they know better perhaps?

 

Not crossing to the wrong side of the railway fence is one rule. The fence is the rule.  Not some to be determined by the individual, on a case by case basis, invisible boundary. Everyone undertsands the concept of a fence.  Try crossing a fence into another country (North Korea perhaps) without following the rules and see how far that gets.

 

Ultimately there are rules for a good  reason.

They are not made up for fun nor to spoil someone elses' fun.  In the transport industry they are often born out of tragedy. Born out of  how people did behave and trying to modify  that behaviour before it  causes more heartache.

To ignore this and deny the importance of such rules is, in my opinion, playing with fire.

 

Andy

[royaloak]

 There is always the issue of people with less understanding of the possible dangers seeing others going the wrong side of the fence and deciding they will do the same, but as they dont understand the dangers they get walloped by a train.

[eastglosmog]

1 hour ago, royaloak said:

 There is always the issue of people with less understanding of the possible dangers seeing others going the wrong side of the fence and deciding they will do the same, but as they dont understand the dangers they get walloped by a train.

All to true - when I was a quarry manager in Cornwall we had pestilential dog walkers who persistently cut their way through the quarry fence so they could exercise their mutts in the quarry.  One day three children on holiday from town saw the dog walkers cut the fence and go through.  The children followed them through the fence (being too young to read the notices).  The children were standing above a 90m drop when my foreman saw them.  He managed to get up there and coax them down before they fell.  You may wonder where their parents were at the time - they were on the other side of the road setting out a picnic (on the quarry tip which was nice and grass covered) and hadn't a clue where their children had got to.

I hate self entitled people who ignore security fences which are there for a reason!

Edited May 13, 2019 by eastglosmog

[PhilMortimer]

4 hours ago, eastglosmog said:

All to true - when I was a quarry manager in Cornwall we had pestilential dog walkers who persistently cut their way through the quarry fence so they could exercise their mutts in the quarry.  One day three children on holiday from town saw the dog walkers cut the fence and go through.  The children followed them through the fence (being too young to read the notices).  The children were standing above a 90m drop when my foreman saw them.  He managed to get up there and coax them down before they fell.  You may wonder where their parents were at the time - they were on the other side of the road setting out a picnic (on the quarry tip which was nice and grass covered) and hadn't a clue where their children had got to.

I hate self entitled people who ignore security fences which are there for a reason!

 

And this is the crux of it. Like it or not, the railways are industrial work zones. Fences are there to keep people who are not qualified or who should not be there (and who may or may not be aware of the hazards) out of harms way. Same as for any other hazardous work environment (airport, chemical works, nuclear plant, etc.). The fence is the demarcation line - unless you have a reason to be there (even if you are qualified), then you should not be in the area within the fence.

 

Railways are a little different from other hazardous work zones in that there are areas where the general public and the railways DO interact, namely crossings, yards and stations. But in these cases, in the main, the interaction is controlled to mitigate the chance of an accident (demarcation of safe areas to wait and cross, crossing barriers and warnings lights / sirens, etc.). But at the end of the day, they are still a potentially hazardous environment where access is nessecarily controlled. 

 

Part of of the problem is that many people have a romantic view of the railways and do not see them as a hazardous work environment. The working railway today is faster and more complex than days of old. It may not be romantic, but it is what it is.

 

In addition, societal acceptance of industrial risk and accidents has changed, which in the main is beneficial. Today there are far fewer industrial accidents, due to proper training, risk management and control. The result is far fewer preventable deaths and accidents in the industrial workplace. Some may complain of “Elf and Safety”, but in many cases it is legitimate and nesecary. Even preserved railways have had to come up to date with regards to industrial health and safety, which is no bad thing. Yes, it is not romantic and yes, the paperwork burden is probably heavier. But there are good reasons for doing proper hazard assessment and mitigation and the reduced industrial injury rate speaks to that. Thinking through the hazards and preventing accidents from occurring in the first place is a lot better than clearing up an accident after it occurs.

 

At the end of the day, railways (both working and preserved lines) are potentially hazardous industrial areas and the fence is there for a reason to keep the uninitiated / unaware / unqualified away from danger to themselves and others. The fence is the demarcation line and the arrogance of those who ignore it, puts themselves In danger, as well as disrupting the central function of the railway which is to transport people and freight quickly, efficiently and safely. Those who do so deserve to be prosecuted. Unfortunately, the only way this will happen is IF BTP can identify and successfully prosecute such trespassers. It will remain to be seen to see if sufficient resources are provided for that to occur.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by PhilMortimer
Typo

[jim.snowdon]

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, developed and otherwise, where the only lines that are fenced are the high speed ones. This seems to be a uniquely British problem, with equally narrow minded attitudes to safety as a whole.

