woodenhead Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 This was posted on the SVR forum: http://forum.svra.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=2269&start=0 Only takes one idiot to spoil it for everyone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWJP Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Dear lord... I do wonder what, if anything, goes on in people's heads sometimes... Ross Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted October 13, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 13, 2011 Sweeping generalisation warning ... ONE muppet (ok a few) does not make ALL of us behave the same way. :nono: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 13, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 13, 2011 Sweeping generalisation warning ... ONE muppet (ok a few) does not make ALL of us behave the same way. :nono: Absolutely true, BUT pics like that have a nasty habit if surfacing in all sorts of places and you can never tell who is likely to see them. At least two heritage type railways have had visits from HMRI as a result of photos appearing on the 'net. And what we might fondly believe to be 'not the Railway's responsibility' doesn't always work like that, especially when there is currently 'a particular interest' in the activities of such lines in the Inspectorate - who will duly arrive and ask to see the Railway's written procedures to prevent something like that from occurring, the records of how those procedures were briefed and who - by name & date - they were briefed to; and how those who had been briefed were able to show by examination etc (again by name & date) that they understood those procedures; plus the record of inspections and audits carried out to ensure that those staff were doing what they were supposed to do and that the procedures were being correctly applied (recorded by date and time of course). That Railway has already been hauled over the coals once for inadequate control of materials standards and some folk do like to make return visits once they've got their teeth into such concerns. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pH Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 A question - who is responsible for policing heritage railways? I see it's not part of the BTPs remit. Is it part of the local police force's duties? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 That is pretty daft, although I have observed a stupider person not so long ago. Train at Pickering, Q6 about to depart tender first, gets the right away and whistles. Exhibit B (above is exhibit A!) runs out of the 6 foot, about 4 feet in front of the now departing train, stumbles in front of the loco. At this point his is EXTREMELY lucky that the tender guard iron knocked his leg out of the way or he would have lost his foot, he then rights himself and attempts to dive onto the departing train. Thankfully the leading door behind the loco was locked out of use, so he belts down to the guards door, and says "can I get on?", the guard leans out the window, smiles and says "not after the stunt you've just pulled sir!" Cue temper tantrum because he missed his train. Sympathy from staff - nil. Civil Police are responsible for heritage railways btw. BTP don't want to know. The problem is, no matter how safe you make your safeguards, short of 8 foot razor wire fences at the end of platforms, there is ALWAYS one person stupid enough to find a way round it. Add secondary door locking to mk1s, folks rip the bolts off, physically lock the doors on a carriage key (either current policy or upcoming policy for at least one mainline operator - the memory fails), they climb out of the window (yes, really). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted October 13, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 13, 2011 A question - who is responsible for policing heritage railways? I see it's not part of the BTPs remit. Is it part of the local police force's duties? From Wikipedia - Jurisdiction As well as having jurisdiction of the system operated by Network Rail consequential to being a former part of British Railways, the BTP are also responsible for policing: The London Underground system The Docklands Light Railway High Speed 1 The Sunderland line of the Tyne and Wear Metro (between Pelaw and South Hylton) The Midland Metro Croydon Tramlink The Glasgow Subway (since early 2007) This amounts to around 10,000 miles of track and more than 3,000 railway stations and depots. There are more than 1 billion passenger journeys annually on the mainline alone. In addition, the British Transport Police in conjunction with the French Police aux Frontières, police the international services operated by Eurostar.[7] It is not responsible for policing the rest of the Tyne and Wear Metro or the Manchester Metrolink or any other railway with which it does not have a service agreement; it can act as a constabulary for a transport system in Great Britain with which it commences a service agreement. It does not police any heritage railways. In certain circumstances a BTP constable can act as a police constable outside of their normal railway jurisdiction as described in the "Powers and status of officers" section. