Trespassers: Travel at caution or stop the job?

[yorksrob]

With increasing numbers of trespass incidents leading to major problems for passengers, is it about time that we ceased to stop services due to trespass. Instead of stopping services altogether, have them travel at caution.

By all means, travel at caution, but the service shouldn't stop. Trains would get through albeit later.

 

[Lemmy99uk]

Are there any figures that confirm an increase in trespass?

 

[Undiscovered]

Services travelling at caution would still cause disruption.
A lot of diagrams are wafer thin on make up time and have bare minimum breaks. Combine that with few depot spares and you'd probably still get lengthy delays and cancellations.

Edit.
And, it goes without saying, that the safety of staff, passengers and public is paramount.

 

[AM9]

With increasing numbers of trespass incidents leading to major problems for passengers, is it about time that we ceased to stop services due to trespass. Instead of stopping services altogether, have them travel at caution.

By all means, travel at caution, but the service shouldn't stop. Trains would get through albeit later.

That will normalise the view that walking on a live railway is OK, and especially with 3rd rail will increase the risk of inadvertant contact with live rails, both for trespassers and staff trying to clear the line.

 

[Intermodal]

With increasing numbers of trespass incidents leading to major problems for passengers, is it about time that we ceased to stop services due to trespass. Instead of stopping services altogether, have them travel at caution.

By all means, travel at caution, but the service shouldn't stop. Trains would get through albeit later.

Good luck with that, there was a rulebook change just a year or two ago bringing in stricter restrictions around trespassers, explicitly spelling out that drivers must stop immediately and report it under any circumstances - even if all you'd seen was someone climbing over a fence to leave.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Oct 2024 ==

That will normalise the view that walking on a live railway is OK, and especially on 3rd rail will increase the risk of inadvertant contact with live rails, both for trespassers and staff trying to clear the line.

Please explain how taking a pragmatic approach and not inconveniencing tens of thousands of people sends the message that it is okay?

 

[Surreytraveller]

The usual approach is to caution trains, unless there's specific information received to stop the job

 

[AM9]

Good luck with that, there was a rulebook change just a year or two ago bringing in stricter restrictions around trespassers, explicitly spelling out that drivers must stop immediately and report it under any circumstances - even if all you'd seen was someone climbing over a fence to leave.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Oct 2024 ==


Please explain how taking a pragmatic approach and not inconveniencing tens of thousands of people sends the message that it is okay?

Fortunately, those responsible for safety on the railway value human life hgher than mere inconvenience, irrespective of whether it is the lives of staff or tresspassers.

 

[Egg Centric]

That will normalise the view that walking on a live railway is OK

TBH It's pretty much only the UK that is this paranoid about it.

 

[Systemwide]

Hi,

Genuine question as I really don't know...

Is there a Delay Attribution COST involved for a person trespassing on The Railway?...I assume that as its not a Railway failing per se, no company would have to 'pay' for any delays caused to services?

Thankyou.

 

[Intermodal]

Fortunately, those responsible for safety on the railway value human life hgher than mere inconvenience, irrespective of whether it is the lives of staff or tresspassers.

Hold on a minute, who said they do not value human life?

Let me be clear what I am talking about here: rule book module TW1 quite literally requires a train driver to immediately report ANY trespasser to the signaller, and for the signaller to then stop every train passing the area and then caution them if they are to proceed.

So if I saw a bloke climbing over the fence and leaving the railway, I’d have to stop my train and make a report about it.

Or if I saw a bloke with his dog walking towards a fence which I know goes to a footpath, again I would have to stop and report it, causing disruption.

There is no discretion here. The driver MUST do this, or they are in contravention of their rules and therefore their contract.

This does not enhance safety in any way - it’s just nonsense. If you truly believe this has anything to do with safety then you are quite naive - it’s about liability and nothing more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2024 ==

Please explain how taking a pragmatic approach and not inconveniencing tens of thousands of people sends the message that it is okay?

By the way, I eagerly await your answer to this…

 

[bluenoxid]

The Heath and Safety at Work Act is 50 years old this year and one of its core components covers your responsibility to trespassers.

 

[Falcon1200]

I assume that as its not a Railway failing per se, no company would have to 'pay' for any delays caused to services?

Although usually given an external delay code, such delays form part of Network Rail's performance statistics.

As a Controller my preference was always to stop and caution, on the basis that a) many trespassers are simply crossing the line, b) the Driver of the next train through can report whether the line is clear, and c) risk is minimised by the Driver being instructed to proceed at caution and stop short of any obstruction. The exceptions would be if, for example, proximity to the overhead wires was involved, or the trespasser was reported to be intent on self-harm.

 

[Snow1964]

The Heath and Safety at Work Act is 50 years old this year and one of its core components covers your responsibility to trespassers.

