ralphchadkirk
Established Member
What's so difficult for you to understand that your point is so hypocritical that it would be funny if you weren't being serious.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Had problems taking pictures of the railways?
- Thread starter Snapper
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Old Timer
Established Member
Ferret
I am extremely disappointed to read your post.
Sadly, you have simply demonstrated how little you actually appreciate about the various conditions upon which TOCs and others on the Railway work.
I am extremely disappointed to read your post.
Sadly, you have simply demonstrated how little you actually appreciate about the various conditions upon which TOCs and others on the Railway work.
You've failed to understand my previous post then. It's quite a simple idea really - a request is just that, you aren't actually compelled to follow it. Personally I can't see what's hard to understand about that, and it doesn't demonstrate hypocrisy in any way shape or form. Perhaps if you can tell me where in those guidelines it says anything along the lines of 'failure to follow this request will result in your removal from the station', I'll happily concede the point and change my opinion.
Old Timer - you've managed to demonstrate to me that you see enthusiasts as a problem. And therein lies the reason why enthusiasts face issues - because there are staff out there who see enthusiasts as a problem. The idea that you're further up the food chain and in a position to teach them a lesson is just indefensible. I have a question to pose here - when there have been problems between enthusiasts and members of staff, who has caused the conflict? Enthusiast or staff member. I know where my money is. As soon as the member of staff approaches an enthusiast and says 'you can't take photos of trains mate', or 'you haven't signed in, you'll have to leave', that member of staff has already put himself in a situation - he's got the enthusiast's back up. And let's make another point here; that enthusiast is also likely to be a customer. Quite important to the railway, wouldn't you say? Now, instead of coming the big I am as you suggested you'd be prepared to do Old Timer, perhaps a friendly chat along the lines of 'stopping long lads?' or similar might yield a far more satisfactory outcome? I hope that one day, we'll be able to see enthusiasts as part of the solution to any security problems arising at our stations. Judging by this exchange on here, that's still a forlorn hope.
Last edited:
Old Timer
Established Member
Ferret
Firstly you know nothing about me or my attitude to railway enthusiasts.
Had you done a little more research you would have done.
Had you bothered to comprehend my posts in this subject better then you would understand where I am coming from.
For YOUR record I have a long history of facilitating genuine photographers to access locations and operations not easily reached or seen. Many of the engineering photographs taken around certain depots in the 1970s were taken through my co-operation.
I took the time to try to explain and give some reasoning behind my posts. Had you stopped to read properly rather than rushing to attack me, you may have seen the points I was trying to make.
I will NOT move from the fact that the Railway is NOT a public place.
It is however becoming recognised that there is a problem with certain people entering onto the Railway and going into areas where they should not, and that includes moving down platform ramps.
It is also the case that the attitude of these people is not only disrespectful, but is rude and arrogant.
I make no apologies for removing such people when they venture into areas where they should not be. Invariably they are of the "I dont have to sign in" variety, and then seek to proclaim their rights - never responsibilities though. THAT attitude absolutely guarantees a one way journey out the gate.
I expect YOU, presuming you to be a member of Railway staff, to comply with the requirements of the Rule Book in such cases as well.
Genuine photographers who assist and follow the guidelines are always welcome. Those who do not will not be. They are a menace to the majority.
To find you supporting them, as a fellow member of staff, I do find considerably depressing.
Firstly you know nothing about me or my attitude to railway enthusiasts.
Had you done a little more research you would have done.
Had you bothered to comprehend my posts in this subject better then you would understand where I am coming from.
For YOUR record I have a long history of facilitating genuine photographers to access locations and operations not easily reached or seen. Many of the engineering photographs taken around certain depots in the 1970s were taken through my co-operation.
I took the time to try to explain and give some reasoning behind my posts. Had you stopped to read properly rather than rushing to attack me, you may have seen the points I was trying to make.
I will NOT move from the fact that the Railway is NOT a public place.
It is however becoming recognised that there is a problem with certain people entering onto the Railway and going into areas where they should not, and that includes moving down platform ramps.
It is also the case that the attitude of these people is not only disrespectful, but is rude and arrogant.
I make no apologies for removing such people when they venture into areas where they should not be. Invariably they are of the "I dont have to sign in" variety, and then seek to proclaim their rights - never responsibilities though. THAT attitude absolutely guarantees a one way journey out the gate.
I expect YOU, presuming you to be a member of Railway staff, to comply with the requirements of the Rule Book in such cases as well.
Genuine photographers who assist and follow the guidelines are always welcome. Those who do not will not be. They are a menace to the majority.
To find you supporting them, as a fellow member of staff, I do find considerably depressing.
Now, I've read the original post you made on this, and also the subsequent one from Ralphchadkirk. At no point did you mention railway trespass in there, and at no point have you challenged Ralphchadkirk's attempt at clarifying your point. Therefore I concluded that you see merely not signing in as reason enough to ask somebody to leave. Now if we want to discuss trespassing and my views on it - well, I don't know about you removing them, I'd suggest it may be better if the BTP did.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Sadly there are a few who let down the vast majority of well behaved photographers by not following the guidelines.
