Trespass incident during PRCLT event at Appleby

[The Decapod]

While this is not to be condoned, it's ironic that there are many foot crossings where people can legally walk across main lines where trains travel at 100 mph or more.

For example: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3129946

 

[Boneyard]

I'm surprised the Appleby MOM didn't appear, he is based in Appleby yard. I imagine one of the lads at the North box would have been on the blower to him?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

While this is not to be condoned, it's ironic that there are many foot crossings where people can legally walk across main lines where trains travel at 100 mph or more.

For example: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3129946

The idea being with the foot crossing being that you cross quickly and safely, it is not meant as an observation point!

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm surprised the Appleby MOM didn't appear, he is based in Appleby yard.

Perhaps busy elsewhere?

 

[Boneyard]

Perhaps busy elsewhere?

More than likely, they are a canny bunch in Appleby, shame the Possession Centre there closed, had some great times on the S&C during blockades...

 

[SPADTrap]

While this is not to be condoned, it's ironic that there are many foot crossings where people can legally walk across main lines where trains travel at 100 mph or more.

For example: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3129946

These are not comparable.

Are these offenses recordable in a criminal record sense? I bloody hope so!

Crossing a foot crossing isn't the same as loitering on a running line (with your back to it?!) taking photos! It looks like a case of one person doing it and others following through some odd mentality of "safety in numbers" or something, this can so easily lead to an even worse situation!

Total lunacy and very frustrating. It isn't just about Network Rail property either, it's about the risk of being bowled over by a passing train!

 

[IanD]

I'm surprised the Appleby MOM didn't appear, he is based in Appleby yard. I imagine one of the lads at the North box would have been on the blower to him?

Maybe she was too busy looking after her kids.

 

[Boneyard]

Maybe she was too busy looking after her kids.

Are you not referring to the LOM..?

 

[DarloRich]

As mentioned above, these appear to have been bystanders, not tour participants and the stewards did tell them to stop (obviously the most they can do really, they are not police).

Does it matter who they are?

They are blithering idiots who should not be trespassing on the track!

 

[IanD]

Are you not referring to the LOM..?

No idea, we don't all understand/have a comprehensive knowledge of railway TLAs.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Does it matter who they are?

They are blithering idiots who should not be trespassing on the track!

Well yes it does matter. The poster to whom I was reply was saying that the tour company should be responsible for stopping passengers getting onto the track.

Since these people were apparently not on the tour and already on the station as the train came in there was very little that the company could do to stop them.

I know they alone are to blame, you know this, but damned sure when a passing train mows them down someone else will take the blame, even if not in a final judgement, in the gutter press.

 

[The Decapod]

These are not comparable. Are these offenses recordable in a criminal record sense? I bloody hope so!

In absolute terms of safety, crossing a 100 mph main line legally at a foot crossing, especially if it has limited visibility, is probably more risky than standing (illegally) on the track near a stationary locomotive.

I'm not trying to make light of the trespassers, but rather I'm suggesting that foot crossings on high-speed sections of main lines are dangerous.

 

[Boneyard]

No idea, we don't all understand/have a comprehensive knowledge of railway TLAs.

Sorry Ian

The LOM (Local Operations Manager) for the S&C is female, although her name escapes me, I thought when you said she was looking after her kids that you knew her?

Memory not as sharp as it once was, to much time spent in the classroom!

 

[scotsman]

The fact a guy turned up with a tripod suggest two things:

1) He was out to take pictures (odd thing to have to hand on a coach trip)

2) He was a moron (Firstly for going on the track, secondly for using a tripod with a tiny camera in bright sunlight)

 

[Boneyard]

The fact a guy turned up with a tripod suggest two things:

1) He was out to take pictures (odd thing to have to hand on a coach trip)

2) He was a moron (Firstly for going on the track, secondly for using a tripod with a tiny camera in bright sunlight)

I love the later part of point 2 lol

 

[table38]

In absolute terms of safety, crossing a 100 mph main line legally at a foot crossing, especially if it has limited visibility, is probably more risky than standing (illegally) on the track near a stationary locomotive.