There is also 52 year old case law. British Railways Board vs Herrington (1972)

In the Herrington case, the facts were:

• British Rail operated a railway line that was fenced off from where children played.
• The local station master was aware that children had been witnessed on the line, but the fence was not repaired.
• The fence was in disrepair, and a child aged six trespassed on the line and was injured on the live rail.

Lord Pearson emphasised that occupiers (in this case British Rail) have a greater need to take practical steps to deter trespassers, particularly children, from accessing places that pose a danger to them. Despite this precedent being established 12 years before the Occupiers Liability Act, Herrington would still have had to satisfy the Act’s three tests.

It needs to be clear though that the duty of care towards trespassers is about taking reasonable steps not to harm them, not to pause or interrupt your day to day operations because of existence of them.

 

[Archvile]

Hold on a minute, who said they do not value human life?

Let me be clear what I am talking about here: rule book module TW1 quite literally requires a train driver to immediately report ANY trespasser to the signaller, and for the signaller to then stop every train passing the area and then caution them if they are to proceed.

So if I saw a bloke climbing over the fence and leaving the railway, I’d have to stop my train and make a report about it.

Or if I saw a bloke with his dog walking towards a fence which I know goes to a footpath, again I would have to stop and report it, causing disruption.

There is no discretion here. The driver MUST do this, or they are in contravention of their rules and therefore their contract.

This does not enhance safety in any way - it’s just nonsense. If you truly believe this has anything to do with safety then you are quite naive - it’s about liability and nothing more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2024 ==


By the way, I eagerly await your answer to this…

Being pedantic, but nowhere does it say that the driver  must stop. Only that they must report it immediately to the Signaller, or Ops Control.

It is then incumbent on the Signaller to stop and caution subsequent trains if they will proceed over the affected section of line. This is also subject to whether trespassers are moving towards or away from the line. If moving away, trains can continue to be signalled normally.

This from the most recent version of GERT8000-TW1.

 

[D Williams]

We live in a risk averse society. There is no personal responsibility. It is always the landowners fault. If I trespass on a fenced site and break my leg the HSE prosecutes the landowner because in the perfect world of the HSE there is no such thing as an accident. Therefore from the railway's point of view, if there is a trespasser, stop the trains. The fact that it inconveniences passengers is of no consequence as the railway is very good at this in the normal course of events.

 

[InkyScrolls]

I've never had a 'job stopped' for trespassers. It's always been a case of being brought to a stand by the signalman, told the approximate location, and travelling at caution until past that location.

 

[Bald Rick]

With increasing numbers of trespass incidents leading to major problems for passengers, is it about time that we ceased to stop services due to trespass. Instead of stopping services altogether, have them travel at caution.

By all means, travel at caution, but the service shouldn't stop. Trains would get through albeit later.

For most trespassing incidents, trains are cautioned. There are obviously exceptions, for example where the trespasser is evidently intending to cause themselves harm (eg stood in front of a train), or where they are known to be on the lines themselves in third rail areas in which case there is an emergency isolation which defacto stops trains powered by third rail. In this latter case, where there are authorised people (eg police) on the line trying to locate said tresspasser, the power also has to be off.

Hi,

Genuine question as I really don't know...

Is there a Delay Attribution COST involved for a person trespassing on The Railway?...I assume that as its not a Railway failing per se, no company would have to 'pay' for any delays caused to services?

Thankyou.

It’s NRs fault. The cost to NR of the recent trespass incident at New Malden would have been north of a million I expect.

 

[notverydeep]

If the job is stopped, in some cases it may be that term ‘trespasser’ is being used in passenger communications to avoid reference to a person being under or having been hit by a train or at less being in a position where a train could not move without hitting them, where there is a fear that being more direct with the message could lead to more incidents of the same type…

 

[yorksrob]

Cheers for all the responses.

One learns a lot from being on this forum.

I guess the train service providers will err on the safe side a lot of the time.

 

[baz962]

To be fair so will a lot of drivers. We seem to have had a lot more fatalities on the MML this year and a few that lived after being hit by a train . One of my colleagues is the type of person that has thick skin and quite loud etc , but to see how haunted he looked and how quiet he became after quite a young lad stepped in front of him on new years day no less .

 

[Intermodal]

Being pedantic, but nowhere does it say that the driver  must stop. Only that they must report it immediately to the Signaller, or Ops Control.

Some TOCs, including the one I worked for, require the driver to stop to use the GSM-R. Yes, the rulebook does not say that, but this is what happens.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2024 ==

I've never had a 'job stopped' for trespassers. It's always been a case of being brought to a stand by the signalman, told the approximate location, and travelling at caution until past that location.

This isn't quite as simple in reality though. What happens is that a report goes in, the signaller (understandably) often does not want to go and take a chance on approving the running of trains, so it makes its way upwards until someone does make a decision. A fairly significant amount of time later (in railway terms), trains are allowed to run again but at caution. This causes huge knock on disruption. Some times this may be justified by the circumstances - often it is not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2024 ==

To be fair so will a lot of drivers. We seem to have had a lot more fatalities on the MML this year and a few that lived after being hit by a train . One of my colleagues is the type of person that has thick skin and quite loud etc , but to see how haunted he looked and how quiet he became after quite a young lad stepped in front of him on new years day no less .

