A trespassing enthusiast...

[AlterEgo]

If it is likely to cause major delays on the line (is it? I'm not in the industry so don't know), I can understand the outrage, but the outpouring of bile seems a little over the top to me!

Trains are likely to be cautioned until the trespasser is removed. Dozens of trains may be affected.

 

[Bristol Rover]

What is right with it? If it's safe, why isn't the fence one foot closer to the line?

By the same brilliant logic, if there was no fence at all, it'd be perfectly safe to stand on the line itself.

I accept the delays argument, but the danger argument has yet to be convincingly made.

 

[yorkie]

Forgive my naivety, since given the unanimous (and outraged) condemnation of this guy, I must be missing something. I am not a trainspotter.

Not many people here are, I am not sure what being a "trainspotter" has to do with it? There's no evidence to say the person was or wasn't a spotter, and it doesn't really matter as far as I can tell!

What exactly is wrong with standing there? How does standing one foot the wrong side of a fence put his life in mortal peril, as implied by a few of the posts on here?

It's a criminal offence, if someone is the wrong side of the fence then you can't just say "Oh, he's right next to the fence, it's okay" - where do you draw the line? (pardon the pun!) Well, the 'line' in that sense has already been drawn - the fence!

If it is likely to cause major delays on the line

Yes it is. If trains are instructed to run under caution for, say, 2 miles at around 25mph instead of 125mph, how much delay do you reckon that'll cost a train? Consider the need to decelerate and accelerate.

(is it? I'm not in the industry so don't know)

You just said it as 'fact'! But you don't need to be in the industry to have a rough guess. It could easily be 5 minutes per train, possibly more, which could be enough for a train to lose a "slot" or "path" further along the line, causing further delay.

I can understand the outrage, but the outpouring of bile seems a little over the top to me!

I see no evidence of an "outpouring of bile" (whatever that is supposed to mean!)

Also can I advise people generally that this is a topic about an incident that occurred today at Rugby specifically. There have been numerous other trespass incidents lately, many of which have been documented on this forum, feel free to read the other topics if you are interested, thanks (Tip: You can find them by going to Search and typing trespass) but please keep this thread on-topic about the Rugby incident specifically, thanks
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I accept the delays argument, but the danger argument has yet to be convincingly made.

OK, let's be honest, if the guy just stands there, he won't be in danger from trains. In danger of being given a criminal record? Yes. In danger of being sent a bill for delaying potentially thousands of passengers? Hopefully (but probably not because we're too soft!).

 

[Bristol Rover]

Congratulations on a particularly supercilious and condescending post. I was merely asking a question, and slightly playing devil's advocate. As I said, I accept the delays argument.

Not sure what difficulty you're having with the phrase 'outpouring of bile', although given your misquoting of it as 'bike', perhaps you misread. The general lynch-mob approach adopted towards the chap by the majority on here, 'blood boil', 'stupid idiot', 'moronic', 'disgusting', among the chosen words, in addition to a suggestion of naming and shaming, I would suggest, justifies my use of the phrase.

 

[tirphil]

'outpouring of bile', although given your misquoting of it as 'bike', perhaps you misread.

Mistyped I think. The letters 'L' and 'K' are next to each other on a keyboard.

 

[GB]

Congratulations on a particularly supercilious and condescending post. I was merely asking a question, and slightly playing devil's advocate. As I said, I accept the delays argument.

Not sure what difficulty you're having with the phrase 'outpouring of bile', although given your misquoting of it as 'bike', perhaps you misread. The general lynch-mob approach adopted towards the chap by the majority on here, 'blood boil', 'stupid idiot', 'moronic', 'disgusting', among the chosen words, in addition to a suggestion of naming and shaming, I would suggest, justifies my use of the phrase.

On most, if not all keyboards, the L key is found next to the K key. I don't think its beyound the wit of man to suggest it might just be a simple typing error.

As (I) the person who used the word "moronic" and suggested the naming and shaming perhaps you would like to explain your reasons for calling it "bile"?

As you are someone that has no knoweledge of the issues or the industry I don't think your in a position to criticise in the way you have.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Congratulations on a particularly supercilious and condescending post. I was merely asking a question, and slightly playing devil's advocate. As I said, I accept the delays argument.

Not sure what difficulty you're having with the phrase 'outpouring of bile', although given your misquoting of it as 'bike', perhaps you misread. The general lynch-mob approach adopted towards the chap by the majority on here, 'blood boil', 'stupid idiot', 'moronic', 'disgusting', among the chosen words, in addition to a suggestion of naming and shaming, I would suggest, justifies my use of the phrase.

Why do you think the railway has strict rules

is it..