I'm not trying to make light of the trespassers, but rather I'm suggesting that foot crossings on high-speed sections of main lines are dangerous.

One difference worth mentioning is "distractions". Generally on a foot crossing, people are looking and listening for trains as they cross.

Whereas people taking photos may be concentrating on their camera or the subject of their photograph, and may not be as aware of approaching traffic on an adjacent line (as in the guy who nearly got taken out by a Class 170 in Suffolk).

It's not like standing on the hard shoulder of a motorway with cars whizzing past every few seconds reminding you of the danger. On the railway, it's the lack of trains that can lull you into a false sense of security, then a train can suddenly be on top of you in seconds.

 

[swj99]

Who actually has the responsibility and authority to deal with incidents like this ?
Where were they ?
And why didn't they ?

 

[GatwickDepress]

Back in the 80s I was on a tour over the S&C and we were actively encouraged to go trackside, the steamers then reversed out of the station before powering through so we could get some photos, then the train stopped, reversed back and picked us up. While all this was going on a Peak on a down train went hammering through with nothing more than 'there is a down train approaching stand back' from the stewards, no drama and no crisis.
Of course that was then (when people did as they were told and took care to look out for themselves and others) and this is now (when they dont).

And even if was brought back in some fashion, there'd always be that idiot who'd ignore the steward to take that "one last shot"...

...before becoming a Sprinter's new bonnet ornament.

 

[carriageline]

Sorry Ian



The LOM (Local Operations Manager) for the S&C is female, although her name escapes me, I thought when you said she was looking after her kids that you knew her?



Memory not as sharp as it once was, to much time spent in the classroom!

I think he was talking more about 'MOM' (hence the MUM reference ) which of course stands for Mobile Operations Manager, who in short act as incident response for Network Rail, amongst a whole array of duties


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[scotsman]

Who actually has the responsibility and authority to deal with incidents like this ?
Where were they ?
And why didn't they ?

The correct answer, I feel, is 'everyone on the railway'. I don't know what did or didn't happen, so I'm saying what I think should (and may well) have been done.

Essentially, the train crew should have reported to the signaller what was going on. The stewards should have told the guard (NOT the railtour manager, a few of whom like to play at being guards and insist that they are the only people who can speak to the guard).

The passengers should have told the nearest member of staff. You get the drift.

As for authority, well the guard could have refused to carry them on the train. The BTP (if they turned up in time) could have lifted the lot of them for railway trespass. The signaller may have blocked the line, or at least cautioned services through the area, if they had been made aware.

Not an exhaustive list, but not bad for a tired person at 1am...

 

[Tomnick]

In absolute terms of safety, crossing a 100 mph main line legally at a foot crossing, especially if it has limited visibility, is probably more risky than standing (illegally) on the track near a stationary locomotive.

I'm not trying to make light of the trespassers, but rather I'm suggesting that foot crossings on high-speed sections of main lines are dangerous.

The photo of the crossing that you linked to shows that it's provided with red/green warning lights and clear instructions for use - hardly dangerous (if not misused) and certainly not so in comparison with standing back to traffic in the fourfoot for an unspecified period of time, oblivious to any impending danger! Such impending danger, of course, is far more likely to come from a train running at linespeed on the Up than from the stationary train on the Down.

 

[Boneyard]

I think he was talking more about 'MOM' (hence the MUM reference ) which of course stands for Mobile Operations Manager, who in short act as incident response for Network Rail, amongst a whole array of duties


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol, there are MOMS based at Appleby too who work under the LOM, I will get back with her first name ASAP, as it's bugging me now

 

[87015]

Whereas people taking photos may be concentrating on their camera or the subject of their photograph, and may not be as aware of approaching traffic on an adjacent line (as in the guy who nearly got taken out by a Class 170 in Suffolk).

Which, in reality, wasn't deemed a close enough call to be reported as a near miss by the crew despite the internet fever over it...

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I was on a steam railtour that stopped at Appleby a couple of weeks ago for watering and there were at least 3 of the train stewards at the end of the platform politely telling people not to go beyond where they were standing, there was still plenty of room for people to come and have a look at what was going on, take photos etc and then move away for others to come down. I have been on mainly tours when it's been like that so I wonder what happened on this occasion.