I've seen one lying on the platform with his head off the edge dangling his camera down to try and photograph something in a particular way. When a member of staff (this was at a mainline station) asked him to move all the staff member got was a rude reply.
By signing in they will (hopefully) recieve a briefing and staff will then be alerted that there is a photographer on the station. Staff are then more willing to help them out.
I've seen one lying on the platform with his head off the edge dangling his camera down to try and photograph something in a particular way. When a member of staff (this was at a mainline station) asked him to move all the staff member got was a rude reply.
By signing in they will (hopefully) recieve a briefing and staff will then be alerted that there is a photographer on the station. Staff are then more willing to help them out.
I fear even a lengthy briefing wouldn't counter stupidity like that!!!!!
Old Timer
Established Member
Rather than debate WHAT people THINK the guidelines say, shall we examione them as written ?
They state this :
Now let us look at the definition of "should".
"Should" is defined in various dictionaries to "express an obligation or duty".
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/should
The guidelines therefore impose a duty to report to the Station Manager (or station staff).
Now let us examine the meaning given to "guidelines".
These are defined as "Advice or instructions given in order to guide or direct an action"
http://www.learn-english-today.com/business-english/presentations-vocabulary.html
Webster's defines the word as "- a detailed plan or explanation to guide you in setting standards or determining a course of action; "
One hopes that even the most wooden-headed of people can understand therefore that they ARE required to report to the station staff.
A failure to do so can be taken as prima facie evidence of being on the station without authority, with the attendant consequences that can arise.
Possession of a ticket only permits the person to stay for the purposes of joining their train. That is the first train NOT some train many hours later on. This also applies to connections. EVen then a ticket confers no right to stay on a station for an extended period and a passenger can be asked to leave and return at an appropriate time.
OT, I'll look at this in more detail later, but for now I'll just say this - have you any idea how impractical that actually is? I passed through Doncaster the other day and counted around 40 enthusiasts on the station. Do you not think the DSM would get totally hacked off with having to see that many people who just wish to see/photograph some trains. Perhaps you'd like to email Chris Gibb as well and tell him he was out of order for failing to sign in at Oxford the other week to see the Deltic on it's tour, or at Plymouth two years ago when he spent a good 20 minutes photographing RSG? Am I wooden-headed or are you?
Old Timer
Established Member
Ferret
I have merely clarified the rules.
Rules incidentally that Virgin Trains have signed up to.
Each TOC has a station operations manual agreed with Network Rail, and this sets out the precise manner in which visitors are handled. For the purposes of the SOM enthusiasts are treated as visitors.
You may wish to ask to see a SOM at one of your stations. You may be surprised at what information and procedures it contains.
If station staff only wish to sign in and brief photographers who are staying for extended periods as opposed to changing trains then that is a matter for them and their TOC. At the end of the day I anticipate that a degree of practicality and common sense will be applied.
If someone changing trains is going to remain on the station for an extended period then personally I would say that it would be polite and in the spirit of the guidelines to comply with them.
That however does not change the strict fact of the guidelines which require people to advise report to the station staff.
The point that raised the debate was not the application of a degree of latitude but the absolute statements being made that people would NOT comply with the guidelines full stop. There is a big step between that and the application of common sense
As for the practicality of signing in large numbers of people, tell me, how do you think Infrastructure Contractors operate ? Everyone entering the site requires to both sign in, and be briefed, as well as having checks carried out on their PPE and their Sentinel competencies.
Sometimes this runs to several hundred people per shift. We manage this quite successfully and without disruption to our activities.
As for the "Doncaster" mob who seem to spend every living hour there, there are individuals amongst them who consider passengers to be an annoyance and a hindrance, and act and treat people as such.
There is little to be gained from trying to shoot the messenger. As you obviously have deep rooted objections to a Policy that YOUR TOC has signed up to, I suggest that you take the matter up internally rather than complain about its practicalities on here.
I have merely clarified the rules.
Rules incidentally that Virgin Trains have signed up to.
Each TOC has a station operations manual agreed with Network Rail, and this sets out the precise manner in which visitors are handled. For the purposes of the SOM enthusiasts are treated as visitors.
You may wish to ask to see a SOM at one of your stations. You may be surprised at what information and procedures it contains.
If station staff only wish to sign in and brief photographers who are staying for extended periods as opposed to changing trains then that is a matter for them and their TOC. At the end of the day I anticipate that a degree of practicality and common sense will be applied.
If someone changing trains is going to remain on the station for an extended period then personally I would say that it would be polite and in the spirit of the guidelines to comply with them.
That however does not change the strict fact of the guidelines which require people to advise report to the station staff.
The point that raised the debate was not the application of a degree of latitude but the absolute statements being made that people would NOT comply with the guidelines full stop. There is a big step between that and the application of common sense
As for the practicality of signing in large numbers of people, tell me, how do you think Infrastructure Contractors operate ? Everyone entering the site requires to both sign in, and be briefed, as well as having checks carried out on their PPE and their Sentinel competencies.
Sometimes this runs to several hundred people per shift. We manage this quite successfully and without disruption to our activities.
As for the "Doncaster" mob who seem to spend every living hour there, there are individuals amongst them who consider passengers to be an annoyance and a hindrance, and act and treat people as such.
