Greenpeace stop a coal train with a polar bear in the Retford area

[Hesperus]

 

As far as this bunch of nutters is concerned it is hardly surprising that all the professionals on here hold similar views - irresponsible behaviour such as this is basically vandalism with what can easily be seen as criminal intent.  As it was on NR property I sincerely hope that concern will prosecute them for every Byelaw they have broken as, if nothing else, an example to similarly inclined loonies.

Is throwing the book at a group who have made an effort to stop a train in the safest way they could really the best of precedents?

 

If you are going to throw the book at somebody shouldn't it be vandals who put things on the line or level crossing idiots or the copper fairy's? All of these groups routinely make the railways less safe and cause delays. Yes the Greenpeace stunt was naughty but it hasn't harmed anyone. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be punished in some way, just that you should all put it in perspective, even if only for the sake of the railways public relations.

[Reorte]

Certainly there are bigger threats to birds than wind power.

Depends what you want. I completely, utterly despise wind turbines in the onshore locations they're usually put. Might as well generate power by throwing works of art on the fire as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather not have electricity than that, but fortunately there's nuclear. Just keep burning coal until that's ready. And in the long run at least try to consider our ludicrous population levels (the ultimate root of most of humanity's problems).

[Dave Scott]

Yup that's the one

Yes quite expensive but in the long run(can't remember there lifespan(20-30 years maybe)though they could be repowered)it could be very valuable to the UK grid

HSTFAN13

Lee

Actually hydro has very long lives 60 to 80 is possible Festiniog was 1963 so already over 50.

[raymw]

When I was studying heavy curent electrical engineering, half a century ago (doesn't time fly when you are enjoying yourself), the one subject we had to study with the light current guys and the mechanicals, was social studies. At the time, it was thought that in the future, homes would have their own power source, - a nuclear reactor under the stairs so there would be no need for a National Grid. The other main topic was concerned with  automation and robotics so we would only have to work three days a week, the major concern was how we would fill our leisure time. A few years later, many folk were working three days a week, and I was disconnecting large chunks of the population from the grid. Funny how things come true...

 

Best wishes,

Ray

[Ozexpatriate]

It is only 600MW yet will cost £800million and we still need to factor in the cost of wind or solar to run the pumps. To be anywhere balancing renewables and demand we need nearer 20GW of pumped storage

This is the fundamental problem with trying to create "renewable power" power stations. It's a square peg / round hole mindset.

 

Nothing can compete with coal, hydro or nuclear for cheap centrally generated electricity.

 

All the renewable solutions generate very small amounts of power. Instead of trying to replicate the centralized model that works for coal-fired generation, something that leverages small generators (distributed generation) is necessary. We still think about power generation the way Nikola Tesla did when he built hydro power for New York City in Niagara Falls with an AC transmission line in 1895. Tesla's idea was great but it has consequences when coal is used instead of hydro.

[PaulRhB]

, I hope that NR, the train operator, and BT Police throw every book they can find at them.

If that's the current 3 folder rule book it'll REALLY hurt too!

[Jon Fitness]

That reminds me, must order some more coal for my solid fuel central heating...

JF

[PaulRhB]

Is throwing the book at a group who have made an effort to stop a train in the safest way they could really the best of precedents?

If you are going to throw the book at somebody shouldn't it be vandals who put things on the line or level crossing idiots or the copper fairy's? All of these groups routinely make the railways less safe and cause delays. Yes the Greenpeace stunt was naughty but it hasn't harmed anyone. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be punished in some way, just that you should all put it in perspective, even if only for the sake of the railways public relations.

Surprising any driver with a large animal on the track isn't safe, we have had several trains derailed or nearly derailed by large animal impact which is why we have to caution for anything bigger than domestic animals or a couple of sheep.

The fact this bear was mechanical and must have contained metal parts made it even more dangerous as a derailment threat even at low speed. If there'd been an embankment the loco could roll taking a wagon and 100 tons of powdered coal down in top of it. At Ufton the poor driver wasn't killed by the initial impact but by the cab being filled with debris as it flipped.

As for Vandals who set out to try to derail trains there's no printable punishment appropriate.

[beast66606]

Is throwing the book at a group who have made an effort to stop a train in the safest way they could really the best of precedents?

 

If you are going to throw the book at somebody shouldn't it be vandals who put things on the line or level crossing idiots or the copper fairy's? All of these groups routinely make the railways less safe and cause delays. Yes the Greenpeace stunt was naughty but it hasn't harmed anyone. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be punished in some way, just that you should all put it in perspective, even if only for the sake of the railways public relations.

