"Do not go on the track" : is this all going too far.......

[AlterEgo]

The point is, that if a train was approaching someone on the tracks (say they were unconscious) at 5 or 10mph one assumes the driver would see them and stop.

"One assumes"...

 

[Justin Smith]

If the only thing that stopped you from stepping down onto the track was causing a scene, then you are a stupid, stupid clown and you deserve everything you're about to get thrown at you on this thread.

Sorry, but this is absolute rubbish.
If you travel down the ECML to Scrooby, somewhere I regularly go with my son, it is actually acceptable (and rightly so) to cross the ECML where the speed limit is 125mph ?
Why is it deemed perfectly acceptable, certainly totally "legal", for me to cross the main dual carriageway road (with a 60mph limit) not far from my house, but I`m guilty of some unpardonable sin for suggesting it`s just as safe to pick up a phone from a railway line with a low speed limit ?
I have to say that I feel far far safer crossing the ECML at Scrooby than I do crossing the dual carriageway near my house. I`d have thought that statistically I actually would be safe.

 

[AlterEgo]

That is the rule, and it must be followed. It is much easier to have a strict, standard rule.

This does not in any way detract from the point that going on to the track at a quiet rural station on a branch line, for example, is not particularly dangerous compared with many other perfectly legal activities, such as crossing a 70mph dual carriageway on the level.

That's true, but I wasn't talking about whether the activity was legal, just whether it was a wise thing to do or not.

 

[Darbs]

It doesn't matter. You don't go onto the track. It is very simple.

Yes that's it! Simple! Well said!

Even staff must go on or near the line unless their duties require it,

 

[Justin Smith]

It's some crazy regulations which have prevented access to a railway line except for the purpose of crossing it at an authorised point since 1868.

It's exceptionally unlikely that you would be hit by a train arriving into the platform, it's the injuries you cause on the approaching train having to undertake a full emergency brake application that is the problem, of which you're blissfully unaware of. 50 or 100 passengers all up out of their seats, getting their suitcases when the driver has to do an emergency stop because you're flailing around in the four foot looking like the tit you come across as in your post.

You can easily see any train approaching, only an imbecilic idiot would actually jump down onto the tracks as a train approached.

 

[Minilad]

The point is, that if a train was approaching someone on the tracks (say they were unconscious) at 5 or 10mph one assumes the driver would see them and stop.

And as someone pointed out earlier the effect of an emergency stop at that speed entering a platform when people will probably be standing up and retrieving items of luggage could quite easily end up with injuries. But it's OK. You got your phone back eh

 

[AlterEgo]

Sorry, but this is absolute rubbish.

If you travel down the ECML to Scrooby, somewhere I regularly go with my son, it is actually acceptable (and rightly so) to cross the ECML where the speed limit is 125mph ?

Why is it deemed perfectly acceptable, certainly totally "legal", for me to cross the main dual carriageway road (with a 60mph limit) not far from my house, but I`m guilty of some unpardonable sin for suggesting it`s just as safe to pick up a phone from a railway line with a low speed limit ?
I have to say that I feel far far safer crossing the ECML at Scrooby than I do crossing the dual carriageway near my house. I`d have thought that statistically I actually would be safe.

Scrooby Lane would be one of the many old level crossings NR are closing, to improve safety, right?

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...scrooby school lane - consultation plan 1.pdf

 

[Justin Smith]

[Originally Posted by Trog View Post
He does have a point about H&S. Twenty years ago any passing member of the P-Way would have put his yellow jacket on, checked if it was safe/waited until it was, jumped down picked up the phone and then climbed out again. Job done.]

Thank god this is not accepted any more, and rightly.

Why exactly ?
Surely we`re into the concept of statistical risk.
Can you tell me statistically, at how much risk I, or anyone else, would be if they retrieved a phone from a railway line ?

This is what should be considered whenever any Health & Safety edict is issued :

Exactly how much safer does it make me ?

And what am I sacrificing to achieve that ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Scrooby Lane would be one of the many old level crossings NR are closing, to improve safety, right?

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...scrooby school lane - consultation plan 1.pdf

And they should NOT be closing them. It`s utterly scandalous. They`re making life more awkward walkers or whoever for no statistically significant reason. When I say statistically significant I`m comparing the risk in crossing the ECML at a level crossing to the risk of being killed by a car when crossing a road. Am I not right in saying most countries don`t even have fences alongside their railways ? Is it not just an accident of history that we do ?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

You can easily see any train approaching, only an imbecilic idiot would actually jump down onto the tracks as a train approached.

The problem is you don't actually know if a train is approaching or not, you don't know what direction it may come from and you can't guarantee you're going to be able to reach a position of safety should an unexpected service arrive.

It's probably safer than it was in the days of British Rail, things really haven't been the same since this defensive driving lark stopped drivers approaching platforms at 50mph and then putting on a full brake application to stop the train on its mark.