There is little to be gained from trying to shoot the messenger. As you obviously have deep rooted objections to a Policy that YOUR TOC has signed up to, I suggest that you take the matter up internally rather than complain about its practicalities on here.
In practise this does not happen in all cases - I went to sign in at Kings Cross earlier on in the year, out of courtesy. I was asked for ID and a contact phone number, but did not get sign anything, get any sort of briefing or get any sort of pass. Apparently this would make me the station supervisor's responsibility, and also mean he would be liable for me in case of an accident. Therefore by not signing in I was not his responsibilty and not covered under insurance.
Old Timer, can you look up the definition of the word 'advice' and then come back to me? It's just that one of the first words used in these guidelines is 'advice'. I didn't realise I was compelled to take 'advice', but it seems you think otherwise. I also noticed that the guidelines have graduated to rules now. That's ok - you keep deluding yourself.
Now, I'm well aware that Virgin have signed up to the guidelines, I'm sure Chris Gibb is as well. Nowhere in the guidelines does it mention the length of stay, so we can therefore assume that in the gospel according to Old Timer, Chris needed to report to the DSM prior to photographing RSG at Plymouth. Only, he didn't did he? So then, have you emailed him? His work email addy isn't hard to figure out - give it a shot and then post his reply here if you like, it'd sure give us all a laugh.
Face facts OT, you can bluster on about 'rules' surrounding photography on railway stations all you like but the reality is that if you go booting people off stations because they haven't complied with the guidelines by visiting the station manager and maybe signing in, you're going to find yourself on a disciplinary charge sooner or later. Still, that's something you'll just have to deal with. Meanwhile, the rest of us with an ounce of common sense will carry on as we are, noting that following a whole load of adverse publicity, the instances of over-zealous staff getting above their station have noticeably decreased.
As for anything else - like going off the platform edge for instance, we're stepping into the realms of railway trespass and that would be dealt with accordingly regardless of whether it was mentioned in the guidelines or not.
Old Timer
Established Member
Ferret
Clearly you are the type who will not take "advice".
I really cannot be bothered to continue a pointless debate with you, especially as comprehension of the written word is obviously not so strong as your prediliction to sneering, and disingenuity.
If you were as quick to comprehend as you are to rush into snide and abusive ripostes, you might find yourself a more comfortable life.
Did you bother to check one of your own TOC's SOM ? I guess not, but when you do it may lift the scales from your eyes a little, then again maybe not, as you appear to be one of those who is always right, so why should you do any investigation.
There are a whole myriad of things going on about the Railway than can be seen from the back cab, sadly I gave you the opportunity to walk away gracefully, but still, the choice was yours.
As an infrastructure Contractor, when we work in a station area under various legislation we can remove whom we like as and when we like, Signing in or no signing in.
On occasions when photographers have asked, e.g. signed in, then I am quite happy for them to wander along the platforms and observe and take photos. We do let the station staff know whether or not people can come into the working area.
We (I as well) exercise the sort of judgement YOU have decided in your infinite wisdom I do not have or am capable of having.
Someone walking onto our site (this includes the platforms) without our knowledge or agreement however is completely unacceptable and they WILL be removed. Had they followed the guidelines you so obviously disagree with, then they would have been advised that the area was out of bounds without permission. To repeat myself, the teams that work for me are told to exercise wide discretion with photographers.We dont stop them and we dont obstruct them.
Sometimes we will turn people away for a while whilst there is a dangerous activity going on, or there are other restrictions.
Our Risk Assessments have to include risks to other people under the HASAWA 1974.
I have no problem with them whatsoever provided they are co-operative and allow us to get on unhindered. I also have no problem with enthusiasts per se, only those who display the sort of attitude from which this whole sorry series of posts arose.
Now of course had you actually gained a little more knowledge as opposed to assuming that you are the font of all, you would have known that.Just to really **** you off that includes you and any member of station staff. As for discipline, well I await with interest my first disciplinary charge for this.
You may however wish to be aware that my Company has already had a number of station staff disciplined by their TOC for entering into areas which we had specified as being out of bounds. Not something I would have done personally but it was not my site, not my decision and nothing to do with me
Had you been less agressive in approach and tone I would have pointed it in a non-confrontational manner.
Finally, when I was a lad, some long long time ago, it was not common or good manners for people who did not know others personally, especially those in senior positions to go around calling them by their first name. Clearly times change. I presume your continued references to Chris Gibb are meant to worry me or impart some sort of mystical restraint upon me ?
Sorry but it wont. Unlike you I actuallly do know the gentleman, indeed I have worked with him in the long distant past, unlike you I dont have any necessity to name drop.
As it appears that you are so opposed to the guidelines I suggest YOU write a Dear Chris email, maybe you should also copy in your Line Manager, your TOC, and ATOC whilst you are at it, as for the sake of clarity it appears that you do not support what has been agreed to by your Managers.
Clearly you are the type who will not take "advice".
I really cannot be bothered to continue a pointless debate with you, especially as comprehension of the written word is obviously not so strong as your prediliction to sneering, and disingenuity.