 

If those people (vandals / copper thieves) are caught they should get the appropriate treatment.

 

"Three were arrested and officers were able to gather evidence to proceed with action against other individuals." - BTP facebook page.

[Dave Scott]

When I was studying heavy curent electrical engineering, half a century ago (doesn't time fly when you are enjoying yourself), the one subject we had to study with the light current guys and the mechanicals, was social studies. At the time, it was thought that in the future, homes would have their own power source, - a nuclear reactor under the stairs so there would be no need for a National Grid. The other main topic was concerned with  automation and robotics so we would only have to work three days a week, the major concern was how we would fill our leisure time. A few years later, many folk were working three days a week, and I was disconnecting large chunks of the population from the grid. Funny how things come true...

 

Best wishes,

Ray

I assume like me you are now retired so we can get ready to watch our younger colleagues disconnecting large chunks of the population, probably during an anticyclone 

 

Dave

[Talltim]

They only 'safely halted' the train because it was travelling at fairly low speed - if they had tried this stupidity out on a faster running line the outcome could have been very different - assuming one or two of them weren't hit by another train while acting so daft enough as to trespass on a railway line.

 

Not going to disagree with anything else you've said, but they did plan to do it where they did because it is a low speed section of line off the mainline.

[cheesysmith]

I know it's a daft question, but we're any passenger trains affected by this? Just wondering as if bus replacement was used, their act would have increased the co2 emissions, busses being less fuel efficient per passenger carried than trains.

[Vardnoodleblast]

I'm now in my 4th decade at the pointy end of upstream energy development and in that time have transited from oil and gas exploration to development of offshore wind energy. I enjoy reading the replies on this topic as I have seen all the arguments pro and con for renewables expressed here before. As a geologist I also have a perspective on climate change. My view is that two arguments have been confused, those of energy demand and supply and that of environmental impact.

 

The UK is now a net importer of energy for the first time since the neolithic. Not a great place to be from the perspective of an industrially developed economy (think Ukraine/Putin) Our problem is that coal has become largely uneconomic / uncompetitive to mine in the UK and our oil and gas production has declined to a shadow of production levels in 2000 (Mr. Salmond please adjust expectations - it's gone old chap), and we have very little hydro potential.The economics of nuclear on a full-life cycle including waste disposal is questionable before you get to the assessment of risk from a Fukashima or Chernobyl type incident in terms of sterile zone overprinted on the UK landmass. if Heysham 'popped' we would need lead-lined Pendolinos to get to Glasgow.

 

The big difference between renewables and fossil fuels from an economic perspective is that you are effectively buying all your fuel up front for 25-35 years. Discounted Cash Flow analysis (time value of money) reduces the investment attractiveness and hence the need for incentives to prompt commercial development (another can of worms).

 

Now, the incentives are firmly linked to carbon and 'climate change' as opposed to 'energy security'.  So if you don't believe in the climate change argument odds are you are going to resent the imposition of wind turbines or large solar in the landscape (BTW - properly located modern technology and sizeable wind turbines do generate significant quantities of energy and output-wise are the equivalent of some gas wells.The beauty is they never run dry!). 

 

My belief is that we need to transit intelligently ("the secret is bang the rocks together guys" - Beeblebrox, Z. pers. comm.) by hybridising - think Class 73! Interface renewables with fossil fuel generation to extend / conserve the life of the reserves.  After all, as the majority of oil is used for things other than fuel, future generations might be prompted to ask us "you did what ​with it?"

 

I could rattle on about the climate change naysayers from a geological perspective if provoked but on human impact I would simply say I believe in the precautionary principle. Would those advocating the continued and ever increasing injection of CO2 into the atmosphere willingly cut the brake pipes on their cars and floor the gas pedal on a motorway, so sure are they of a safe arrival at their intended destination!? (Clarkson? ........Anybody?)  

 

Pulling multi-G to get back toward a railway modelling thread, I am hopefully going to get get some serious railway modelling done soon. Firmly in my mind (with geological tongue-in-cheek) for one occupant of a parade of shops to be my equivalent of John Ahern's Madder Valley 'Quibble & Cuss' Solicitors. This will be the local vendor of human powered, low-carbon transport  - 'Milankovitch Cycles'. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles ).

[Gary H]

As far as Im concerned, these muppets are targeting the wrong country to be begin with.

If you look to America, they run hundreds of coal trains a day to coal fired power stations and to export coal around the world, most of these trains are  in the region of 10 to 15'000 tonnes EACH!!!