 

Jim

[Reorte]

14 hours ago, SM42 said:

 

Ultimately there are rules for a good  reason.

They are not made up for fun nor to spoil someone elses' fun.  In the transport industry they are often born out of tragedy. Born out of  how people did behave and trying to modify  that behaviour before it  causes more heartache.

To ignore this and deny the importance of such rules is, in my opinion, playing with fire.

 

 

Please remember that we're both wanting the same thing - I hope - people not getting hit by trains. That is the one and only consideration I'm looking at here.

 

You're not  really answering my post at all because you appear to be taking the view that I'm simply rejecting rules. I have not said that in the slightest. I have been trying to explain why, even though the intentions are good, the current regime and very rigid black and white attitude is ineffective. Sneery comments like "spoil someone else's fun" further smack of dismissing, rather than considering, other views of the issue.

 

Please go back and re-read. And take into account that I am not, and never have, condoned people going on to the wrong side of the fence. All I have said is that a very arbitrary attitude in response towards anyone on the wrong side is counterproductive towards the ultimate goal of people not getting hurt. That is my key point, and "the rules are there for a reason and must be obeyed" does not answer or address it. Yes, if everyone stuck to the letter then that risk would go away. But people are people and they won't just do things because authority demands it, no matter how insistent you are that they should. The harsh reality is that to increase compliance you need to increase respect, and demanding respect does not increase it. Ignoring that is playing with fire.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Reorte

[Reorte]

14 hours ago, royaloak said:

 There is always the issue of people with less understanding of the possible dangers seeing others going the wrong side of the fence and deciding they will do the same, but as they dont understand the dangers they get walloped by a train.

 

And there's another problem that if people are far too frequently being condemned (verbally or legally) for situations that are perceived to be essentially arbitrary then respect for the rules is killed and people will have no qualms about ignoring them when they think they can get away with it. It really winds me up that some people are point blank refusing to consider that issue because it's so fundamental as to why we're getting people going where they're in danger.

 

The only way we'll get progress is if trust and respect is earned on both sides, with the full force of penalties being brought only on those who'll never give any respect under any circumstances. Expecting anything less is arrogant.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Reorte

[Fat Controller]

1 hour ago, jim.snowdon said:

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, developed and otherwise, where the only lines that are fenced are the high speed ones. This seems to be a uniquely British problem, with equally narrow minded attitudes to safety as a whole.

 

Jim

This may once have been the case, but RFF in France has on-going programme of installing wire-mesh fencing around lines in 'built-up' areas, often during upgrading projects. I used the zoom feature on Google Maps to have a look at a few lines. Recently-installed fencing could be seen around Marck and Gravelines on the Calais- Dunkerque line, and at Tain-le-Hermitage on the PLM main line. Perversely, they have been looking at removing fences on some of the LGVs in areas like the Morvan; there are a lot of large wild animals, such as deer and wild boar, which cross the fences where the the line is in cutting, and are then unable to get out, with predictable consequences.

[The Stationmaster]

On 13/05/2019 at 09:13, jim.snowdon said:

I may be wrong, but were not both of those down to WCRC having their safety case as an operator withdrawn by the ORR due to failings on the part of WCRC management?

As it is, whilst barring the locomotive from the network might have its virtues, can NR, within the requirements of being an open access operator, actually do that on grounds other than on technical grounds, i.e. incompatibility with the infrastructure? Or is it possibly a case of the ORR restricting any safety case for its operation on the basis that the consequential safety risk is not tolerable?

 

Jim

Simple matter for NR I think Jim - provided they think about it for a few minutes before diving in.  All they need to do is rewrite they Safety Case in respect of steam train running using examples of mass trespass and people placing themselves on or near the line or in an unsafe position and Robert is your father's brother.  The operation of steam hauled trains on NR duly becomes 'unsafe' (with a risk assessment to back that decision)  and therefore ceases, game over.

 

20 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

It'll only get the message across if they don't think "well my behaviour isn't that stupid (even if it is) so that won't happen to me." Although making them do the cleanup to spare someone else having to would be justified IMO (but probably far too impractical).

