Trespassing 'enthusiast' on the WCML this morning...

[mark axlecounter]

dose he have a death wish in one pic he is holding his camera while a container train passes him prize pratt. i had one lastnight trying to stand on top of the barriers while the steam train was going past thing is i told him to get off and he said that the barriers are in my way of the steam train. To make it worse he was about 50-60 years old he should know better

[backofanenvelope]

Sometimes wisdom doesn't follow age.. it would be a shame if people like this spoiled it for the masses that do stay within the law and their own safety, but as said previously we live in the age of 'rights' but no responsibility.

Tom

[John_Hughes]

No excuse for idiotic behaviour, of course, but a lot of members of the older generation will remember the days when BR encouraged enthusiasts on tours to walk all over the place.

 

I have photos of a trip round the Britannia Bridge in its original form where there was clearly no restriction at all on where people went - they're spread all over the running lines, and not a high-vis in sight - and I promise you that that wasn't unusual then. So people who were used to the old free-for-all probably regard the current situation as namby-pamby Elf'n'Safety that doesn't apply to them.

 

Fools!

[Edwin_m]

...at which time of course trains were a good deal slower and louder than they are today.

['CHARD]

Gold plated Tw@t!

 

With two 'T's? That's a village on Orkney isn't it?*

 

 

* Geography enthusiasts, it's on the A967

[45156]

I was on the Lune Heritage steam special from Carnforth to Shrewsbury yesterday, and I observed a number of such numpties in similar equally dangerous locations throughout the run - yes they were far outnumbered by the sensible photographers who were observing the rules, but I did see a few over the fence between Wigan NW and Crewe where we were running down the WCML - and our numpty could have had his 50 044 AND 44932 together, as both were at Crewe at the same time.

 

I hope that numpty gets caught and suitably dealt with.

 

His sort really gives the rest of us a good reason to hide our enthusiasm for the railways, I fear.

[Kenton]

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to excuse this guy more seeking clarification.

 

Doesn't the "No Refuges" sign indicate that from that point forwards there are no refuges? So at the point where the sign atually there appears to be a step in the line of the fencing. e is standing inside that step and could be assuming that tis the last refuge.

 

As I said not and excuse AFAIC he is on the track side of the fence and certainly shouldn't be there - I also wonder how any driver passing at speed can see that this guy's intent is photography and not something more morbid.

[Nile_Griffith]

Hi kids!

 

I've already posted my thoughts on this guy, but hopping back into the fray and reading other replies. I wonder if some of you guy's might be able to offer some insight on a couple of questions relevant to Captain Numpty.

 

If said numpty had decided to take the step of wearing a High Viz vest. Would it have: A) At least offered the drivers of oncoming trains and idea that a person was stood in that position next to the rails and was at least cognisant of the effect of his presence to oncoming rail traffic. if not his legal rights to be there. Or: B) By wearing High Viz. Would have presented drivers of oncoming trains confusing information as to the presence of authorised rail workers on that stretch of line. I say this as I assume (not being employed in the rail industry) That as in aviation (for which I do have some experience). Drivers are informed of what works are being carried out and at what times along the routes they drive.

 

The reasons I ask this, is that I am currently working upon a presentation to the HSE. I was involved in what could have been a fatal car accident sometime ago. Where the driver of the car I was in, very nearly struck someone walking across a zebra crossing. His attention had been distracted (and for that matter so had mine) by four bus company workers who where stood at the side of the road surveying a bus stop (the pull in type) none where stood in the road itself, but one certainly to my view, was making quite animated arm gestures as if giving instruction to road vehicles (of which we where the only one). The critical thing was that these guys where all wearing High Viz and there company uniform which was navy blue. Their dress and motion was enough to distract my driver enough, thinking some form of authority was drawing his attention to an oncoming hazard, for him to almost miss recognising the pedestrian crossing, untill nearly upon it.

 

I realise that this way off topic so if anyone does have some pertinent information or point of view please feel free to reply via message or maybe we could ask a moderator to move this on to another topic.