[The Stationmaster]

I know it's a daft question, but we're any passenger trains affected by this? Just wondering as if bus replacement was used, their act would have increased the co2 emissions, busses being less fuel efficient per passenger carried than trains.

We don't know but it is a possibility.  Coal trains for Cottam are, at any one time, occupying various parts of a double track route enroute to the power stations and could well have been blocked, without being able to be recessed, so passenger trains taking a hit is a possibility - just shows how a bit of stupidly, selfish and thoughtless action can potentially react on many people.

 

Is throwing the book at a group who have made an effort to stop a train in the safest way they could really the best of precedents?

 

If you are going to throw the book at somebody shouldn't it be vandals who put things on the line or level crossing idiots or the copper fairy's? All of these groups routinely make the railways less safe and cause delays. Yes the Greenpeace stunt was naughty but it hasn't harmed anyone. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be punished in some way, just that you should all put it in perspective, even if only for the sake of the railways public relations.

Answer to your first question - 'yes', it might at least dissuade some 'copycat' idiots and if it does that it's worth it.

 

I was under the impression that BTP/the railway industry do seek to prosecute vandals, provided they can catch them.  In this case it would appear that the vandals concerned were apprehended so prosecution would seem a fairly straightforward process.  My concern here is safety - when I was on the big railway I had a distinct aversion to picking up pieces of human being (although I sometimes had no choice) and I had an even bigger aversion to having to visit someone to tell her that her husband had been killed at work (fortunately my boss did that, while I was picking up pieces).   

 

Regrettably train derailments and deaths on the railway are not 'good public relations' and any halfwit who exposes themselves or others to such risks deserves everything the law is able to throw at them.

[Reorte]

We're talking about risks here but realistically just how much danger was anyone in? And I don't mean "x and y could've happened" - how likely were they to happen?

[Horsetan]

.....If you are going to throw the book at somebody shouldn't it be vandals who put things on the line ....

 

What, like a life-size polar bear?

[big jim]

There are a lot of what ifs involved but the fact they were stood on the track is a pretty big danger, ok were not talking hollywood blockbuster style derailment but even hitting someone at a couple of mile an hour is going to cause a lot of damage to the person involved especially if the train rolls over them at slow speed or they get trapped under it

 

Then of course you have the danger of climbing the ladders, falling from height, skin being contaninated by the coal, coal dust etc

[chris p bacon]

We're talking about risks here but realistically just how much danger was anyone in? And I don't mean "x and y could've happened" - how likely were they to happen?

I'm not one for overstating risks but to try and walk in a powdered material at height with no rail or hand hold is not something an intelligent person would do. Just trying to walk across soft sand is hard enough, I can imagine powdered coal is far worse.

How would you fall you may ask ?   Easy, the powdered coal is very fine dust,  you start coughing and as you cough you lose your footing  as you are not on a stable platform, nice curved wagon sides give you an easy ride to the floor.

 

So after stopping a train by trespass, then climbing on it you fall.....who do you sue ? ......Network rail of course for not having 2M pallisade fencing.

[Revolution Mike]

I think we are getting slightly hysterical about potential risks to the protestors!  You can't (easily) start sueing someone as a result of your own stupidity.

 

In the grand scheme of things it is relatively low risk compared to some of the Greenpeace stunts. Some of the stunts are much more risky but they tend to be pretty well-organised in what they are doing - I know of some of the climbers who often get involved and some of the stuff they are doing (from a climbing perspective) is very impressive even if you disagree with their points or the direct action.

 

As has been mentioned by Stationmaster and Beast etc - they will face the due penalty for their actions (and the protestors will have accepted that risk along with other risks when they agreed to take part).

 

Cheers, Mike

[Reorte]

There are a lot of what ifs involved but the fact they were stood on the track is a pretty big danger, ok were not talking hollywood blockbuster style derailment but even hitting someone at a couple of mile an hour is going to cause a lot of damage to the person involved especially if the train rolls over them at slow speed or they get trapped under it

 

Then of course you have the danger of climbing the ladders, falling from height, skin being contaninated by the coal, coal dust etc

Sure, but was there any real liklihood of someone being hit by the train? It's a pretty big potential danger but I'm not convinced at all that it's a pretty big actual danger. Ditto with the climbing. Trying to stand in coal dust on the other hand does seem genuinely stupid - sounds very likely that that could go badly wrong.

 

Apologies if I'm wrong but it sounds like a bunch of people have done something we completely disagree with (for whatever reason) and the safety thing sounds more like an attempt to further villify them than a genuine reason to believe that a meaningful danger created. Easy to do for even creating a very, very, very small risk when they're up to something that they've got no business doing in the first place.