 

[Justin Smith]

And as someone pointed out earlier the effect of an emergency stop at that speed entering a platform when people will probably be standing up and retrieving items of luggage could quite easily end up with injuries. But it's OK. You got your phone back eh

I have already answered this :

You can easily see any train approaching, only an imbecilic idiot would actually jump down onto the tracks as a train approached.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's true, but I wasn't talking about whether the activity was legal, just whether it was a wise thing to do or not.

There are many small stations with good sightlines on quiet lines around the country where, were it not illegal to do so, it would not be particularly unwise to retrieve a dropped item yourself.

There are also many stations where it would be *extremely* unwise.

 

[DaleCooper]

You can easily see any train approaching, only an imbecilic idiot would actually jump down onto the tracks as a train approached.

Have you considered the difficulty of getting back on to platform again? No of course not you're too concerned about your precious phone and never mind the potential danger and disruption to other people.

 

[Justin Smith]

The problem is you don't actually know if a train is approaching or not, you don't know what direction it may come from and you can't guarantee you're going to be able to reach a position of safety should an unexpected service arrive.

It's probably safer than it was in the days of British Rail, things really haven't been the same since this defensive driving lark stopped drivers approaching platforms at 50mph and then putting on a full brake application to stop the train on its mark.

I reckon a person (let`s say a member of staff rather than me so as to bypass a load of other issues) could get down and retrieve a phone in comfortably less than 10 seconds. Standing on the platform you would be able to see whether a train was approaching for way over 10 seconds worth of travel time.

When you say a position of safety, that raises a very interesting point, a point put forward when they were thinking of building the Supertram in Sheffield. The proposers of the tram never at any point suggested that pedestrians shouldn`t cross the tram tracks, and, in fact, said it was actually safer to cross tram tracks than a road because the course of the tram is totally predictable, unlike a road vehicle. That is to say you merely have to step to the side by 5ft one way or the other and you`re perfectly safe. I`m sure anyone who thinks about it will agree with the latter, but also find it difficult to escape the conclusion there is a lot of inconsistencies in the relative positions of those running the trams networks and Network rail.

 

[AlterEgo]

And they should NOT be closing them. It`s utterly scandalous. They`re making life more awkward walkers or whoever for no statistically significant reason. When I say statistically significant I`m comparing the risk in crossing the ECML at a level crossing to the risk of being killed by a car when crossing a road. Am I not right in saying most countries don`t even have fences alongside their railways ? Is it not just an accident of history that we do ?

You're right that many countries don't fence off their railways. But then, last time I checked, the UK was the joint second-safest railway in Europe.

It seems a little strange that you think there is no statistically significant reason for NR's crossing closure programme, when Network Rail is literally stuffed with risk analysts and project managers.

It seems that you have a different appetite for risk than most of the posters on this board. This is fine - we are all different after all.

But please, don't climb down onto the track.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are many small stations with good sightlines on quiet lines around the country where, were it not illegal to do so, it would not be particularly unwise to retrieve a dropped item yourself.

There are also many stations where it would be *extremely* unwise.

Agreed.

 

[FGW_DID]

Yet another rail forums thread filled with people who think they know better / think they are above the relevant rules & regs and can just do their own thing. Pretty much sums up today's society!

 

[Justin Smith]

Have you considered the difficulty of getting back on to platform again? No of course not you're too concerned about your precious phone and never mind the potential danger and disruption to other people.

Some people may have problems climbing onto a platform, whether they have mobility problems, or are just short and/or of limited strength, I accept that. Such people should not try and retrieve an object from the tracks next to a railway platform.
Having said that, at the point where the phone was, it was only about 30 yards to the ramped end of the platform, and, as anyone who knows Doncaster will know, there is room on the other side of the line to walk if one has to.

 

[Deepgreen]

It also occurs to me that this happened to be an OHLE area - the same behaviour in third (and fourth) rail territory would be hugely more dangerous still.

 

[lincolnshire]

Not sure myself but at a guess the station staff will most probably not be PTS trained so they should not be on the track.

Also how would the staff get down on to the track and back up again?

If you sat on the platform and then dropped off the edge onto the ballast and then you landed wrong and twisted your ankle then what. Off work maybe or a sprained and hurting ankle all for a mobile phone and its not even your own its a passengers who has let his kid play with it and then you might be in for the managing for attendance due to been off work.

So how would they then get back on the platform then? its not as easy as you think. Years ago there would have been a step every so often maybe so you could step onto the step and then onto the platform. Some staff these days are not built for clambering back up onto the platform.

It looks not far away, but its further than you think especially if some train is coming thundering into the platform while your trying to get back onto the platform.

Phones should be in pockets or bags not be held in the hand, concentrate on what your doing and not what the phones doing.

 

[GarethJohn]

Some people may have problems climbing onto a platform, whether they have mobility problems, or are just short and/or of limited strength, I accept that. Such people should not try and retrieve an object from the tracks next to a railway platform.
Having said that, at the point where the phone was, it was only about 30 yards to the ramped end of the platform, and, as anyone who knows Doncaster will know, there is room on the other side of the line to walk if one has to.

While you are going about retrieving the phone what is the three year old doing ?

