The version of the sign which I quoted above for poetic reasons makes this clear. If you're able to cross 'the line' by means of the footbridge or subway, it's pretty obvious that it's the railway line that is being referenced.
At the end of a platform though, where there is a line painted before the slope, I'd argue it's ambiguous.
Although there has to be a sign, it doesn’t necessarily mean you have to pass said sign in order for trespass to be an offence (otherwise trespass wouldn’t be punishable as an offence at anywhere other than railway stations or some level crossings).
There's two separate railway trespass offences.
You experience may vary, but I have yet to see a line painted across the platform which my be crossed by means of a footbridge/subway.
There’s no strict liability offence of trespass in terms of lineside trespass. There’s not two railway trespass offences. The Railway Byelaws make it an offence (still criminal) to essentially trespass (although they’re careful to not use that wording - Byelaw 13), but this is not the same as going on the tracks, and refers to the more common trespass as per the civil version you alluded to.
S55 BTCA 1949 doesn't only apply to lines. It applies to lines, sidings, tunnels, embankment cutting 'or similar works' ... 'or any other lands of the Commission in dangerous proximity to any such lines or other works or to any electrical apparatus used for or in connection with the railway'. It's very broad.
I know where the BTCA applies, but it’s all areas of operational railway (ie where trains move about). I’ve worked on the railway for 20 years, 15 of which have been enforcing Byelaws, along with other acts including the British Transport Commission Act and have had many successful prosecutions, and issued many Penalty Notices for Disorder for trespassing.
Correct, but as I stated above, that notice must be displayed at the nearest station, which can be many miles away.
Thus presumably being a historical anomaly dating from the days when about the only place you could legitimately cross the railway boundary fence was at a station. (Level crossings having gates which were either closed across the highway or across the railway). The only other place I can think of would be foot crossings - which usually had gates /stiles, often accompanied by a version of the notice in question.
It is a realistic look at the problem. If that was not the law, any trespasser could claim that at the very point he commenced his trespass there was not a sign informing him of the penalty.
Spot on. I'm aware, of least one station, where the sign about trespass is mounted on the station boundary fence. However, you have to walk passed the sign to access the opposite platform via the foot crossing at that location (no alternative access to the platform). I'm sure that happens in many similar stations.
I think you’re confusing trespass as a civil matter (refusing to leave when asked for example), with trespass on the railway (criminal). The two are separate offences.
I think we've done this one before: 'private' doesn't mean 'not the state' - rather it means something like 'not dedicated to use by anyone who feels like it for whatever purpose they want*'. So an NHS hospital is private property and so are army barracks , the Houses of Parliament and Buckingham Palace. Your local Town Hall is private property too.
I'm specifically differentiating them in my post.
I don't really know the correct wording, but the difference is just that trespass is different to trespass on the railway. I mean they're both private property, but different rules apply.
Nothing would have changed in whether you were or weren't trespassing. But whether the officers were inclined to enforce the law might have changed - and my feeling is that trespass isn't the only offence that the officers could have used to take action against you. 'Generally being a bit of a nuisance' isn't of itself an offence known to the statute book, but I can imagine that 'refusing a legitimate instruction from a railway officer on railway premises' (i.e. the BTP officers) might have given them enough reason to either move you along or arrest you and take you somewhere they considered safer.
However, (quote) "asking you if you would mind moving" is not an instruction. Not sure it is even a request, just a question, to which the answer might be "yes".
Leaving aside that an instruction can be wrapped up as a request (what did my Dad mean when he said 'would you like to do the drying up '?) I would imagine that a refusal to move at a request from the BTP would be rapidly followed by an instruction to move.
Although a sign saying "Passengers must not cross the line" could be considered ambiguous as to the exact meaning, these signs (or the originally fitted signs) normally predate the white lines.
Not sure that's hugely relevant, particularly for younger people who wouldn't have been around in such times. Even then, I'm not sure we can rely on people remembering that the same wording was used 40 years ago on the same signs, and the lines are more recent.
If there was a sign positioned just before the white line running along the platform, that might have some merit, but usually the white line on the ramp is immediately behind the 'must not cross the line' sign.
Oh of course, I'm in no way advocating walking down the ramps. I will admit that I have trespassed on the railway in my youth far more than I would like to admit, including walking down the ramp and along the tracks to shortcut to my back garden further down the line. Wouldn't dream of it now as an adult.
The one near where I used to live at Pill Station said forty shillings ‘by order of the King’ which I guess is no longer an anachronism, though it definitely was in the mid 1980s!