[DavidH]

I watched some of the videos, and it didn't look like they were standing on powdered coal

 

https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/page/content/people-vs-coal?source=em&subsource=20140923coem01&utm_source=gpeace&utm_medium=em&utm_campaign=20140923coem01

 

From the videos:

1/ They stopped the train using a flagman wearing hi-vis, standing by the side of the track.

2/ Once the train was slowing/stopped, he stood between the rails and other people ran up.

3/ Once the train was stationary, the polar bear was moved in and the stunt photos/film taken

4/ They all had hi-vis and ladders

5/ The coal was bagged before it was thrown off

6/ The Police appeared to take a fairly low-key attitude at first (Greenpeace edited the video, so the footage is obviously selective).

[Rugd1022]

I don't know the track layout (and I stand to be corrected) but if the coal train was in a loop it implies that it was next to a running line, so the danger of being hit by a passing train was there in spades, which to my mind makes them all rather stupid. I read elsewhere that they placed trolleys on the line to move the coal, not sure if it's actually true or not but if this was the case then they deserve everything they get.

 

Whatever their beliefs, it was a pre-meditated act of trespass which put their lives and those of others in danger - plain and simple. It's been said that the polar bear had metal parts inside, now I know it was only a slow speed incident and the bear was placed in the four foot after the train had stopped, but what if it hadn't been... one or more of those parts could easily have gone through the windscreen injuring or possibly killing the poor driver.

 

Anyone who condones their actions needs to have a long hard think about what the consequences could have been. A small object hitting the windscreen at say 5mph can be frightening enough (been there more than once etc etc) but something larger coming towards you at anything above that speed is terrifying. Not getting 'hysterical', just speaking plainly as I've been in similar situations far too often.

 

(I'm not looking for sympathy either, to me it's a 'black and white' thing, no room for grey areas when it comes to vandalism / trespass / putting lives in danger on the railway. With open running lines or even little used freight only lines there is always a possiblilty of being hit by a train - simple).

[big jim]

It may be a small risk as the train is moving slowly and able to stop but being stood in the 4ft in front of a moving train significantly increases the chances of being hit by a train than not being stood in the 4ft infront of a moving train

 

Just suppose the railhead was contaminated and the train slid once the driver put the brake in to emergency?

 

The list of possible (but unlikely) scanarios is endless!!

[Reorte]

I don't know the track layout (and I stand to be corrected) but if the coal train was in a loop it implies that it was next to a running line, so the danger of being hit by a passing train was there in spades, which to my mind makes them all rather stupid. I read elsewhere that they placed trolleys on the line to move the coal, not sure if it's actually true or not but if this was the case then they deserve everything they get.

 

Whatever their beliefs, it was a pre-meditated act of trespass which put their lives and those of others in danger - plain and simple. It's been said that the polar bear had metal parts inside, now I know it was only a slow speed incident, but what if it hadn't been... one or more of those parts could easily have gone through the windscreen injuring or possibly killing the poor driver.

 

Anyone who condones their actions needs to have a long hard think about what the consequences could have been. A small object hitting the windscreen at say 5mph can be frightening enough (been there more than once etc etc) but something larger coming towards you at anything above that speed is terrifying.

No-one is condoning their actions.

 

Did it put their lives and those of others in danger? Not that I can tell. "So the danger of being hit by a passing train was there in spades" - only if they were blindly milling around on the neighbouring running line unaware of the possibility of a train turning up.

"But what if it hadn't been"? It wasn't. Can't codemn them for things that they didn't do.

 

It may be a small risk as the train is moving slowly and able to stop but being stood in the 4ft in front of a moving train significantly increases the chances of being hit by a train than not being stood in the 4ft infront of a moving train

 

Just suppose the railhead was contaminated and the train slid once the driver put the brake in to emergency?

 

The list of possible (but unlikely) scanarios is endless!!

That's where I'm not in a position to judge and is one reason I wouldn't stand in front of even a slow moving train (not that I'd have any possible reason or business doing so) but again, all those points are merely "what ifs" - what matters is just how likely it is that something will go wrong. Even the chance of being hit by something is non-zero if you're standing around somewhere where the public are entirely legitimately allowed to be. Moving to the line itself yes, significantly increases the chances but if it's still a one in a trillion event then it's disproportionate to even mention it. If it's a 1 in 100 event on the other hand...

 

As you say the list of possible but unlikely scenarios is endless, I'm inclined to ignore them if they're too unlikely ("distracted by falling meteorite").