If you were as quick to comprehend as you are to rush into snide and abusive ripostes, you might find yourself a more comfortable life.
Did you bother to check one of your own TOC's SOM ? I guess not, but when you do it may lift the scales from your eyes a little, then again maybe not, as you appear to be one of those who is always right, so why should you do any investigation.
There are a whole myriad of things going on about the Railway than can be seen from the back cab, sadly I gave you the opportunity to walk away gracefully, but still, the choice was yours.
As an infrastructure Contractor, when we work in a station area under various legislation we can remove whom we like as and when we like, Signing in or no signing in.
On occasions when photographers have asked, e.g. signed in, then I am quite happy for them to wander along the platforms and observe and take photos. We do let the station staff know whether or not people can come into the working area.
We (I as well) exercise the sort of judgement YOU have decided in your infinite wisdom I do not have or am capable of having.
Someone walking onto our site (this includes the platforms) without our knowledge or agreement however is completely unacceptable and they WILL be removed. Had they followed the guidelines you so obviously disagree with, then they would have been advised that the area was out of bounds without permission. To repeat myself, the teams that work for me are told to exercise wide discretion with photographers.We dont stop them and we dont obstruct them.
Sometimes we will turn people away for a while whilst there is a dangerous activity going on, or there are other restrictions.
Our Risk Assessments have to include risks to other people under the HASAWA 1974.
I have no problem with them whatsoever provided they are co-operative and allow us to get on unhindered. I also have no problem with enthusiasts per se, only those who display the sort of attitude from which this whole sorry series of posts arose.
Now of course had you actually gained a little more knowledge as opposed to assuming that you are the font of all, you would have known that.Just to really **** you off that includes you and any member of station staff. As for discipline, well I await with interest my first disciplinary charge for this.
You may however wish to be aware that my Company has already had a number of station staff disciplined by their TOC for entering into areas which we had specified as being out of bounds. Not something I would have done personally but it was not my site, not my decision and nothing to do with me
Had you been less agressive in approach and tone I would have pointed it in a non-confrontational manner.
Finally, when I was a lad, some long long time ago, it was not common or good manners for people who did not know others personally, especially those in senior positions to go around calling them by their first name. Clearly times change. I presume your continued references to Chris Gibb are meant to worry me or impart some sort of mystical restraint upon me ?
Sorry but it wont. Unlike you I actuallly do know the gentleman, indeed I have worked with him in the long distant past, unlike you I dont have any necessity to name drop.
As it appears that you are so opposed to the guidelines I suggest YOU write a Dear Chris email, maybe you should also copy in your Line Manager, your TOC, and ATOC whilst you are at it, as for the sake of clarity it appears that you do not support what has been agreed to by your Managers.
I'm just using Chris Gibb as an illustration - if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me. And yes, I do know him, and speak to him whenever he travels with me. Not that it really matters.....
Maybe it's a good idea that you don't attempt to debate this any more - you've gone off on a right tangent just now. We've gone from your apparent belief that failing to contact the DSM and maybe sign in being grounds for removal from the station (which is just plain wrong) to discussing what would happen if somebody came into your worksite. For the record, I've no issue as to how you deal with your maintenance work - you'll have done all the risk assessments and have every right to exercise your judgement with regard to that. I don't believe for a minute that extends to removing photographers from a station who've failed to sign in (which, as a contractor, is precisely the square root of diddly squat to do with you).
I'll leave you with one final thought. I don't care much for Politicians - at the moment I've a particular distaste for many in the Labour Party but after 12-13 years of them being in Government, that's hardly surprising! One I did have a bit of time for was Lord Adonis, who I thought was very good at the DfT. I read in one of the magazines an interview regarding railway enthusiasts, and he was asked what he thought of enthusiasts being hassled on stations. I believe the words he used were 'absolutely monstrous'. I couldn't agree more. Is it possible that we might agree on one thing - that's a damn good point on which to end our discussion on this?
Maybe it's a good idea that you don't attempt to debate this any more - you've gone off on a right tangent just now. We've gone from your apparent belief that failing to contact the DSM and maybe sign in being grounds for removal from the station (which is just plain wrong) to discussing what would happen if somebody came into your worksite. For the record, I've no issue as to how you deal with your maintenance work - you'll have done all the risk assessments and have every right to exercise your judgement with regard to that. I don't believe for a minute that extends to removing photographers from a station who've failed to sign in (which, as a contractor, is precisely the square root of diddly squat to do with you).
I'll leave you with one final thought. I don't care much for Politicians - at the moment I've a particular distaste for many in the Labour Party but after 12-13 years of them being in Government, that's hardly surprising! One I did have a bit of time for was Lord Adonis, who I thought was very good at the DfT. I read in one of the magazines an interview regarding railway enthusiasts, and he was asked what he thought of enthusiasts being hassled on stations. I believe the words he used were 'absolutely monstrous'. I couldn't agree more. Is it possible that we might agree on one thing - that's a damn good point on which to end our discussion on this?
Old Timer
Established Member
The example I gave you about removing people who did not sign in was validated by my point about worksites.