[Guest Max Stafford]

Quite so, Kenton. There's no foolproof way of telling. These days when such a report reaches BTP control it rings major alarm bells as the worst case scenario of a potential suicidal is assumed and units are dispatched on immediate response.

In such a case, this individual could expect close attention from the unit which reaches the scene.

Dave.

[The Stationmaster]

If said numpty had decided to take the step of wearing a High Viz vest. Would it have: A) At least offered the drivers of oncoming trains and idea that a person was stood in that position next to the rails and was at least cognisant of the effect of his presence to oncoming rail traffic. if not his legal rights to be there. Or: B) By wearing High Viz. Would have presented drivers of oncoming trains confusing information as to the presence of authorised rail workers on that stretch of line. I say this as I assume (not being employed in the rail industry) That as in aviation (for which I do have some experience). Drivers are informed of what works are being carried out and at what times along the routes they drive.

If he had been wearing an orange vest - and no other PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) and been there on his own he would clearly have been a trespasser who did not have any sort of of authority to be on or about the railway plus the position of his camera/tripod is a breach of trackside safety rules relating to light tools. Or if he did happen to have authority to be there and was wearing insufficent PPE to meet NR requirements plus the breach with the tripod he would still be in trouble if nabbed by the right folk (assuming the 'right folk' are still around in suffucient numbers). Obviously you need to know what to look for but to anyone in the know he would have stood out like a sore thumb.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Getting back to the original poster.

 

Nidge, in your capacity as a train driver, is it beholden on railway staff to report trespassers? Is this something drivers along the route on the day in question, when they noticed said gentleman by the track, have done, perhaps by cab radio or whatever?

 

I'd have thought a lot of drivers would've spotted him.

 

Regards,

Peter

[Loch Ectary1]

What he was doing was clearly very wrong- that just can't be excused, but all the posts despising amateurs are just plain wrong- as I like to say- Be an amateur proudly!

[Nile_Griffith]

Hello Loch Echtary

 

Not sure that any of the postings are portraying "amateurs" as been an object to despise. There are some very clear thoughts on what the guy, who is the subject of this particular topic and his actions relate too. Like any quiet majority. Those guy's and girls who pursue their interest in the railways in a respectful and observant manner, will always be overshadowed by the one dimwit who draws attention to himself.

 

I may have this wrong, but looking at your Youtube channel link. It notes your age as being fifteen. If this is correct, then good work fella for proving that there are folks of your age out there doing something with their lives and not just sat at home glued to their Xbox... Good work fella! Secondly please take the time to understand what the previous postings are. They are a proper concern for how the railways are observed and enjoyed by people not directly employed or involved in them and that it would be very unfortunate if the continued f*ck ups of a very, very few, contributed to the enjoyment obtained by people just like yourself. Was then knocked on the head or made more difficult because of it.

 

This isn't about amateur bashing. Hopefully we all will have learnt just a little more by looking at this idiot and what he got up too.

[Andy Y]

Have I been an invisible ink victim? I haven't seen anything despising amateurs; just stupidity and thoughtlessness.

[Rugd1022]

Getting back to the original poster.

 

Nidge, in your capacity as a train driver, is it beholden on railway staff to report trespassers? Is this something drivers along the route on the day in question, when they noticed said gentleman by the track, have done, perhaps by cab radio or whatever?

 

I'd have thought a lot of drivers would've spotted him.

 

Regards,

Peter

 

Hi Peter, Yes it is always part of our duties to report trespassers, whether we are on duty or not. In a similar way, when travelling as a passenger we are supposed to offer help to the train crew shouild an incident take place, providing it's safe to do so.

 

Going back to Eddie B's post #24.... to get to the spot he was standing in the 'photographer' for want of a less polite description would have had to trespass in the adjecent field or the small gap between the two parallel fences below the footbridge. I'm not sure which way he chose to get to his preferred spot as he was already there when I arrived. Regarding your point Eddie about oncoming drivers view of the situation.... working this route myself I know that where this chap stood is difficult to see from the Up Slow and Up Fast lines, I suspect he used this to his advantage thinking he wouldn't be seen at all. Just to the north of the footbridge is a brick built cottage right next to the line with some bushes beside the fence, blocking the view for drivers of up (southbound) trains.