 

Hmm, I wonder if putting them in the cab of a train doing 125 mph with some dummies fixed in a similar position to where they were might do something? I'm thinking of the sort of situation where someone might do something themselves willingly but swear when they see someone else do it (such as pulling out of a side road and making another car brake). Again probably not practical.

Which is just about the ultimate in wooly thinking.  

 

Some years ago I was travelling in the rear coach of an HST running at, probably, 125 mph and there was lot of thudding and banging underneath just after we passed over a foot crossing.  My son asked me what that noise was, so I told him - (putting it politely) that it was human body or particular parts thereof.  The train stopped a mile or so later on because the Driver 'had felt a bump' (as did we passengers albeit a different sort of bump by the time it reached us) and that was typical - Drivers don't always see the person they hit, in fact it's more common in my experience of such incidents on open line for them not to see the person - but they feel the bump especially on modern traction units (with steam they often didn't even feel a bump).

 

So what happens next - as it used to be - is that folk in my past line of railway work and possibly the emergency service (It's often contentious issue with them about whose job it isn't) go out with plastic sacks and get searching.  In some cases you will find a body, especially if it was a glancing blow but often as not it's a lot more complex than that.  As a police Sergeant said to me many years at the first one I attended "the  most important job is to count the arms & legs - to ascertain how many victims there are?"   Sorry to be blunt but trains don't necessarily just kill people, often as not they dismantle them.

 

Once you've had to deal with that sort of thing you tend to develop a particular attitude to brainless trespassers, to the moronic goons who thinks it's fun to climb over the fence 'to get a better shot'.  It's all very simple really - the fence is the boundary and what's more it's the only boundary that is visible to anybody,  If you don'r t respect that boundary you are going somewhere where you are not only not supposed to be but you are putting your life, and possibly others, at risk.  Nothing to do with 'rules' but all about simple commonsense and respect for property.  If people can't manage that there's something missing in their minds but the ones I feel sorry for are the poor s*ds who'll be out picking up the pieces (literally) and popping them into a black plastic sack (other colours are available and I have seen.a transparent plastic sack used on one occasion because it was all that was to hand).

[Reorte]

31 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Which is just about the ultimate in wooly thinking.  

 

I'm afraid that's just being dismissive. Showing people the consequences will only be of any use if you can also convince them if their behaviour is likely to result in the same.

 

Quote

Once you've had to deal with that sort of thing you tend to develop a particular attitude to brainless trespassers, to the moronic goons who thinks it's fun to climb over the fence 'to get a better shot'.  It's all very simple really - the fence is the boundary and what's more it's the only boundary that is visible to anybody,  If you don'r t respect that boundary you are going somewhere where you are not only not supposed to be but you are putting your life, and possibly others, at risk.  Nothing to do with 'rules' but all about simple commonsense and respect for property.  If people can't manage that there's something missing in their minds but the ones I feel sorry for are the poor s*ds who'll be out picking up the pieces (literally) and popping them into a black plastic sack (other colours are available and I have seen.a transparent plastic sack used on one occasion because it was all that was to hand).

 

The highlighted is precisely where I'm coming from - that is what we need to increase to reduce the number of ghastly outcomes that you describe - something I wouldn't wish on anyone. Some people will just do whatever they're told. They're not causing problems. Some never will, you've just got to be very strict with them, which is a lot easier if there are more people not causing trouble. And a lot in between you need to get on your side by persuading them that what you're saying really is necessary (no matter what you think of them personally), and I'm seeing a lot of attitudes in this thread which are alienating those people rather than getting them on your side. The more of them you get on your side the more peer pressure there is from them to get the more reluctant to comply. That is also common sense and respect.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Reorte

[The Stationmaster]

16 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

I'm afraid that's just being dismissive. Showing people the consequences will only be of any use if you can also convince them if their behaviour is likely to result in the same.

 

 

 

Exactly so - totally dismissive of utterly impractical and meaningless nonsense.   There is a very simple message which you still try hard to ignore - there is a fence, a boundary fence.  That should be obvious to even the dullest knife in the drawer (I know it sometimes isn't) but once you get beyond that fence there is nothing obvious at all other than the first rail you come to - and if you've got that close you're too close.  We can't teach the entire country the relevant safety procedures so stick to KISS and rely on the incredibly obvious and simple boundary fence.

