tfw756rider
On Moderation
Why can't I find the Altnabreac Uncovered YouTube channel anymore? Only Altnabreac Cover Up.
-
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!
Altnabreac station and the various legal disputes around it
- Thread starter alex17595
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
EYFanatic
Member
Got taken down after Howe and Appleby copyright striked it - although the channel was within YT's fair usage and criticism rules
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Fair usage and criticism yes, but they made the mistake of posting an entire video (the live one when they were arrested) without any commentary.
A new channel "Altnabreac Towers" has taken over the reins.
Buzby
Established Member
It was. ‘Persons on the line’ in the Partick area shut down all services to All low level services for a few hours last week. No idea if they were caught or it resolved itself….
Baxenden Bank
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 4,762
Youtube allows three copyright strikes, all three were copyright violations from the same channel.
STINT47
Member
Given the number of trains even if the drivers are sounding the horn I cannot see the problem.
Some people live next to a whistle board on a busy main line and manage just fine.
Some people live next to a whistle board on a busy main line and manage just fine.
Crucially, you can get some of the strikes removed quicker by doing YouTube's Copyright Academy, but the channel owning didn't as they hadn't realised the impact. They accepted full accountability and regret for not doing it.
Buttsy
Established Member
It's a fair point, I live by Hanborough station and there is one to the north for southbound trains, which means it happens roughly every hour from about 06:00 to midnight. I rarely notice it.
To be charitable to the pair, it's a lot easier to become accustomed to something that happens very regularly than something infrequent.
All of this horn stuff still really boils down to when did they start using the horn, and what triggered it?
If it was the removal of safety equipment at the crossing, that's reasonable.
It it was the start of the dispute over land access, that's not. Of course people opposed to the couple will justify it in some way, but if there's evidence that it only started after the couple raised complaints, that will be an issue.
Having a driver tell the couple, "I hope you're enjoying the morning horns.", suggests an ulterior motive. Whether it is malicious or not, making such comments is only going to add fuel to the fire.
At the moment none of us actually know when it started, and what reasons are down for it starting. No doubt it will be brought up in court.
If it was the removal of safety equipment at the crossing, that's reasonable.
It it was the start of the dispute over land access, that's not. Of course people opposed to the couple will justify it in some way, but if there's evidence that it only started after the couple raised complaints, that will be an issue.
Having a driver tell the couple, "I hope you're enjoying the morning horns.", suggests an ulterior motive. Whether it is malicious or not, making such comments is only going to add fuel to the fire.
At the moment none of us actually know when it started, and what reasons are down for it starting. No doubt it will be brought up in court.
To be fair to the driver concerned, it's perfectly possible he's been instructed to sound the horn as a result of the vandalism, and suspecting who was responsible, made the remark with the inference that the horns were as a result of their own actions.
So, personally, I think it's a bit of a stretch for that to be the sign os some sort of ScotRail noise amenity conspiracy.....
Yes this has been mentioned multiple times in this post.
My point remains though:
styles said:
Currently there is no evidence to support any reason for changing the use of the horn. In fact, Ian's videos, CCTV, and written logs are probably the best evidence of it, which I'm sure will be disclosed in court.
The factors mentioned in this thread are pure speculation as we don't know when this horn change started or ended.
That was my thought too, although unprofessional of the driver to mention it. I wonder is there evidence of a notice issued to drivers regarding the need to sound the horn there because of vandalism that would rebut any allegations of it being victimisation.
My suspicion is that a formal notice was not issued.
Drivers obviously have discretion to use the horn when they anticipate a hazard.
Now, whether the morning driver (likely to be the same person) is sounding the horn because of a change in the crossing causing a hazard, or annoyance with the station closure is another matter.
Being recorded mocking the couple and making reference to the horn use is unlikely to help ScotRail's case though. Even if the driver disagrees with the couple and are using the horn for a legitimate safety concern, they shouldn't make such a comment.
Do also be careful of accusing vandalism, as there is no evidence of this in the public domain. We don't actually know why the phones ended up laid down.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
At such a remote location of Altnbreac railway station, there surely cannot be many crimes of vandalism that have been officially reported and investigated in recent years.
Exactly. So the absence of an official report of vandalism actually suggests online rumours may be merely rumours.
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Is it likely to be the same person? Appleby refers to the driver of the third train he stopped (the one who made the remark about horns), as "he".
If the early morning driver (southbound, around dawn, not stopped) was this same driver (also southbound) how did he get back to Wick to drive the third train? There had only been one northbound train by then, and we saw its driver in the now deleted video of that train being stopped. Unless you can get a sex change in Wick in one hour, she was not the same driver that spoke to Appleby in the third stop.
No evidence that their removal had been authorised either. They appear to have been there in the video of the pickup truck on the crossing, made only a few days earlier.
Little point in investigating vandalism unless there is a chance of identifying the perpetrator (however much any particular individual might be suspected). The number plate of the vehicle cannot be discerned in the clip.
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I am not well versed with technical rail terminiology. What is the meaning of the two words that I have emboldened above, please.
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Sorry, fat thumbs. should have read "pickup (truck) on the crossing" Now corrected
Trainbike46
Established Member
Whether the level crossing safety equipment was vandalised, or suffered from storm damage, or something else entirely, isn't really relevant for the impact it has on railway operations though. What matters is that the equipment was not operational, and it evidently wasn't at the time of the video, and presumably some time before that.
As you say, if regular horn usage started at the time the railway became aware of the non-functional equipment, that is entirely reasonable. If it started at another time, I'm sure the couple will provide evidence of that in court. however, I would note the timeline reported does appear to match the former sequence of events.
Falcon1200
Established Member
Given the history of trespass at the location is it not understandable that Drivers would sound the warning horn there?
While I appreciate the sentiment behind the "drivers shouldn't be sounding the horn(s) if they're doing it to annoy/antagonise Mr.Appleby" comments, I totally agree with Falcon1200's logic.
Indeed, but it's during the alleged trespass that a driver makes a comment about hoping they're enjoying the morning horns, implying it started before the 'history of trespass'.
There's a lot of assumptions we're all working off, which will hopefully be cleared up in court today.
Last edited:
I think I'm going to ask us to drop the subject of the use of horns. I don't think there's anything productive left to say on the subject!
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Not so much the trespass, as the disabled telephones and missing signs at the level crossing. We don't know when that happened, but it is probably safe to assume that it had happened long enough previously that NR had time to institute the TSR (without which the trains would have been bearing down on the crossing at 70mph)
EDIT - sorry, was writing before the request to close the subject came up.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Good idea. Let us concentrate on forthcoming court cases, as the song "Horny" keeps coming to my mind..
EYFanatic
Member
Quite apart from the court cases that may or may not be pending, do we know if anything is said to visitors to the station be it enthusiasts, hikers, visitors who are staying somewhere or those few locals?
I've not seen any YT videos to say its anything other then peaceful
I've not seen any YT videos to say its anything other then peaceful
Nothing was said to me when I visited the two times, but I didn't approach them either.
From various mountain biking online accounts it seems the couple are quite friendly. They also themselves say they've let people into their cottage in bad weather and given them hot drinks and food.
All the more reason I'd say to work with Network Rail, ScotRail, etc to keep the station open and get to see more visitors.
EYFanatic
Member
Ah, thank you for that... I had looked around online and couldn't find anything recent? Could you either here or by PM sent me a link to these accounts to read?