A. because we can

B. so we can be awkward

C. to keep people safe?

 

[strange6]

if anyone answers anything other than C I will slap you around the head with a smoked Kipper!

I think you would have to swap TOC's and go first class to do that my friend!

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I think you would have to swap TOC's and go first class to do that my friend!

I wouldnt mind 35k a year lol however I will just raid a passengers shopping hehe

aww mods you have no sense of humour

 

[snail]

What exactly is wrong with standing there? How does standing one foot the wrong side of a fence put his life in mortal peril, as implied by a few of the posts on here?

Do you not think that the sign saying 'No refuge', warning railway staff not to be there, may point to this not being a safe location?

 

[Oswyntail]

....As you are someone that has no knoweledge of the issues or the industry I don't think your in a position to criticise in the way you have.

Once again that argument surfaces, and once again it clouds the issue at best. If the chap had written "I know nothing about the industry, but could someone explain the safety issues" it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow. The contentious tone of the poster is what is wrong, not that he is not au fait with the industry.
I, however, think the word "moronic" is entirely justified. A safety margin has legally been defined by the placing of the fence. Whoever placed the fence there has stated that beyond that line anyone would be unsafe. It is not for the gumby with the tripod (even if he is fully trained on protocols, even if he were to be a track worker on a day off) to decide he is safe. It is not just a question of delays. he is in danger of being struck or sucked in by a passing train. He is endangering the welfare and career of a driver who might strike him, the clean-up staff, and, lest we forget, the photographer who took the pics, who may have been within seconds of being sprayed with human remains. I hope he is recognised, named, and shamed.

 

[nedchester]

I always find it interesting the attitude to railway trespass in the UK compared to in Europe. Whilst I accept it is illegal to trespass on the railways I do feel that many go over the top with the outrage. I am also aware the effect of a 'one under' can have on a driver.

That said in Europe it is common place to have people wondering over the tracks without the same level of outrage. Why is that?

 

[Aictos]

To be fair, people do this ALL THE TIME on the NYMR and Ffestiniog, and the driver's don't mind, in fact - they regularly toot photographers. I don't know if a preserved 'heritage' railway has different by-laws, but I'm sure someone who knows better will confirm.

Yes but there is a difference between a preserved railway running trains at a maximum speed of 25mph as they are classed as light railways to Network Rail running trains at speeds of up to 125mph.

Adding to the fact that trains on the national network run at different speeds, how long do you reckon you've got to judge the speed and distance of a incoming train - not long at all, maybe a few seconds if you're lucky.

Maybe having a look at these videos will show why it's idiotic to be unsafe on the railway:

[youtube]Je5N4FKIxKM[/youtube]

[youtube]dnkG7G6n2Bg[/youtube]

Be warned, some of the footage is gruesome.

 

[whhistle]

I seem to remember a similar discussion not so long ago about the legality of photgraphing trains from the pedestrian swing gate styles on some level crossings. I think, if I remember the verdict correctly, there is nothing technically wrong with being inside a level crossing when a train is coming providing you do not attempt to cross the line whilst the sirens/barriers are on/down because the exact legal writ is 'do not cross the line' rather than 'do not be in the pedestrian style'.

Yeah but seriously... does the photo really mean that much to you to do that?

I don't understand people who want to flout so close to the law where obviously there is a grey area. It reminds me of those kids who were shouted at by LUL for taking pictures of that special diesel tube train. While the LUL guy may have been in the wrong, showing such dis-respect to a railway worker gets you a bad star in my book. You get another one for "trying to be smart" and quoting some law you have memorized. You obviously annoyed the guy, accept it and move on.

People who are like this need to remember that the railway isn't their property. They don't have a right to be there, despite if they are catching a train or not. It's a privilege. No wonder there is such bad feeling towards photographers and the like.

 

[bluenoxid]

The reason it is an issue is expectation not whether it is "safe". we do not expect people tp be placed in that kind of position so we demand that they stay behind the fence. The demand for zero rail fatalities and a duty of care to trespassers on your property. It also comes down to respect of each other too. When I am on site I expect all the subbies to be in steel toes. If you care about your own welfare, then you are on your first step to caring about others

 

[Old Timer]

Maybe you will allow me to make some observations ?

Forgive my naivety, since given the unanimous (and outraged) condemnation of this guy, I must be missing something. I am not a trainspotter.

There have been numerous issues over recent years with enthusiasts placing themselves in positions where they were on the operational railway and / or were in a position where it was not safe to be. There is always the case that a person may not be immediately identified as being a photographer and could be a potential suicide or someone with ill intent - we are currently suffering from a lot of cable theft on the UK railway system.

....What exactly is wrong with standing there? How does standing one foot the wrong side of a fence put his life in mortal peril, as implied by a few of the posts on here?...