 

Quite how saving somebody's life will alienate them is hard to understand although having done it on one occasion I can see the difficulty.  But, and it is an impossible BUT, you cannot patrol very single possible point of entry to a steam route so you have to start with the simplest universal procedure - keep out.   While I don't wish it on either railway staff, of all grades, or the emergency services perhaps in some respects it would be no bad thing if one of these idiots did get hurt but that shouldn't be necessary with sensible principles made crystal clear to all concerned.  If not there is an even simpler answer - ban 'Flying Scotsman' from NR metals because the overwhelming bulk of the problems have involved it and not other engines.

[Reorte]

56 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Exactly so - totally dismissive of utterly impractical and meaningless nonsense.   There is a very simple message which you still try hard to ignore - there is a fence, a boundary fence.  That should be obvious to even the dullest knife in the drawer (I know it sometimes isn't) but once you get beyond that fence there is nothing obvious at all other than the first rail you come to - and if you've got that close you're too close.  We can't teach the entire country the relevant safety procedures so stick to KISS and rely on the incredibly obvious and simple boundary fence.

 

I said it was impractical, it was really just thrown out as an idea to demonstrate how I think people think.

 

Look, I am not ignoring the message. I am pointing out why I believe some other people are and why the constant repeated "this is the simple rule" is not being effective in stopping them - not me.  I'm not one of those people on the wrong side of the fence, and never have been, and have no intention of being one. I am not condoning people who do so. Please stop equating trying to understand and explain why people behave as they do with agreeing with that behaviour. I am starting to get rather annoyed with being shot for being the messenger. You can call them all the names you like for ignoring the simple message but that's not going to get them starting to pay attention to it.

 

Quote

Quite how saving somebody's life will alienate them is hard to understand although having done it on one occasion I can see the difficulty.  

 

Because they are not persuaded that you're saving their life even if you are, but increasingly come to the conclusion that you're enforcing rules for the sake of it. And the more you just blankly insist "it's simple, these are the rules, obey them, end of" the more they'll think it's rules for the sake of rules. Demanding respect does not work.

 

Please stop and think about why your message is not getting through to the people it needs to the most. If you can't see things from their perspective, no matter how unpalatable that might be to try, you won't have much success. The issue is how do we keep people out of the way of trains. Continually repeating the same message simply isn't working for those people, particularly if you're directing it at the likes of me instead of them.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Reorte

[Steamport Southport]

I think people are mistaking libertarianism for commonsense.

 

In the UK you can usually cross the road at any point, it's your fault if you get hit. In the US it's a criminal offence which can have a jail sentence called jaywalking, usually up to a $1000 dollar fine.

 

 

Jason

[Matt C]

The reason the message isn't getting across is that far too often, If caught they get off Scott free or with a slap on the wrist. Catch them, ALWAYS prosecute, maximum fine AND a ban for life from all railway property and PUBLICISE.  Hard on the first few but then your message will get across . Far too often these days its 'poor me, not my fault, someone else is to blame'  and yes in the past I did have to look under the front end of an HST looking for missing parts while listening to the poor driver throwing up on the platform, and then have to hose off the mess so it could continue to London.  The fences are there to create a 'safe zone', all of it, 24/7 not bits of it, some of the time when it suits

[caradoc]

So, if the message that trespassing on the railway is dangerous is arbitrary and ineffective because 'the more you just blankly insist "it's simple, these are the rules, obey them, end of" the more they'll think it's rules for the sake of rules. Demanding respect does not work', what is the alternative ? What message should Network Rail and the BT Police put about trespass ? Maybe 'Do not go beyond the boundary fence, you are trespassing, however it's only dangerous if you go on the track, if you keep clear of that you'll probably be OK' ?

 

As Stationmaster says, the results of a person being struck by a train are often horrendous, and certainly in my railway career there were incidents when body parts could not be located, only to be found (often by PW staff) some time later. It has been said before, the general public is clueless about railways, the only message to give them is do not trespass, full stop.

 

[Reorte]

I do understand where you're coming from but the problem is that some people know they're not supposed to trespass but are doing so anyway. The message is clearly working for most (i.e. the people you never hear about because they never trespass) but some just don't respect that rule.

 

I think what you're getting at is that a message "it's OK to go some distance over the fence" is completely the wrong thing to do. I very much agree with that, that'll just make the situation far worse. If what I'm saying comes across as that then I sincerely apologise, because it's not my goal. I suppose what I'm saying is that education rather than dictation is what I believe is required to deal with some trespassers (and the full force of the law is all that'll work with others). That's why, for example, speed awareness courses were introduced; I've heard some people say they were just preachy but others saying they were very useful and informative and have changed their attitudes and behaviour. Make the general public less clueless!