 

I do take on board other poster's point about which side of the 'no refuge' sign he could have stood but as almost everyone else has said, he souldn't have been there in the first place. After catching up on some much needed sleep I'm now going to forward the images to the BTP...it's been a long stressful week at work and alas this muppet is not the only one I've reported in the last seven days.

 

Others have also raised the question of whether he would be 'safe' or not were he wearing a hi-viz vest... well he may think that but whenever I see orange on the horizon I check (if possible) what else they are wearing and is there a marked van parked nearby etc...? I've reported non railway folk on the lineside wearing hi-viz vests before now, believe me!

 

Edited three times for poor spelling, due to lack of sleep!

[The Stationmaster]

Others have also raised the question of whether he would be 'safe' or not were he wearing a hi-viz vest... well he may think that but whenever I see orange on the horizon I check (if possible) what else they are wearing and is there a marked van parked nearby etc...? I've reported non railway folk on the lineside wearing hi-viz vests before now, believe me!

Excellent - good to see that Drivers (well one of 'em at least) know how to tell the difference between someone correctly attired and those who just wear an HVV and think they can get away with it. (Mind you I can quite understand that some might go without the correct gear as it can get awful hot...

[Simon Moore]

Selfish & ignorant springs to mind, it's idiotic behaviour like this that spoil's it for the rest of us who do abide by the rules of the railway. I often wonder when i see this wether they think that for some reason they are indestructible & a 9 car Pendolino wouldn't do any damage to them. I would not put my life in risk to catch a video or a photo of something that i loved. The other thing is that these areas where we can get close to the railway & get photos usually get fenced off by the steel fences we see & spoil the shot all because of a prat like him. Wonder what the BTP would do if they had that image.

 

Simon

[298]

I know the area well but don't recognise him as a regular, but then again Cathiron seems to attract photters from all over. I had a similar experience at the same location with a member of the public waiting for Tornado, who also decided to stand right next to the up slow whilst his family waited, almost for the inevitable. Thankfully he decided to move after a Pendolino gave a particuarly long blast on the high tone, the driver having overtaken the steam engine further up the WCML and probably on the lookout for trespassers. Long gone are the days when tresspass was OK if you had a camera, and fences were generally post and wire.

 

In the future, I believe the only solution lies with moves being less in the public domain (the railway really doesn't need local press reporting loco XXXXX will be passing through at a certain time), and enthusiasts setting a good example and ostracising those who misbehave. However, I'm not so sure reporting tresspass on this scale is a good idea, as there is only limited resourses to deal with such a problem.

[coachmann]

I'm mindfull of the old saying, Be careful what you wish for. Highlighting this fellows tresspass could end up with a 7ft fence being erected at YOUR favourite location. Ive seen the one a Diggle. It is galvanised steel, it hardly enhances the local scenery, and yet if you build a house there the house has to fit certain criteria to 'fit in'.

[Boris]

All this hopping a couple of feet over the fence to get a slightly better shot seems a little bit pointless to me. If you are that obsessed with getting the photo BUY A ZOOM LENS!

 

It'll be cheaper than the fine/police caution you will receive if caught.

[NickL2008]

The other side of the bridge at Cathiron looking nort hhas palliside fencing and although it is there to protect it is a nightmere to pan around, said fencing will be put on the other side of there if that sort of thing keeps happening.. Agreed it is pointless standing next to the railway, and speaking as a photographer, the shot would be too narrowly zoomed, but even with a zoom lens, there really isnt any need to stand on the other side of the fencing and trespass, and why would you need to be right up close to the train there, Cathiron isnt anywhere near any noisy roads at all so background noise shouldnt be a problem

 

NL

[kevinlms]

No excuse for idiotic behaviour, of course, but a lot of members of the older generation will remember the days when BR encouraged enthusiasts on tours to walk all over the place.