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pH Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 From Wikipedia - Jurisdiction As well as having jurisdiction of the system operated by Network Rail consequential to being a former part of British Railways, the BTP are also responsible for policing: The London Underground system The Docklands Light Railway High Speed 1 The Sunderland line of the Tyne and Wear Metro (between Pelaw and South Hylton) The Midland Metro Croydon Tramlink The Glasgow Subway (since early 2007) This amounts to around 10,000 miles of track and more than 3,000 railway stations and depots. There are more than 1 billion passenger journeys annually on the mainline alone. In addition, the British Transport Police in conjunction with the French Police aux Frontières, police the international services operated by Eurostar.[7] It is not responsible for policing the rest of the Tyne and Wear Metro or the Manchester Metrolink or any other railway with which it does not have a service agreement; it can act as a constabulary for a transport system in Great Britain with which it commences a service agreement. It does not police any heritage railways. In certain circumstances a BTP constable can act as a police constable outside of their normal railway jurisdiction as described in the "Powers and status of officers" section. Well, yes, that's what the BTP does. In there, as I said, it specifically says the BTP does not police heritage railways. I asked, since BTP doesn't police heritage railways, who does? Boris (above) has answered that it's the responsility of the local civilian police. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 13, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 13, 2011 A question - who is responsible for policing heritage railways? I see it's not part of the BTPs remit. Is it part of the local police force's duties? I'm not quite sure what that has to do with it unless a criminal offence has been committed or is suspected and the Railway decides to call the police to either assist in apprehending a suspect or to make an arrest (which could presumably only be a matter of criminal law or an offence against the Railway's Byelaws). Keeping people off the line on a heritage railway is a matter for that Railway, not for the police - unless an offence has been committed. I can't find any reference online to the SVR's Byelaws (assuming they have some of course) but at best all they are likely to do is provide a clearcut (hopefully) definition of where persons are and are not allowed on their property and under what circumstances, I don't think normal criminal law would now do that. The prevention of unauthorised access to its lines and sidings etc is basically a matter for the Railway and should be covered in, or as an adjunct to, its Safety management System (SMS). And if it is not so covered the Railway is liable to enforcement action which ranges from 'advice' to improve its procedures, or upwards via an Improvement Notice, right through to an Enforcement Notice with the risk that the latter might well force closure of part or all of its operations until the necessary procedures are in place. And HMRI have served several Improvement Notices in respect of SMS and at least one Railway which didn't heed them was served with an Enforcement Notice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted October 13, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 13, 2011 Well, yes, that's what the BTP does. In there, as I said, it specifically says the BTP does not police heritage railways. I asked, since BTP doesn't police heritage railways, who does? Boris (above) has answered that it's the responsility of the local civilian police. Opps, sorry missed the word 'not' somehow Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Interestingly though. I believe that the local bobbies would still be required to deal with trespass on a heritage line under section 55 of the BTC act 1949 as BTP would on a Network Rail Line. Incidentally, when the Train of Hope was preparing to leave Carlisle the other week, some individual, possibly a passenger aboard the special got himself on to the four foot in front of the engine to take a snap. I would rather like to find out who he is... His actions didn't exactly endear him to the other photographers around apparently! Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMJ Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Well if he had been hit by a train it would be the railway at fault not him for trespassing. Then we are into yet another HMRI investigation. As a working member on another railway I know when and where i can go. Many of you will have seen my arty shot of NER 1310 taken from the ground frame, taken from a safe place with all loco crews knowledge and as I regularly operate that frame I saved them a job. Simple rule of thumb - never stand in the six foot. There is one exception - I might do so if I'm guard and the loco needs my permission to move from me and they know I'm there (I've told them). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Trevellan Posted October 14, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2011 My experience as a volunteer on a heritage railway suggests some people assume that such lines are effectively an outdoor museum and you can therefore wander where you like, as per the OP. Usually, vigilant platform staff would deal with such incidents through firm, but polite ushering. My most heart-stopping moment was when some parents allowed their young son to run alongside our loco as it was passing a platform during the run-round. They were actually encouraging him, clearly oblivious to the dangers had the lad stumbled. Walschaerts valve gear operating close to a platform edge makes a fairly efficient mincing machine... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Blandford1969 Posted October 14, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 14, 2011 The one difficulty staff anywhere face on preserved lines is that if you ask someone to come from somewhere stupid as this guy was, If he refuses you cannot even touch him without possibly being arrested by the Police, and yes it has happened to someone on that railway. We don't know enough about what was going on to comment on the staff. Platform staff (if there were any, or more than 1) would not be right at the south end of the platform as they tend to be helping passengers nearer to the main buildings. The loco crew could have either been on the platform side talking to members of the public or not on the engine. I am sure though as soon as this muppet was seen he was told to move. Borris is also right that even if you put fences at the ends of platforms it would not stop idiots like this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted October 14, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2011 I saw this on another forum as well and put that I am far from convinced that it isn't photoshopped - look at the signals compared to the guy (and also he doesn't appear to be properly standing on the ballast - more floating). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Absolutely true, BUT pics like that have a nasty habit if surfacing in all sorts of places and you can never tell who is likely to see them. At least two heritage type railways have had visits from HMRI as a result of photos appearing on the 'net. And what we might fondly believe to be 'not the Railway's responsibility' doesn't always work like that, especially when there is currently 'a particular interest' in the activities of such lines in the Inspectorate - who will duly arrive and ask to see the Railway's written procedures to prevent something like that from occurring, the records of how those procedures were briefed and who - by name & date - they were briefed to; and how those who had been briefed were able to show by examination etc (again by name & date) that they understood those procedures; plus the record of inspections and audits carried out to ensure that those staff were doing what they were supposed to do and that the procedures were being correctly applied (recorded by date and time of course). That Railway has already been hauled over the coals once for inadequate control of materials standards and some folk do like to make return visits once they've got their teeth into such concerns. Why aren't roads subject to the same stupid rules? There's one thing taking reasonable precautions to prevent access to dangerous places, there's another thing being liable no matter how stupid the trespasser. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 14, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2011 Why aren't roads subject to the same stupid rules? There's one thing taking reasonable precautions to prevent access to dangerous places, there's another thing being liable no matter how stupid the trespasser. Perhaps the fact that the roads are owned by the nation (in most cases) and we have a police force? In contrast 'the railway' is a fenced off area with, theoretically at least, controlled access and a safety regime - which doesn''t strike me as a bad idea if it reduces the number of fatalities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted October 14, 2011 Author Share Posted October 14, 2011 I saw this on another forum as well and put that I am far from convinced that it isn't photoshopped - look at the signals compared to the guy (and also he doesn't appear to be properly standing on the ballast - more floating). But why would someone post it on the SVR forum, someone else say they were there at the time and no-one from SVR refute it and have it removed - as has been posted on here, it could result in SVR having a visit from the inspectorate asking about their safety procedures. The photographer seems to spend a lot of his life at the SVR why would he risk being banned for a photoshopped picture. I saw those posts as well and had a close look at the picture, if might have been enhanced rather than faked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Blandford1969 Posted October 14, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 14, 2011 The SVRA forum is not owned or run by the SVR, but by the association, which is a totally separate body, so in fairness the SVR Holdings company may not be aware of it. That forum has quite a few photographers on it, including the one who posted the original photo. I have no idea why they posted it, or more to the point why when they saw it they did not go and tell someone. I can't speak for the SVR as to why they have not spoken to the association to have it removed. As Borris has already pointed out you could put fences up and some would still climb over them to take their master shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lurker Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 It's probably high time that trespassers lost their right to sue if they are injured being somewhere they should not. I remember many years ago reading a ridiculous case of a burglar who broke his leg falling over a model railway that was under the window he'd climbed through. "Serves him right" I hear you say (and "was the layout OK?"), but the point of the article was that the householder was succesfully sued. It seems that the concept of contributory negligence (under which damages would be severely reduced or eliminated) has been eroded. (BTW I can't vouch for the total accuracy of my recall of the burglary story - it was probably 20 years ago in the Torygraph.