This is obviously awful and my thoughts are with everyone affected by such incidents, of who I know many personally. However, I am simply not convinced that causing huge amounts of disruption for the slightest report of a trespasser actually reduces these incidents in any way. At the end of the day, these things are (sadly) going to happen. Most such things happen at places which 'cannot' have trespassers, such as platforms, foot crossings, road crossings. These rules do not help prevent these incidents and it is a red herring to discuss them here as if they do.

 

[baz962]

Some TOCs, including the one I worked for, require the driver to stop to use the GSM-R. Yes, the rulebook does not say that, but this is what happens.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2024 ==


This isn't quite as simple in reality though. What happens is that a report goes in, the signaller (understandably) often does not want to go and take a chance on approving the running of trains, so it makes its way upwards until someone does make a decision. A fairly significant amount of time later (in railway terms), trains are allowed to run again but at caution. This causes huge knock on disruption. Some times this may be justified by the circumstances - often it is not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2024 ==


This is obviously awful and my thoughts are with everyone affected by such incidents, of who I know many personally. However, I am simply not convinced that causing huge amounts of disruption for the slightest report of a trespasser actually reduces these incidents in any way. At the end of the day, these things are (sadly) going to happen. Most such things happen at places which 'cannot' have trespassers, such as platforms, foot crossings, road crossings. These rules do not help prevent these incidents and it is a red herring to discuss them here as if they do.

My reasoning wasn't that you cannot stop someone that's intent on it , because you are right you can't. But imagine if you didn't put that emergency call and a train hit a trespasser that wasn't trying to end their life. I'm more talking about the fact that as a driver I would rather stop or exercise complete caution and at least know i tried. What if a person was lineside and contemplating it. Can't then do it if no trains are moving.

 

[Llanigraham]

I've never had a 'job stopped' for trespassers. It's always been a case of being brought to a stand by the signalman, told the approximate location, and travelling at caution until past that location.

Quite!
I'd love to know why the OP thinks that everything stops completely?
If we didn't allow trains to run at Caution after speaking to the signaller we wouldn't know whether the trespasser has cleared the line or is still there.

 

[InkyScrolls]

This isn't quite as simple in reality though. What happens is that a report goes in, the signaller (understandably) often does not want to go and take a chance on approving the running of trains, so it makes its way upwards until someone does make a decision. A fairly significant amount of time later (in railway terms), trains are allowed to run again but at caution. This causes huge knock on disruption. Some times this may be justified by the circumstances - often it is not.

Well as I've said, in my experience that isn't what happens. Obviously it'll vary depending on where you are in the country, but I've never been stopped, other than to be told to proceed at caution, for trespassers. Even a suspected suicidal escapee from the local psychiatric hospital was treated with 'proceed at caution and let me know if you see him'.

 

[AM9]

Well as I've said, in my experience that isn't what happens. Obviously it'll vary depending on where you are in the country, but I've never been stopped, other than to be told to proceed at caution, for trespassers. Even a suspected suicidal escapee from the local psychiatric hospital was treated with 'proceed at caution and let me know if you see him'.

And is/was 'caution' defined?

 

[InkyScrolls]

And is/was 'caution' defined?

'Proceed at caution' is defined in the rulebook as a speed at which the driver can stop within the visible stretch of track. So in the incident I described above I proceeded at 15 mph until we were past the area in question. (The man was later found by the BTP and returned to hospital.)

 

[Intermodal]

Well as I've said, in my experience that isn't what happens. Obviously it'll vary depending on where you are in the country, but I've never been stopped, other than to be told to proceed at caution, for trespassers. Even a suspected suicidal escapee from the local psychiatric hospital was treated with 'proceed at caution and let me know if you see him'.

Interesting, having waited almost an hour for "at risk" trespassers on several occasions (when the situation was that nobody knew where they were, as opposed to them known to be being immediately at risk), clearly different ROCs/locations act differently.

 

[30907]

TBH It's pretty much only the UK that is this paranoid about it.

Purely for info, it is a standard cause of delay in Germany.

 

[Spet0789]

A question to the railway experts… why is it that trains often stop running when there are trespassers on the line, at huge inconvenience to the travelling public?

Of course one school of thought would be to just run the service and if the trespassers get hit, more fool them. But surely the easy thing to do is to run trains through at say 50 mph at which speed a train is fairly obvious and avoidable.

After all, if operating large pieces of moving metal within a few metres of the public was inherently dangerous, bus services would stop and trains could never run through stations non-stop.

 

[skyhigh]

Of course one school of thought would be to just run the service and if the trespassers get hit, more fool them. But surely the easy thing to do is to run trains through at say 50 mph at which speed a train is fairly obvious and avoidable.

And what if the trespasser is intent on self harm?