Edited May 14, 2019 by Reorte

[Phil Parker]

It's easy to say you should prosecute, but quite how an over-stretched police force is going to do this is less clear. We have the clear photo of the 2 numpties but has anyone from here reported the names and contact details of those in the picture to the authorities? No? Well, it's going to be hard work to track them down then and I suspect the police will argue they have other priorities - "Sorry, we can't investigate your assault, we're too busy prosecuting trainspotters" will look great on the front page of the Daily Mail in nice big letters. 

 

As for banning people from railway property for life. How do you stop someone entering a railway station? Assuming we can't have a copper on every door, some sort of facial recognition system would seem to be best, but the police are trialling this stuff and people are protesting about it. 

 

I love the idea that "the book" will be thrown at them, but practically, can't see it happening. In the meantime, perhaps a bit of peer pressure from those on the correct side of the fence might help. It would be better if we didn't always have to rely on the threat of prosecution being the only thing that stops people breaking the rules.

[Steamport Southport]

6 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

It's easy to say you should prosecute, but quite how an over-stretched police force is going to do this is less clear. We have the clear photo of the 2 numpties but has anyone from here reported the names and contact details of those in the picture to the authorities? No? Well, it's going to be hard work to track them down then and I suspect the police will argue they have other priorities - "Sorry, we can't investigate your assault, we're too busy prosecuting trainspotters" will look great on the front page of the Daily Mail in nice big letters. 

 

As for banning people from railway property for life. How do you stop someone entering a railway station? Assuming we can't have a copper on every door, some sort of facial recognition system would seem to be best, but the police are trialling this stuff and people are protesting about it. 

 

I love the idea that "the book" will be thrown at them, but practically, can't see it happening. In the meantime, perhaps a bit of peer pressure from those on the correct side of the fence might help. It would be better if we didn't always have to rely on the threat of prosecution being the only thing that stops people breaking the rules.

 

You don't need the book thrown at them. A good dressing down would do and if the two numpties have a bit of decency then they are possibly already being contrite. I doubt it though.

 

However I reckon the DM would love to see them prosecuted. It already complains about trains being late and cancelled, if they can eradicate one of the causes of those delays then surely they would be happy?

 

Maybe they should start showing the old public service videos again. Robbie in particular.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxXDw3WOGQs

 

 

Jason

[PhilMortimer]

Maybe they should show the one of the (very) near miss at Thurston! (And that was not FS). A few inches furthermore and that would have been very nasty.

 

I do wonder if behind the scenes, NRM (or other loco owners) are looking at all this whole issue and are wondering if they are OK with their loco's being out on the main line and the cause of so many problems. If (and when) there is an accident, the liability, acrimony and repercussions are going to be off the charts and no-one is going to want to be part of it. I'm sure that some owners and operators are going to start getting nervous about operating steam power on the main line in this mad-house environment. And I would not be surprised if crews start to refuse to operate them as well, given the stressful nature that operating steam loco's on the main line is becoming. And whilst I always love to steam at speed on the mainline, I would not blame either the owners, operators or crews if the did decide to pull the plug. That is the way in which this madness will stop - those who own and operate such loco's will decide its not worth their while.

[Matt C]

From what I've read about the exchange between the old boy and the driver I don't think a dressing down would even register. The driver mentioned that the two trespassers said they were local land owners out to get some photos so how many properties can there be around that local area ?  I would think the BTP would be glad of a couple of high profile prosecutions to get their point across. And seeing them publicly banned from railway property and running the risk of being unceremoniously thrown off a train at the next station if caught, just MAY make others think twice 

[Steamport Southport]

42 minutes ago, Mattc6911 said:

From what I've read about the exchange between the old boy and the driver I don't think a dressing down would even register. The driver mentioned that the two trespassers said they were local land owners out to get some photos so how many properties can there be around that local area ?  I would think the BTP would be glad of a couple of high profile prosecutions to get their point across. And seeing them publicly banned from railway property and running the risk of being unceremoniously thrown off a train at the next station if caught, just MAY make others think twice 

 

If they were local landowners then I'm Mickey Mouse.

 

To misquote an Indiana Jones movie.

 

 

Jason