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted October 14, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2011 This item puts me in mind of an incident at Newton Abbot in the year 2000. It was during the Railfest/Newton Abbot 150 thingey. It was a summer Saturday and 'Flying Scotsman' was due through with a charter train, stopping for water, IIRC. I was on duty, in the usual orange, to keep an eye on events (having incidentally declined an invitation to take Bleakhouse Road to the adjacent exhibition at Newton Abbot racecourse, due to 'official duties'). The west end of the station was particularly busy with enthusiasts and families waiting to see Flying Scotsman. When the train arrived, everyone remained well-behaved and I positioned myself at the west-end of platform 1/2, very visible in my orange coat. Then, one wan*er started walking west, off the end of the platform, down the ramp, and off at a brisk pace towards Newton Abbot West Junction, camera in hand. The barriers to the car park on the up side were lined with on-lookers, who were then treated to the spectacle of me chasing after this idiot. A verbal warning shot across the bows stopped him in his tracks and he turned round to see who was calling after him. At this point, and to the evident delight of the watching crowd, I gave him the full, verbal broadside, shaming him for his behaviour, poor example to young children present, how selfish etc., all loud enough so that everyone could hear. As he slunk back to the station, the watching crowd cheered! He never got his photo! And boy, it really felt good to give him a piece of my mind! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Trevellan Posted October 14, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2011 I gave him the full, verbal broadside, shaming him for his behaviour, poor example to young children present, how selfish etc., all loud enough so that everyone could hear. Excellent story, but the sight of your cutlass probably put the wind up him too. Strike one for the Captain... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted October 14, 2011 Author Share Posted October 14, 2011 The SVRA forum is not owned or run by the SVR, but by the association, which is a totally separate body, so in fairness the SVR Holdings company may not be aware of it. That forum has quite a few photographers on it, including the one who posted the original photo. I have no idea why they posted it, or more to the point why when they saw it they did not go and tell someone. I can't speak for the SVR as to why they have not spoken to the association to have it removed. Accepted it is not an official SVR forum, but by it's very nature it will be frequented by members of the SVR. My point was why would someone who's own website is full of SVR images, is a regular contributor to an SVR related forum and spends a lot of his time on the SVR risk putting up a photoshopped image of a trespasser. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Blandford1969 Posted October 14, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 14, 2011 Accepted it is not an official SVR forum, but by it's very nature it will be frequented by members of the SVR. My point was why would someone who's own website is full of SVR images, is a regular contributor to an SVR related forum and spends a lot of his time on the SVR risk putting up a photoshopped image of a trespasser. I can't answer that one. Fortunatley common sense has taken the subect into the private volunteers area where they can debate it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted October 14, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2011 Being a driver on the MHR I've seen my fair share of numpties like this. My favourite was when I was driving 3440 one gala day. We pulled out of Medstead towards Ropley, over the 10mph speed restriction and started accelerating away. I looked down the track and there he was - in the four foot. Whistled up, no acknowledgement (to my mind the most heinous crime that lineside photographers commit). Whistle again, nothing, We're now about 150 yds away so I dig in, he moves into the cess and gives a casual wave, no doubt congratulating himself on the shot he'd just got. By this time I was crawling along, he got called every single name I could think of. I wrote a letter about it to the Mid Hants website, this idiot's reply, which was actually published on the site, was that as he had a Mid Hants PTS certificate he could go anywhere and do anything he wanted on the railway. He didn't have a PTS cert for long after that and left soon afterwards. ISTR he was an erstwhile member of this forum too. As a bye the bye it is because of similar incidents to the above that the MHR stopped issuing lineside photography permits - I welcomed, and still welcome this as a driver, it's certainly made my job less worrisome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.