As for "diddlysquat" I suggest you step back and do a little research. Under various elements of legislation, we can and do take over control of stations or parts of stations or platforms as and when we find it necessary to do so. Under the CDM Regulations we can do as we wish within the area we have defined and we can allow or prohibit whom we wish. At that stage the TOC is no longer the person in charge.
Examples of this in operation may currently be found at Platform 1 at Birmingham New St, and on the Thameslink upgrade works.
Your DSM may know, but your TOC H&S Manager should definitely know this. Arrangements about this are contained within some TOCs SOMs.
Never once have I suggested or even given examples of where enthusiast were hassled on stations by me or my staff. I have been at greta pains to point out the opposite. I disagree with those who do hassle photographers, and I have said so openly on here several times before.
My one whole point all along is to attempt to give working examples of why the guidelines say that people should report to the station staff. The guidelines are quite clear, as is the wording and definition of "should".
Those who refuse point blank to co-operate, and whom it appears you still continue to defend, do absolutely NO service to the rest of us (yes I do take photos on stations, but I always report to the staff first and always have done since before the guidelines) and indeed by their actions and attitude simply get the backs up of the station staff unnecessarily.
Under the "security" issue that I raised and that you derided me for, station staff need to be aware who is on the station and they need to investigate the reasons why someone is on the station but not travelling. This "security" element which you sneered at covers not only potential suicides, but those who may be there for nefarious activities.
From what is developing, enthusiasts who refuse to follow the guidelines will at some stage cause the withdrawal of co-operation and ultimately place their prohibition closer.
There are various views even within some TOCs at senior level as well as some members of the various security committees who feel things should move along those lines.
As for "diddlysquat" I suggest you step back and do a little research. Under various elements of legislation, we can and do take over control of stations or parts of stations or platforms as and when we find it necessary to do so. Under the CDM Regulations we can do as we wish within the area we have defined and we can allow or prohibit whom we wish. At that stage the TOC is no longer the person in charge.
Examples of this in operation may currently be found at Platform 1 at Birmingham New St, and on the Thameslink upgrade works.
Your DSM may know, but your TOC H&S Manager should definitely know this. Arrangements about this are contained within some TOCs SOMs.
Never once have I suggested or even given examples of where enthusiast were hassled on stations by me or my staff. I have been at greta pains to point out the opposite. I disagree with those who do hassle photographers, and I have said so openly on here several times before.
My one whole point all along is to attempt to give working examples of why the guidelines say that people should report to the station staff. The guidelines are quite clear, as is the wording and definition of "should".
Those who refuse point blank to co-operate, and whom it appears you still continue to defend, do absolutely NO service to the rest of us (yes I do take photos on stations, but I always report to the staff first and always have done since before the guidelines) and indeed by their actions and attitude simply get the backs up of the station staff unnecessarily.
Under the "security" issue that I raised and that you derided me for, station staff need to be aware who is on the station and they need to investigate the reasons why someone is on the station but not travelling. This "security" element which you sneered at covers not only potential suicides, but those who may be there for nefarious activities.
From what is developing, enthusiasts who refuse to follow the guidelines will at some stage cause the withdrawal of co-operation and ultimately place their prohibition closer.
There are various views even within some TOCs at senior level as well as some members of the various security committees who feel things should move along those lines.
OT, I'm still not getting the link between not signing in/reporting to a DSM and refusing to co-operate. I don't for a minute support somebody impeding your maintenance work, but somebody who hasn't signed in is not a menace. If they haven't signed in, and a member of staff is concerned then by all means go and have a friendly chat. I'm sorry but I really cannot see how an enthusiast is causing a problem here.
As regards platform 1 at New St, this is sealed off to members of the public so it's hardly likely that you'd find an enthusiast there! If you did, I'd support you in doing what was necessary however.
I also have grave doubts that prohibition is anywhere near likely to happen. Like I say, there are a number of people in the higher echelons of the industry who are cranks/enthusiasts/NEDs (call them what you will!), and after all the bad press certain TOCs have received in Rail, TRM etc etc, not to mention national newspapers, I hardly think they'll be queueing up for another round.
Old Timer
Established Member
Here are some random quotes :-
All stations are required to have a visitors book, and under arrangements with Network Rail, and in accordance with an agreement with the security committee, all visitors should sign in.
Railway Standards require that close supervision and management is maintained over anyone who is not travelling but is visiting , and this includes the "zoning" of station areas. I cannot say any more but as I keep repeating your TOC will have a Station Operations Manual (or equivalent) which will set out most of these things, albeit certain sections are issued under secure conditions for obvious reasons.
Under HASAW, as well as Regulations relating to the duties of landlords, requirements it is incumbent upon the TOC to demonstrate that the vistor has been suitably briefed on the hazards they will encounter, and has been given clear instruction as to what and what they must not do, as well as where they may go and may not go.
These various requirements, duties and responsibilities will almost certainly not be known to the vast majority of enthusiasts, but then again they do not need to be which is why they are requested to speak with the station staff.
A refusal to co-operate is illegal under HASAW Law.
Later post
Let me give you some worked examples of what I mean.
