Dr_Paul
Established Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 1,546
But railways in various other countries are not fenced off like in Britain: do people in Britain have a peculiar propensity to trespass on railways?
-
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!
Absolute safety at any cost?
- Thread starter Bletchleyite
- Start date
- Status
But railways in various other countries are not fenced off like in Britain: do people in Britain have a peculiar propensity to trespass on railways?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Yes you can, a few years ago it was £1million per life saved, so if the scheme would cost £900,000 per life saved then it would be done but if it was costed at £1.1million per life saved then it wouldnt be done.
When I looked at the figures for road it was £100,000 per life saved, so your life is 'worth' ten times more on the railway than it is on the road!
QueensCurve
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 2,203
The content seems slightly at variance with the content.
Fencing on railways in Britain was mandated by Parliament after the unfortunate event befalling Mr Hutchisson on the occasion of the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway.
Is there really fencing over Crannoch Moor, or the Far North Line?
mr_moo
Member
I always find the "Value of a Prevented Fatality" an interesting measure but a sensible one - the sad reality is that you have to place a value on a human life as there is only a finite amount of money in the budget.
You need to have some measure to guide designers/planners etc for when is it no longer worth spending ever increasing amounts of money on ever diminishing returns. That measure if the VPF.
That value is, at 2016 prices, and as defined by RSSB, so only relevant to the railway: £1,826,000
It was defined by DfT for all transport in 2015 as £1,783,556.
Here's the info: https://www.rssb.co.uk/risk-analysi...ions/taking-safe-decisions-safety-related-cba
You need to have some measure to guide designers/planners etc for when is it no longer worth spending ever increasing amounts of money on ever diminishing returns. That measure if the VPF.
That value is, at 2016 prices, and as defined by RSSB, so only relevant to the railway: £1,826,000
It was defined by DfT for all transport in 2015 as £1,783,556.
Here's the info: https://www.rssb.co.uk/risk-analysi...ions/taking-safe-decisions-safety-related-cba
eastdyke
Established Member
'The Railway' is obliged to fence the 'The Railway' by statute.
This is a shot of the line over Rannoch Moor near Corrour summit looking back to the station. (With thanks to The Man in Seat 61):
http://www.seat61.com/images/West-Highland-corrour4.jpg
The summit sign can be seen at an oblique angle ... along with a boundary fence.
No doubt the standard of maintenance of said fence is in accordance with a more modern risk assessment.
coppercapped
Established Member
In the early days of the railway the fencing served two purposes:
There was little or no attempt to keep people off the line - that came a little later around the time that trespassing on the railway became a criminal, rather than civil, offence.
- it delineated the property of the railway company much of which had been acquired by Act of Parliament and therefore had no natural boundaries such as roads, rivers or hedgerows. It is the same reason that one puts a fence around one's garden - it says 'This is mine'
- it was intended to keep livestock off the line of railway.
There was little or no attempt to keep people off the line - that came a little later around the time that trespassing on the railway became a criminal, rather than civil, offence.
Elecman
Established Member
The fencing of railways was required by the acts of Parliament to keep railway staff and passengers from trespassing on private land and for no other reason. It had nothing to do with keeping trespassers or livestock off the railway
D1009
Established Member
No, quite the reverse, you are far more likely to see random people at the lineside in other countries than here. In fact I doubt the law regarding railway trespass is anything like the same in other countries as it is here. That's one reason our railways are so much safer.
Of course a price can be put on human life - health service planning and the life insurance industry wouldn't be possible if you couldn't.
It would not be worth, for example, spending the entire GDP of a major country on saving one life. Might be hard to break this news to the person concerned though!
It would not be worth, for example, spending the entire GDP of a major country on saving one life. Might be hard to break this news to the person concerned though!
Llanigraham
On Moderation
You need to go back to the original enabling Acts for the railways to understand why we have the fencing. Often it was included because the land owners did not want the possibility of anyone entering their land from the railway. You will find the same in most of the earlier Canal Acts.
To get fencing removed would mean altering the original Acts in many cases, and certainly a modification to the Act that set up British Railways in 1948.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Please remember that Scotland has totally different Laws about trespass to England & Wales.
Fences are not due to the law of trespass, but to the liability of railway companies for injury or death to people or livestock who stray onto the track.
In any case, yes, there are fences on Scottish lines, aimed at keeping sheep and deer off the track. Can't think of any exceptions.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
One thing that I will say in favour of cars rather than rail, is that when both of us drove (before my stroke), we were never faced with the option of solidarity between both the Range Rovers who had decided to take strike action. They just took us where and when we chose to go and there was never any "basket cases" suddenly hoving into view at inopportune moments....