 

[GearJammer]

Theres a very simple way to deal with this every increasing problem......

If Network Rail ban Steam charters, various charter companies will loose buisness (imagine the effect it would have on the likes of WCRC & Uk Railtours)

A simple solution would be for the charter company to provide two tables (8 people) or provide accomodation in the support coach for 8 plain clothed police officers, then when people tresspass like this, book them, name and shame them in the press along with some hefty fines. Maybe even get plain clothed officers to travel to some locations known for tresspassing in a unmarked van.

They would only (hopefully) need to be in operation for say six months before people realised that tresspassing will probably end up in them getting caught. Then you could maybe relax it to say maybe just one or two officers on random trains.

 

[The Decapod]

The photo of the crossing that you linked to shows that it's provided with red/green warning lights and clear instructions for use - hardly dangerous (if not misused) and certainly not so in comparison with standing back to traffic in the fourfoot for an unspecified period of time, oblivious to any impending danger! Such impending danger, of course, is far more likely to come from a train running at linespeed on the Up than from the stationary train on the Down.

While it would be extremely foolish to try and use that crossing when the light isn't green, it's not unrealistic to assume that some people do. OK, it's their fault if they get hit, exactly the same as would be the case with those photographers with their back to the 'up' line. That crossing is probably a lot safer than one or two I know that have no warning lights, only the 'stop, look and listen' boards.

The trespassing incident is wrong, and foolish, but do we know the full circumstances? Maybe those on the track were aware, by some means or another, that no train would be using the 'up' line.

The problem with those trespassers, if it's not pure ignorance, is that they believe that their particular specialisation within a broader hobby gives them special entitlement to do just as they like. It also occurs within the bird-watching fraternity, where 'twitchers' will drive at breakneck speed along narrow, winding country lanes just to get to a reported sighting of a rare bird before it flies away.

 

[GarethJohn]

Was this on a National Rail line or a preserved Railway and is there a difference in law in terms of trespassing ?
Were they part of the Tour and knew the Train wouldn't move?
Didn't anyone tell the first one ''Oi stop doing that''?
They must have been pretty comfortable taking the photo's as one even takes a Tripod on the Track were they given permission to take some Photos by the organiser? It's not as if there trying to be conspicuous is it and sneakily jumping out too catch a shot?

 

[NSEFAN]

For what operational reasons does the train stop with the locomotive off the end of the platform? Signal visibility? If it stopped a bit further back, there would be room on the platform for people to stand and safely take pictures of the front of the train, which is presumably why these people trespassed in the first place?

 

[Tomnick]

It seems clear, from the description of events given earlier in this thread, that those standing in the fourfoot were given no permission to do so - indeed, the charter train had only just come to a stand, if the first hand accounts are correct. No member of railway staff, including stewards, should be giving permission* for members of the public, or anyone else, to stand in such a dangerous permission - certainly without arranging for the opposite line to be blocked (the only way to be sure that no train should approach, legitimately at least), and even then not without the correct permits, induction, PPE and so on.

* - just to be clear, there's nothing to suggest that any such permission was given, but rather that the stewards acted quickly to clear them from the line.

 

[SPADTrap]

For what operational reasons does the train stop with the locomotive off the end of the platform? Signal visibility? If it stopped a bit further back, there would be room on the platform for people to stand and safely take pictures of the front of the train, which is presumably why these people trespassed in the first place?

More than likely to fit the train in the platform properly I would have thought, although I do not know the area or train length!

 

[43167]

Was this on a National Rail line or a preserved Railway and is there a difference in law in terms of trespassing ?
Were they part of the Tour and knew the Train wouldn't move?
Didn't anyone tell the first one ''Oi stop doing that''?
They must have been pretty comfortable taking the photo's as one even takes a Tripod on the Track were they given permission to take some Photos by the organiser? It's not as if there trying to be conspicuous is it and sneakily jumping out too catch a shot?

It was at Appleby on the Settle & Carlisle Line.