To be seen or not to be seen

[roythebus]

Ray, thank, I was attacked by yellow Stingy Things. I'll try to run faster next time, then I'll know what they are!

 

As for fencing round British railways, they were originally built to prevent the navvies who built the railways from "invading" local villages and properties so I've read. Then maybe a lack of fencing round our railways would lead to people having  bit more common sense if that is possible these days and more respect for the fact that if you go there you WILL stand a very good chance that Something Nasty will happen to you.

 

There was a costing put on the lives of rail passengers after the Ufton Nevitt (?) level crossing crash; there was  call to fit seatbelts in trains. Not that anyone would ever use one, and the fact they'd be as useful as a chocolate teapot to standing passengers. The cost/benefits just didn't make sense to try to save the 0.0000000000001 chance of saving a life a year.

[Colin_McLeod]

To prevent accidents one has to do what is “reasonably practicable”

 

According to the Health & Safety Authority in Ireland, this is defined as follows: (my bold)

 

"(6) For the purposes of the relevant statutory provisions, "reasonably practicable", in relation to the duties of an employer, means that an employer has exercised all due care by putting in place the necessary protective and preventive measures, having identified the hazards and assessed the risks to safety and health likely to result in accidents or injury to health at the place of work concerned and where the putting in place of any further measures is grossly disproportionate having regard to the unusual, unforeseeable and exceptional nature of any circumstance or occurrence that may result in an accident at work or injury to health at that place of work."

 

The same definition would be reasonable to apply to ensuring the safety of the public, customers, neighbours etc.

 

For example, it would be "grossly disporrtionate" to erect fencing alongside both sides of every road, complete with signalled gates at places where the public are permitted to cross the road. (seems to be OK to demand that on the railways however - Please don't ask me why because I don't know.)

 

In the above example, while fences alongside the roads would be "grossly disproportioate" this would not eliminate the need to provide other less expensive measures  (e.g. a pelican crossing) at specific locations where there is heavier pedestrian traffic crossing a busy road.

[Reorte]

What's not "grossly disproportionate" is rather subjective though. As is "likely" - I'm still unconvinced that "likely" doesn't appear to mean "worse than lottery-winning odds"

 

Remember this? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/9796-a-modern-semaphore-signal/ I'm afraid I'll struggle to take that seriously, or the colour light further down the page.

[Glorious NSE]

By the sound of it, from this thread, fencing in railways is a waste of time and money. 

 

 

NR would disagree with you - they view the cost of better security fencing to be well worth it compared to the time and cost dealing with suicide and trespass incidents. I wouldn't be at all surprised if (in spite of no legal requirement) various corners of the US network were fenced for similar reasons.

[trisonic]

Mostly the Bronx, service areas, high security freight operations, ports,  Martyn.  

Sorry, I’m being facetious about the Bronx!

I’m surprised that H&S have not suggested fencing in the road network....more pedestrian deaths on the roads surely? I don’t just mean the Motorways either.

 

Best, Pete.

[trisonic]

I know Martyn has seen this. 

 

Be like the Canadians and run the trains directly on the pavements/sidewalk.

This service has now stopped but I have seen a photo where a woman pushing a pram is right next to the train.

 

 

Obviously an extreme example...

 

Best, Pete.

[Fat Controller]

NR would disagree with you - they view the cost of better security fencing to be well worth it compared to the time and cost dealing with suicide and trespass incidents. I wouldn't be at all surprised if (in spite of no legal requirement) various corners of the US network were fenced for similar reasons.

NR is not alone in this; on SNCF, it is mandatory on LGVs, and also, I believe, on those classic lines with 200 kph running. They also have started to install it in areas where trespass is common.

[trisonic]

NR is not alone in this; on SNCF, it is mandatory on LGVs, and also, I believe, on those classic lines with 200 kph running. They also have started to install it in areas where trespass is common.

It will be interesting to see what California does with their high speed line between LA and SF (it’s passed but will it ever get built).

 

Best, Pete.

[DavidLong]

With regard to fencing, there is a brief but informative discussion on the subject here:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/26704-railway-fencing/

 

Whatever the reasons and its suitability for the job, the palisade fencing that has been erected by Network Rail is an utter visual disaster and a blight on the landscape. As ever, the good Captain Kernow, in the final comment on the above thread, hit the nail on the head with his comment "These delays cost NR money, so there is often a business case to be made to improve the strength of fencing in certain areas and reduce or stop these incidents, hence the rise in popularity of palisade fencing in urban areas."  Sadly it has now spread from urban areas and now spreads like some contagion across our green and pleasant land.

 

David       

[The Stationmaster]

Not my job any more David but to be honest I'd sooner look at a prison camp like fence which is keeping various Darwin Award contestants off the railway than have to go out and chuck their scattered remains into a black plastic sack or three.

[Reorte]

Not my job any more David but to be honest I'd sooner look at a prison camp like fence which is keeping various Darwin Award contestants off the railway than have to go out and chuck their scattered remains into a black plastic sack or three.

That's the sort of thing that sounds entirely reasonable on its own but ends up giving everyone an unpleasant, ugly, unwelcoming country once you've added up all the similar things done with similar arguments everywhere, the one that's turning it in to a place less worth living in.

 

It's also an attempt at tackling the symtom and not the disease, the more of such things you get the more you seem to end up with people who seem incapable of acting with any common sense. I remember going to a preserved railway when I was a child and there was a loco being moved (slowly and carefully) in an area that you could walk around. I'm not naming names, I doubt it would be allowed now and probably wasn't then. I found that great big lump of moving metal rather scary, which is a healthy attitude to have. Force people from an early age to not even encounter anything which might have that result and they're going to grow up with messed up instincts.

[Colin_McLeod]

Sensible thoughts, but unfortunately the railway is not in a position to deal with the disease effectively and can only deal with the symptoms; in this case building a suitable fence.