The situation we now face here is not so much one of danger - I have looked at the photographs and do not consider he is a position of danger. Yje bigger issue is that he is within the Railway boundary fence and thus is in actual fact trespassing. Trespass by photographers, particularly those involved with steam locomotive operated trains appears to be on the increase. Whilst in years gone by there may have been a little bit of latitude given for those just inside the fenceline, more and more photographers have been going onto the line and in some cases setting up tripods in the four-foot.

We have to accept the basic premise that the guys is trespassing. Looking at the photographs, it appears that he could have set up in almost the same position but within the area of two fences. At least that would have ensured he was not within the fenceline, and would have at least looked better.

Continuing incidents where steam locomotive photographers have been nearly struck by trains or placed themselves in dangerous positions has already led to a variety of debates within the Industry as to the continued operation of these trains, particularly taking into account the other problems they can bring such as embankment fires. Moreso than ever, the Railway is now a major operating business with targets to meet. Stopping or disrupting train services because people go onto the operational Railway now costs big money.

....If it is likely to cause major delays on the line (is it? I'm not in the industry so don't know), I can understand the outrage, but the outpouring of bile seems a little over the top to me!....

As I explained above, trespass on the operational Railway has become a bigger isue than before, especially as Railways get busier. One can never be certain WHY someone is inside the fenceline and a Driver may not have sufficient time to be able to work out exactly WHAT a person is up to. They therefore have to take appropriate action. I believe that the signalling Regulations no longer require trains to be cautioned for adult trespassers but maybe someone can confirm that ?

Trespass at foot crossings and other areas where photographers can get close to trains can lead to such locations being closed off or fenced off and footbridges being installed. This can reduce the ability of law abiding photographers to take photographs from these locations for ever.

Personally I consider the actions of the photographer in question to be on the silly side rather than the dangerous side - but then I do not know where he entered onto the Railway nor how far he may have walked along an area clearly indicating there are no refuges.

A final consideration to be thought about is that straps can become detached from freeight wagons, or doors on containers can be interfered with and come open whilst a train is travelling. In such cases being close to moving freight trains represents a hazard to those who are authorised to work on the infrastructure, let alone those who are not.

 

[Rugd1022]

By the same brilliant logic, if there was no fence at all, it'd be perfectly safe to stand on the line itself.

I accept the delays argument, but the danger argument has yet to be convincingly made.

The danger element... how does an approaching driver know the trespassers intentions? As a driver myself I can tell you we don't, he could be placing objects on the line or even himself God forbid, you just can't tell until the very last second, I can tell you this from my own personal experience. The line he was standing next to is graded at 75mph, do we really need to spell it out to you? The bottom line is he shouldn't have been there, and he knows it. If you were a driver, how would you feel seeing someone on the lineside who wasn't in hi-viz clothing? Our first thoughts are always potential suicide or vandal, it's not a nice feeling at all believe me, I've encountered both since I became a driver.

In answer to another poster's question - he was not standing between two parallel fences, he was on the wrong side of the railway boundary and should not have been there.

Edit : posted before reading Old Timers post above.

 

[richw]

stupid question time:
my question is if a train passed at 125mph, could it "suck in" people/ items that are too close to the line? I dont know if they suck in air to the engines, like some types of engines do, and if they do does this suction have enough of a suck to suck in a person etc!

 

[Darandio]

Yes, its entirely possible hence yellow lines on platforms, signage and announcements to stand clear of the platform edge when a train is approaching.

 

[bAzTNM]

Excuse my crass opinion, but it does seem to be mostly the mentally not-right that kind of indulge in these shenanigins. Not anybody sane would even think of trying it.

 

[Old Timer]

stupid question time:
my question is if a train passed at 125mph, could it "suck in" people/ items that are too close to the line? I dont know if they suck in air to the engines, like some types of engines do, and if they do does this suction have enough of a suck to suck in a person etc!

There were two incidents at Bletchley in the 1980s where pushchairs were involved in turbulence incidents involving freightliner trains. In one a pushchair was blown over on the platform slightly injuring the child, in the other an empty unsecured pushchair was sucked along the platform and out into and underneath a freightliner train pasing through the Up Fast platform.

A similar incident also occurred around the same time at either Basingstoke or Woking, and this led to a reduction in train speed passing through Southern Region platforms as I recall. It subsequently led to the imposition of the yellow lines, although in later years their use was widened out beyond that originally intended.

Unfortunately most people seem to suffer some sort of collective brain disfunction when they come onto the Railway and act and behave in the most unbelievable, and sometimes aggressive and patronising manner.