Example 1
Someone enters, refuses to report to staff and goes onto platform. Train comes through and disturbs some track clips which are thrown up. Person is seriously injured. Liability - None if person not spotted. Legal status - Not travelling, no authority to be on station - trespasser kiss goodbye to a large sum of money
Example 2
Someone enters, reports to staff and is subsequently injured. Legal status - Legally on station only issue is precise amount of money
Example 3
Someone enters, reports to station staff, enters area where Infrastructure work is taking place despite being instructed that it is out of bounds. Is involved in incident where someone is injured. HMRI involved. Legal status - Trespasser in area, subject to possible sanction by HMRI under HASAW Legislation, or BT Police. Injured person could also instigate civil action
Last edited:
90019
Established Member
I walked through Waverley today and went into the M&S on the station to buy my lunch. I wasn't travelling so should I have signed in?
What about when I walk through the station to go from one side to the other and stop to look at something? Should I sign in then?
How about when I went in with a friend to show him something in the station?
Or going into the station and sitting on a bench on the platform?
I'm not travelling on any of the occasions, and technically a visitor to the station, so should I have to sign in and be briefed?
Lampshade
Established Member
Let's not get into grey areas, I sometimes pop into Manchester Piccadilly to go to KFC or Bagel Factory before getting the 192 home, heck, I even did some shopping in Sainsbury's after seeing a friend off, doesn't mean I have to sign in... does it 
hock:
hock:This part of your post is not clear - are you saying that a refusal by an enthusiast to cooperate is a breach of HASAW Law?
I note your examples - here's another of my own. At an unbarriered station, I go onto the platforms and see the outlaws away on a train to Exeter (if there was a train to Ulan Bator, I'd maybe consider sending them there!!!
). OT's clumsy junior apprentice goes and drops something heavy on my foot! I suppose you'll say I'm unentitled to any compensation whatsoever!The point is this; many people go and see off their relatives or friends. They aren't aware of any need to sign in despite the fact they could spend quite a length of time in the station cafe while waiting for the train to arrive. Where's the big disclaimers saying they aren't legally covered? Where are the guidelines to say they must report to the DSM?
Old Timer
Established Member
The two situations are slightly different.
Legally no-one should pass the barrier line with a valid ticket. Technically this includes a platform ticket, however.........................
Any person making a claim for injury would do so against an examinationn of the reasons for their being there.
A enthusiast could not argue that they were there as genuine transient visitors because the test is always upon the reason for being there and the duration.
Someone coming onto a station to see another person on board a train would be classed as legitimately being there, because their visit is of a transient nature and is in connection with a person travelling. The risk to their safety is negligible as is the risk they pose to others. I believe that many station have signs about passing the barrier line without a travel ticket. There would certainly be some form of sign simply to designate the trespass area.
Someone who comes to carry out a work task or is going to be on the station for an extended period of time cannot by virtue of that be seeing some one off on a train and thus their status is somewhat changed.
The risks to which they are exposed will obviously increase with time and be relative to where they are. This in turn dramatically increases the duty of care to be exercised by the TOC.
An example. A freight train approaches and yoru photographer will obviously be much closer to it than an ordinary passenger or their friends. Now the photographer has a much higher risk exposure should for example there be something dragging under the train.
In the event of them being injured, one of the considerations would be the reasons for being exposed to the risk, what action the TOC (under duty of care) had exercised, and the legal status of the person.
Believe me that the TOC will always bring into Court the fact that a person was NOT travelling or intending to travel and that they had not reported their presence and obtained permission to be there. This forms part of their liability mitigation. This will all be taken into consideration ultimately in the event that damages are to be awarded under the area where the actions of the person may have had a bearing on their injuries.
A photographer or enthusiast will by virtue of that fact expose themselves to a higher risk profile than an ordinary passenger. The Court could decide that on that basis and on the common knowledge of railway enthusiasts, which of course is much higher than the general public, that they were more aware of potential risks and accepted them to a higher degree.
No-one knows how a Court would proceed ultimately as each case is different, however should I ever be injured, I have the comfort of knowing that I have complied with all requirements and THAT in itself legalises my being there in a legitimate capacity.
It really IS a lottery but one I would rather I had a higher percentage of winning.
Later post
Just a thought but the recent footage of the idiot nearly struck by a (Class 170 ?) is a good example of what happens nowadays. Had he signed in and been properly briefed then he would have known not to have gotten himself into that situation.
If he had not signed in then he would be treated as a trespasser because of his positioning and would have had very little likelihood of a claim for damages.
Now with regards to HASAW Law comment I should have written Railway Byelaw - my error. HASAW Act only applies to employers, the employed, and other persons. In the case of a a station it would normally be under the Railway Byelaws and the common duty of care. If however that person was interfering with equipment then that is a HASAWA offence.
With regards to my clumsy apprentice, we would first assess if you had a legal right to be there. If we could demonstrate that you did not then we would do so, and argue contributory negligence on your part in the main. That is why we section off platforms or whole stations behind the booking office.
If you are legitimately within the are, i.e. OT said it was OK to take a photograph then obviously our (my) duty of care is considerably enhanced. You know come under the HASWA, and we have considerably greater responsibilities for your safety under HASAWA, CDM Regs, etc, etc.