No, because firstly motoring is so cheap (especially for group travel), and secondly motoring is quicker and/or more convenient for the majority of people.
One thing that I will say in favour of cars rather than rail, is that when both of us drove (before my stroke), we were never faced with the option of solidarity between both the Range Rovers who had decided to take strike action. They just took us where and when we chose to go and there was never any "basket cases" suddenly hoving into view at inopportune moments....
Another tedious and self-aggrandising post which serves only to say "I have two Range Rovers" and adds nothing to the thread.
Bore off.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
I suggest you read some of the original enabling Acts for some railways; trespass on "outside" land is quite a common notation. It very much followed the same wording as the older Canal Acts.
6 mentions within 12 months haha, that's really quite amusing.
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2711237&highlight=range+rover#post2711237
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2687901&highlight=range+rover#post2687901
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2747476&highlight=range+rover#post2747476
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2534194&highlight=range+rover#post2534194
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2527689&highlight=range+rover#post2527689
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2499281&highlight=range+rover#post2499281
Post of the month!
work-traveller
Member
- Joined
- 18 May 2012
- Messages
- 421
I took this a few miles up the line from there a few years ago. Fence posts are clear albeit the connecting was very sporadic. However, as has been said, the risk assessment on Rannoch Moor looks somewhat different to suburbia with a playground next to the railway. It's not uncommon in parts of the highlands (like this) for walkers to use the cess as a means of crossing difficult terrain - and it doesn't unduly alarm the drivers on the whole.
Last edited:
Having just joined this forum I am fascinated to read of the historical reasons why our lines are fenced and those on the continent aren't, except for HS lines.
Rural fences would have to be much more substantial than they are if they were to be an obstacle to deer, so they can merely be an indication of boundaries.
On another regular matter - the ludicrous cost of upgrade work to the network which makes so many projects unviable. Just think of the time it takes to establish a possession at the start of a night, and the time to reopen at the end, leaving little time for any real activity. Compare with overnight road works.
With modern signalling adequate control can surely be managed from the signal box or control centre or whatever it's now called.
Rural fences would have to be much more substantial than they are if they were to be an obstacle to deer, so they can merely be an indication of boundaries.
On another regular matter - the ludicrous cost of upgrade work to the network which makes so many projects unviable. Just think of the time it takes to establish a possession at the start of a night, and the time to reopen at the end, leaving little time for any real activity. Compare with overnight road works.
With modern signalling adequate control can surely be managed from the signal box or control centre or whatever it's now called.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Err? On our line we could have the "Possession" set up, boards out and the paper work done within 15 minutes of the last train leaving the section. Giving back at the end of the night was even shorter. And that was in an AB area!!
A "Line Blockage" for a small job took even less time.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I guess this could take longer in a more complex area with numerous lines going in and out all requiring their own boards setting out and removing (which is presumably a "red zone" task as the possession is not actually in place at the time). Plus of course the time needed for isolations on electrified routes.
RichmondCommu
Established Member
I would suggest that without fences we would have a lot more people trespassing on the railway.
Why? I think the owner of the adjacent land should pay most of the upkeep. They can decide whether their assets are at risk. Clearly if it's arable farmland, then a fence is unnecessary, but if it is a property with easily 'lifted' objects then a secure barrier could be justified.
As for people taking a shortcut across the rails, then it needs an expensive barrier to deter them, and I think that there are better ways for NR to spend its money. Up here, they spent a fortune on steel paling fencing to stop people taking a shortcut. It would have been much cheaper to build a bridge.
As for people taking a shortcut across the rails, then it needs an expensive barrier to deter them, and I think that there are better ways for NR to spend its money. Up here, they spent a fortune on steel paling fencing to stop people taking a shortcut. It would have been much cheaper to build a bridge.
That wouldn't be fair - some of the landowners will have owned the land before the railways were built.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Fine, except you would need to amend most of the original Acts of Parliament for nearly every railway line in the country to do that. Do you realise how many there are, how long it would take, and how much it would cost?
RichmondCommu
Established Member
What makes you think that the idiots would bother to use the bridge? I suspect that they would continue to cross the tracks as it would be quicker.
Elecman
Established Member
Not necessarily you could just pass an overarching act that amends the requisite parts of all the original acts as long as they are all identified in the coverage of the overarching act
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Walking across the WCML on the level, or a third-rail line, would be almightily stupid. But I've never understood why there is such a thing about crossing a low speed Scottish branch line with 4tpd on the level. You've got less chance of getting hit than crossing a tram line in Amsterdam - or, for example, crossing the A41 in Bucks on the level which you can do despite it being to all intents and purposes a motorway.
This is certainly something where the UK takes a strict line and most other countries don't.
Last edited:
- Status