 

[GB]

stupid question time:
my question is if a train passed at 125mph, could it "suck in" people/ items that are too close to the line? I dont know if they suck in air to the engines, like some types of engines do, and if they do does this suction have enough of a suck to suck in a person etc!

I personally do not believe the idea that high speed trains can suck a person in or under, though I do believe the sudden change in air pressure is more than enough to cause a loss of balance which may cause you to fall under the train.

 

[Via Bank]

I personally do not believe the idea that high speed trains can suck a person in or under, though I do believe the sudden change in air pressure is more than enough to cause a loss of balance which may cause you to fall under the train.

The danger from the pressure change doesn't come from directly sucking a person under a train. It comes from sucking loose clothing towards the train, which could then catch and drag the wearer along with it. In fact, this is one of the reasons why newly-built units tend to have smoother profiles, apart from aesthetics and the need to reduce opportunities for train-surfing.

 

[Bittern]

Forgive my naivety, since given the unanimous (and outraged) condemnation of this guy, I must be missing something. I am not a trainspotter.

What exactly is wrong with standing there? How does standing one foot the wrong side of a fence put his life in mortal peril, as implied by a few of the posts on here?

If it is likely to cause major delays on the line (is it? I'm not in the industry so don't know), I can understand the outrage, but the outpouring of bile seems a little over the top to me!

In one picture you can see a Pendolino, which usually pass by at high speed. In another, you can see how close he is to a passing freight. Now, if a Pendolino had passed him on the same track the freight did, he could've been sucked closer to the train and the end result probably wouldn't have been very pretty.

Yet again, neither is the look on his face.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

I believe that the signalling Regulations no longer require trains to be cautioned for adult trespassers but maybe someone can confirm that ?

The regulations now state that we are only required to caution where we believe someone is in danger from passing trains. Talking to a couple of drivers who regularly drive though trespass hotspots they say if they had to stop and report every trespasser they would bring the line to a halt. So I take the view that if it's serious enough for them to stop and tell me, be it adult or child, then it's serious enough to put a caution on. I've so far not been challenged on this way of working.

 

[Old Timer]

The regulations now state that we are only required to caution where we believe someone is in danger from passing trains. Talking to a couple of drivers who regularly drive though trespass hotspots they say if they had to stop and report every trespasser they would bring the line to a halt. So I take the view that if it's serious enough for them to stop and tell me, be it adult or child, then it's serious enough to put a caution on. I've so far not been challenged on this way of working.

Thank you very much for the clarification.

 

[GB]

While the regs technically were changed, most siggies I know still (and rightly imo) adhere to the previous caution for all tresspass ways.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

On a point of order - having looked at the pictures, he looks remarkably similar to the "vidiot" who nearly got wiped out by a 170 a few months ago; could it be the same man?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Old Timer's reply covers Bristol Rover's points quite thoroughly, though there is, I believe another factor -
this response is indicative:

The regulations now state that we are only required to caution where we believe someone is in danger from passing trains. . . . . .

Having spent long hours in Court with lengthy personal injury claim disputes against 'the Railways', I can confirm that there is no limit to the lengths a Claimant's legal team may try to find fault with the Train Operator, the Station's Operating Company, or Network Rail's responsibilities. I've heard detailled criticism of the design of a guard's door's window on various classes of Unit, the arrangement of signage on platforms, the position of monitors and signals, all in an attempt to extract as much compensation as possible (even where he claimant was too drunk to remember what had happened).
As long as we live and work in such a culture, it becomes vital for any Operator to provide robust policies, procedures and protection - not just to avoid injury. To avoid prosecution by a determined legal team seeking as much compensation as possible for the late-night antics of drunks! (and others).

I'll take this opportunity to remind everyone who despairs at the UK's 'Health and Safety culture' that the H&S culture can be the only mitigation any Company has against the determined Personal Injury Law Firm. Don't blame the Railways for their policies - blame the 'ambulance chaser' culture of lawyers who read them more thoroughly than you or I, looking for loopholes to exploit.
Meanwhile, the fool in the photos on here, all the rail staff and management involved in responding to incidents, and those who devise, implement, manage and evaluate those Policies are all doing so to minimise claims from those who shouldn't have been doing what they did.

I know of one 'person' who deliberately puts them selves at risk of injury, who has the most astonishingly thorough personal injury travel insurance, and makes very regular and very large claims. He is not only now wealthy, but also a regular patient in the Acute Trauma Ward in hospital - it pays well. Very well. He now owns a large farm and is married to a solicitor. That's what we're up against.

 

[wbbminerals]

If the extra few feet mattered that much he could have just put his tripod lineside without him being on it himself (not that he needed to or that I condone it in this situation). Stupid actions like these only give Nitwit Rail more of an excuse to put up excessive palisade fencing, which massively affects us enthusiasts.