This is one of the main reasons why we prohibit train crews from walking into/out of work sites or exiting the cab without permission. Our systems say that we will arrange for train crews to be accomapnied to and from, and incoming crews should really sign in through our site access control. Unfortunately train crews very rarely comply.
Legally no-one should pass the barrier line with a valid ticket. Technically this includes a platform ticket, however.........................
Any person making a claim for injury would do so against an examinationn of the reasons for their being there.
A enthusiast could not argue that they were there as genuine transient visitors because the test is always upon the reason for being there and the duration.
Someone coming onto a station to see another person on board a train would be classed as legitimately being there, because their visit is of a transient nature and is in connection with a person travelling. The risk to their safety is negligible as is the risk they pose to others. I believe that many station have signs about passing the barrier line without a travel ticket. There would certainly be some form of sign simply to designate the trespass area.
Someone who comes to carry out a work task or is going to be on the station for an extended period of time cannot by virtue of that be seeing some one off on a train and thus their status is somewhat changed.
The risks to which they are exposed will obviously increase with time and be relative to where they are. This in turn dramatically increases the duty of care to be exercised by the TOC.
An example. A freight train approaches and yoru photographer will obviously be much closer to it than an ordinary passenger or their friends. Now the photographer has a much higher risk exposure should for example there be something dragging under the train.
In the event of them being injured, one of the considerations would be the reasons for being exposed to the risk, what action the TOC (under duty of care) had exercised, and the legal status of the person.
Believe me that the TOC will always bring into Court the fact that a person was NOT travelling or intending to travel and that they had not reported their presence and obtained permission to be there. This forms part of their liability mitigation. This will all be taken into consideration ultimately in the event that damages are to be awarded under the area where the actions of the person may have had a bearing on their injuries.
A photographer or enthusiast will by virtue of that fact expose themselves to a higher risk profile than an ordinary passenger. The Court could decide that on that basis and on the common knowledge of railway enthusiasts, which of course is much higher than the general public, that they were more aware of potential risks and accepted them to a higher degree.
No-one knows how a Court would proceed ultimately as each case is different, however should I ever be injured, I have the comfort of knowing that I have complied with all requirements and THAT in itself legalises my being there in a legitimate capacity.
It really IS a lottery but one I would rather I had a higher percentage of winning.
Later post
Just a thought but the recent footage of the idiot nearly struck by a (Class 170 ?) is a good example of what happens nowadays. Had he signed in and been properly briefed then he would have known not to have gotten himself into that situation.
If he had not signed in then he would be treated as a trespasser because of his positioning and would have had very little likelihood of a claim for damages.
Now with regards to HASAW Law comment I should have written Railway Byelaw - my error. HASAW Act only applies to employers, the employed, and other persons. In the case of a a station it would normally be under the Railway Byelaws and the common duty of care. If however that person was interfering with equipment then that is a HASAWA offence.
With regards to my clumsy apprentice, we would first assess if you had a legal right to be there. If we could demonstrate that you did not then we would do so, and argue contributory negligence on your part in the main. That is why we section off platforms or whole stations behind the booking office.
If you are legitimately within the are, i.e. OT said it was OK to take a photograph then obviously our (my) duty of care is considerably enhanced. You know come under the HASWA, and we have considerably greater responsibilities for your safety under HASAWA, CDM Regs, etc, etc.
This is one of the main reasons why we prohibit train crews from walking into/out of work sites or exiting the cab without permission. Our systems say that we will arrange for train crews to be accomapnied to and from, and incoming crews should really sign in through our site access control. Unfortunately train crews very rarely comply.
Last edited:
curly42
Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2008
- Messages
- 747
Does anyone else have the feeling that this is getting beyond a joke ?
There are always two sides to any argument (or alternate points of view,if you like),but personally,I feel that the postings from Old Timer have crossed the line from a reasonable point of view to clutching at straws.
No offence intended,but in the words of Monty Python,"this is getting very silly".
There are always two sides to any argument (or alternate points of view,if you like),but personally,I feel that the postings from Old Timer have crossed the line from a reasonable point of view to clutching at straws.
No offence intended,but in the words of Monty Python,"this is getting very silly".
Old Timer
Established Member
You are welcome to your viewpoint but please do not try to tell me my business.
I am trained in H&S Law and have regularly been involved in legal cases to defend our position in the case of claims for injuries, etc, etc.
Take some advice and go talk to your local Sue, Grabbit and Runne eh ?
Alternatively you may wish to do a little bit of Googling.
Here is a start http://www.compensationclaims.co.uk/
curly42
Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2008
- Messages
- 747
I don't think for one moment that your professional knowledge was ever the main issue,rather it was your perceived attitude that seemed out of place.
Maybe it's the way that I read your posts,but I've had the impression that you are strongly anti-enthusiast.If you are,then so be it,that is your right to be.If not,well maybe a little understanding may be in order.
I feel that this debate will run and run.
Maybe it's the way that I read your posts,but I've had the impression that you are strongly anti-enthusiast.If you are,then so be it,that is your right to be.If not,well maybe a little understanding may be in order.
I feel that this debate will run and run.
Old Timer
Established Member
Once again I am NOT anti-enthisiast. I spend time photographing on the railway.