 

[Deepgreen]

Some people may have problems climbing onto a platform, whether they have mobility problems, or are just short and/or of limited strength, I accept that. Such people should not try and retrieve an object from the tracks next to a railway platform.
Having said that, at the point where the phone was, it was only about 30 yards to the ramped end of the platform, and, as anyone who knows Doncaster will know, there is room on the other side of the line to walk if one has to.

May I politely suggest that you stop trying to defend/justify your stance, as it is indefensible. I think you will by now have gathered the trend of feeling here!

 

[Llanigraham]

So go on then.........................do tell us what you would have done if you had dropped your expensive phone on the track and staff couldn't retrieve it? This should be good......................

Oh and for the record I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with the OP, I just think both sides of any argument need to be heard.

I'd have left it there after telling the staff about it, and hoped that it might be returned to me at a later time. If it wasn't then so be it. I'd get another one after telling the mobile phone provider to cancel the number.

There is no "other side"!!

 

[Justin Smith]

I have to say I find many of the posts on this thread to be utterly depressing. Like many people I think the health & Safety culture has gone way way too far. Everything we do has risk, to try and eliminate all risk is totally impossible, and, on the way to trying to do that, costs an absolute fortune, both in terms of money but also inconvenience to people and the fact they never get to do something that might change their lives. The story about York Depot in the 1970s (on my signature) just about sums the latter up for me.
The concept of reasonable has just gone out of the window. People think, don`t go on the track under any circumstances (even, apparently, staff) is a correct judgment even though they cannot give any figures as to how dangerous that would be.

 

[Llanigraham]

Out of interest, on London Underground, an approaching train is often used as protection (having been warned by radio to stop short of the platform) for retrieval efforts - is this the regime on the main line as well?

No it isn't.

 

[AlterEgo]

People think, don`t go on the track under any circumstances (even, apparently, staff) is a correct judgment even though they cannot give any figures as to how dangerous that would be.

Nor can you. Um.

 

[Harbornite]

The story about York Depot in the 1970s (on my signature) just about sums the latter up for me.
The concept of reasonable has just gone out of the window. People think, don`t go on the track under any circumstances (even, apparently, staff) is a correct judgment even though they cannot give any figures as to how dangerous that would be.

This shows how little understanding you have of the issue.

 

[lincolnshire]

When you also consider that Platform 8 at Doncaster is Bi directional too so you don,t exactly know which way the train is coming from as I have gone to Kings Cross off this platform before today.

To be line side you now have to be clad in all orange too and why is it dictated than all platforms at stations are Red Zone working I wonder ( does that not tell you something)

The person who did get it back with his litter picker, did he have to lay down on the platform to manage it then?

 

[Deepgreen]

I have to say I find many of the posts on this thread to be utterly depressing. Like many people I think the health & Safety culture has gone way way too far. Everything we do has risk, to try and eliminate all risk is totally impossible, and, on the way to trying to do that, costs an absolute fortune, both in terms of money but also inconvenience to people and the fact they never get to do something that might change their lives. The story about York Depot in the 1970s (on my signature) just about sums the latter up for me.
The concept of reasonable has just gone out of the window. People think, don`t go on the track under any circumstances (even, apparently, staff) is a correct judgment even though they cannot give any figures as to how dangerous that would be.

One incredibly easy risk to eliminate is done by not jumping onto the track. Until the act of gaining unauthorised access to the railway line is excluded from the trespass law then that is the simple answer here - don't.

 

[Llanigraham]

That is the rule, and it must be followed. It is much easier to have a strict, standard rule.

This does not in any way detract from the point that going on to the track at a quiet rural station on a branch line, for example, is not particularly dangerous compared with many other perfectly legal activities, such as crossing a 70mph dual carriageway on the level.

Like the old lady at Harlech who drove onto the level crossing on a Sunday morning, without phoning the signal box first, because she knew there were no passenger trains running that early in the morning, and got hit by a tamper?

You can NEVER presume there are no trains running!!

 

[Justin Smith]

This shows how little understanding you have of the issue.

Meaning what exactly ?

 

[Clip]

I reckon a person (let`s say a member of staff rather than me so as to bypass a load of other issues) could get down and retrieve a phone in comfortably less than 10 seconds. Standing on the platform you would be able to see whether a train was approaching for way over 10 seconds worth of travel time.

When you say a position of safety, that raises a very interesting point, a point put forward when they were thinking of building the Supertram in Sheffield. The proposers of the tram never at any point suggested that pedestrians shouldn`t cross the tram tracks, and, in fact, said it was actually safer to cross tram tracks than a road because the course of the tram is totally predictable, unlike a road vehicle. That is to say you merely have to step to the side by 5ft one way or the other and you`re perfectly safe. I`m sure anyone who thinks about it will agree with the latter, but also find it difficult to escape the conclusion there is a lot of inconsistencies in the relative positions of those running the trams networks and Network rail.

I have to ask because you are obviously not going to let this one lie and still think that you are right but what safety qulifications do you have to make a judgement on what is or is not safe?