 

I have photos of a trip round the Britannia Bridge in its original form where there was clearly no restriction at all on where people went - they're spread all over the running lines, and not a high-vis in sight - and I promise you that that wasn't unusual then. So people who were used to the old free-for-all probably regard the current situation as namby-pamby Elf'n'Safety that doesn't apply to them.

 

Fools!

 

Just as an aside, there are plenty of other threads/comments within RMWeb where the intent is to decry H&S as being over the top and that people should 'be responsible for their own actions'.

 

Clearly it is a fine line between what is right & what is wrong. Posters should be very careful when rubbishing H&S examples IMO. There may well have been an incident of some type that the author of this new 'rule' is trying to prevent a repeat of and yet seems funny upon reading, later.

 

Kevin Martin

[Guest Max Stafford]

It's all about balance Kevin. I'll be the first to admit that some H&S thinking does appear ludicrous but there is a time honoured viewpoint here in the sense that there is a right and a wrong side of the railway boundary and this guy is very much on the wrong one.

There is no ambiguity as regards railway trespass - it is an absolute offence in that you are either on the railway (either on or near the line or lineside as defined by the rulebook) or you aren't. The only possible defence against the offence of trespass is that you were there in order to prevent the loss of life and limb; eg trying to stop a train running into a landslide by waving your bright red bloomers at it!

 

Dave.

[The Stationmaster]

 

Just as an aside, there are plenty of other threads/comments within RMWeb where the intent is to decry H&S as being over the top and that people should 'be responsible for their own actions'.

 

Clearly it is a fine line between what is right & what is wrong. Posters should be very careful when rubbishing H&S examples IMO. There may well have been an incident of some type that the author of this new 'rule' is trying to prevent a repeat of and yet seems funny upon reading, later.

Kevin Martin

 

Most of the people who rubbish H&S seem to do so in very generalised terms with little or no idea about the subject or its meaning. In this case, as already explained, there is a very clear matter of trespass and potentially a case of a person exposing himself or others to danger on the railway - nothing at all new or recent about that.

 

If we go to the wider field of safety there has over the years been a considerable change in perception of what is or is not acceptable as 'safe' and that applies equally to the people working on and those travelling on the railway. Thus the industry for either internal reasons or as a result of outside perception or pressure has tightened safeguards and procedures; a process which has been going on since the Railway Level Crossings Act of 1839 - 'safety' is not a new idea.

 

However what is 'new', and is far more pervasive today, is what is politely called 'risk control' with seemingly the 'risk' that is being controlled being fear of prosecution or being sued for damages as a result of being 'blamed' for something. This is going on across society where recent years have seen the emergence of a strong blame culture and a litigious approach to just about anything seen as capable of making a few quid for the legal trade and claimants. In reality this has little or nothing to do with 'safety' and in many respects little or nothing to do with the Health & Safety At Work Act - which became law 37 years ago. In the meanwhile many of those of us who are involved with safety in various parts of the rail industry do our level best to instill commonsense while having to take account of the fact that many folk nowadays have limited understanding of some of the risks and hazards that really do exist on an operational railway. Sorry for diverting OT

[Oldddudders]

As a retired railwayman I have no trouble joining the condemnation of this ignorant cove's actions. I also buy into Mike's analysis of the changes in societal values concerning life and risk. When I joined in 1966, donning an orange vest was all that was needed to wander almost anywhere - and the vests themselves were still very much a novelty. Personal Track Safety was a new concept in about 1990, which called for proper prior instruction and familiarity with the line to be walked. I think Clapham was the catalyst for all kinds of tightening of safety issues, and the Dupont exercise homed in on better safeguards for those on the line.

 

It has been suggested above that less publicity for steam etc moves would be good, but I'm afraid the toothpaste is well out of the tube on that issue, due to the Internet. Worse, media sites like flickr and YouTube offer a competitive element in that they tell you how many hits you've had - so getting the wrong side of the fence might be seen as an advantage to getting the "best" shot/clip of today's excitement.

 

We also now live in a classless society where no-one - but no-one - "knows their place" any more, and thus flouting rules and ignoring legislation is a way of life for many. This is merely another expression of that attitude.