My point was a simple and concise one,
It is this.
The guidelines state that enthusiasts should sign in.
A number refuse to do so - quotes provided.
There are many reasons why people should comply with the guidelines, and we have discussed many. Ultimately there will be a legal reasoning in the event of any accident which is where Ferret and I are.
There can be very good reasons for not wanting anyone on a platform, even if there is no obvious sign of activity, for example who would know that a section of OHL wire was being tensioned ? If anything failed it could fall or cause equipment to fail under load.
That is why I say a station is also a work place, where there may be obvious as well as very potent latent dangers.
It is situations like this that the guidelines seek to address.
For a long time people came on sites such as this and bewailed the fact that there was no protocol for them to go onto stations as enthusiasts.
Once a set of guidelines are provided, we then have have statements that say :-
Don't ask for permission.
I refuse to sign in anyway, it's crap. I shouldn't have to and I won't.
I will NEVER go and inform staff
I never go inform staff either
All part of the UK wide paranoia if you ask me. There is no requirement to 'sign in' - they are also guidelines and not the law!!
At the end of the day a station is a station, and a workplace. With arrogant attitudes like those shown above a small number of enthusiasts are damaging the goodwill that exists.
These same people will argue black is white to defend their point of view, and I imagine will still refuse to accept that THEY are not exempt. In their view they have rights to do anything they wish, and go where ever they so desire. I have no doubt they would be equally as vocal in their "rights" to claim compensation.
When we do have to deal with people such as that, over time it tends to colour one's opinions, and I can sometimes understand staff getting annoyed.
It seems that to some people, co-operation means them getting their own way all the time.
I am writing as a railway professional whose activities can and do impart risks to those who may enter into our working area. We have enough to do without the need to have to act as security guards to prevent unwanted visitors to our work. Properly requested on many occasions people can come along and look and take photos. No one minds as long as we know and there are no risks. Sometimes we have to stop people form being there.
Those who refuse to co-operate with the guidelines, place themselves potentially at risk as well as being a disruption when they wander into such situations.
I hope this explains.
My point was a simple and concise one,
It is this.
The guidelines state that enthusiasts should sign in.
A number refuse to do so - quotes provided.
There are many reasons why people should comply with the guidelines, and we have discussed many. Ultimately there will be a legal reasoning in the event of any accident which is where Ferret and I are.
There can be very good reasons for not wanting anyone on a platform, even if there is no obvious sign of activity, for example who would know that a section of OHL wire was being tensioned ? If anything failed it could fall or cause equipment to fail under load.
That is why I say a station is also a work place, where there may be obvious as well as very potent latent dangers.
It is situations like this that the guidelines seek to address.
For a long time people came on sites such as this and bewailed the fact that there was no protocol for them to go onto stations as enthusiasts.
Once a set of guidelines are provided, we then have have statements that say :-
Don't ask for permission.
I refuse to sign in anyway, it's crap. I shouldn't have to and I won't.
I will NEVER go and inform staff
I never go inform staff either
All part of the UK wide paranoia if you ask me. There is no requirement to 'sign in' - they are also guidelines and not the law!!
At the end of the day a station is a station, and a workplace. With arrogant attitudes like those shown above a small number of enthusiasts are damaging the goodwill that exists.
These same people will argue black is white to defend their point of view, and I imagine will still refuse to accept that THEY are not exempt. In their view they have rights to do anything they wish, and go where ever they so desire. I have no doubt they would be equally as vocal in their "rights" to claim compensation.
When we do have to deal with people such as that, over time it tends to colour one's opinions, and I can sometimes understand staff getting annoyed.
It seems that to some people, co-operation means them getting their own way all the time.
I am writing as a railway professional whose activities can and do impart risks to those who may enter into our working area. We have enough to do without the need to have to act as security guards to prevent unwanted visitors to our work. Properly requested on many occasions people can come along and look and take photos. No one minds as long as we know and there are no risks. Sometimes we have to stop people form being there.
Those who refuse to co-operate with the guidelines, place themselves potentially at risk as well as being a disruption when they wander into such situations.
I hope this explains.
Last edited:
Lampshade
Established Member
Urgh, so at the end of the day it all comes down to bureaucracy, this country through and through :roll:
Yes, so to sum up, if someone doesn't sign in then they might not get awarded compensation if they're injured whilst taking photographs and go on to claim against the railway. This, and maybe potential terrorism, is all it boils down to. Is it any wonder people are still reluctant to sign in?
To put it crudely:
Sign in > take photos > get injured > claim > may get compensation
Don't sign in > take photos > get injured > claim > less likely to get compensation
I'm not quite sure why Old Timer, as a railway employee, is encouraging people to sign in, as he is in effect depriving his employers of more money than they would otherwise have to pay out. Or is this part of the railway's "duty of care"?
Sign in > take photos > get injured > claim > may get compensation
Don't sign in > take photos > get injured > claim > less likely to get compensation
I'm not quite sure why Old Timer, as a railway employee, is encouraging people to sign in, as he is in effect depriving his employers of more money than they would otherwise have to pay out. Or is this part of the railway's "duty of care"?