Photo on a Foot Crossing, Thoughts.

[Jamiescott1]

The speed limit on this crossing is also 10mph.

 

[MadCommuter]

The speed limit on this crossing is also 10mph.

I don't think I can run that fast anyway.

 

[Fenchurch SP]

How close to the crossing is acceptable for taking a picture of a train? Right up to the Stop Look Listen board?
I prefer more of a side view but there are many crossings where obstructions block the wide angle. I usually avoid these so as not to worry the driver.

 

[zwk500]

How close to the crossing is acceptable for taking a picture of a train? Right up to the Stop Look Listen board?
I prefer more of a side view but there are many crossings where obstructions block the wide angle. I usually avoid these so as not to worry the driver.

Best rule of thumb is to be outside the boundary fence.

 

[Alanko]

Bottom line for me is that I don't quite understand how we have so many people who have no concept of risk in the UK and need to be told everything word for word.

Maybe we have lots of people who can weigh up risk correctly? There is more than a slight whiff of an over-reacting, self important, hall monitor behaviour in this thread, basically summed up as 'we understand the risks as we know railways, but normies don't!'

 

[zwk500]

Maybe we have lots of people who can weigh up risk correctly? There is more than a slight whiff of an over-reacting, self important, hall monitor behaviour in this thread, basically summed up as 'we understand the risks as we know railways, but normies don't!'

Sadly, too many people who thought they knew the risks better than anybody else find themselves trying to explain that to St. Peter. You only have to be wrong once.

 

[AdamWW]

Sadly, too many people who thought they knew the risks better than anybody else find themselves trying to explain that to St. Peter. You only have to be wrong once.

Better than anybody else?

Or just confident that they knew the risks well enough?

I wouldn't set up a tripod on a level crossing or condone it. However......while I don't think I have some special knowledge of risks beyond that available to anyone else I do know level crossings where I'm sure I could do so with a level of safety far greater than I experience when, for example, having to cross a busy road.

 

[zwk500]

Better than anybody else?

Or just confident that they knew the risks well enough?

Either way, it doesn't matter if the next thing you see is the pearly gates.

I wouldn't set up a tripod on a level crossing or condone it. However......while I don't think I have some special knowledge of risks beyond that available to anyone else I do know level crossings where I'm sure I could do so with a level of safety far greater than I experience when, for example, having to cross a busy road.

The issue is that although 99% of people will be fine 99% of the time, it's very difficult to know when the 1% will be called. I'm sure on something like the Marlow or Henley branch the level of misuse that affects a train is vanishingly small, but then you get into a 'at A do X and B do Y' scenario, which diffuses the messaging.
There's a reason politicians chase 3-word slogans - because simple messaging resonates. 'Don't do it' is far better a message to get instilled in the population than 'You can do it on lines with less than X trains per hour with a linespeed of Y and when trains have passed less than Z minutes earlier.'

 

[43066]

Maybe we have lots of people who can weigh up risk correctly? There is more than a slight whiff of an over-reacting, self important, hall monitor behaviour in this thread, basically summed up as 'we understand the risks as we know railways, but normies don't!'

“Normies” generally don’t stop to take photos on level crossings. The issue is that photos like this risk encouraging the stupid behaviour of the significant minority of enthusiasts, who always think they know best, but whose antics have closed the railway on many occasions. This delays “normies” who are tying to use the railway as a means of transport rather than as a playground.

 

[AdamWW]

Either way, it doesn't matter if the next thing you see is the pearly gates.

The issue is that although 99% of people will be fine 99% of the time, it's very difficult to know when the 1% will be called. I'm sure on something like the Marlow or Henley branch the level of misuse that affects a train is vanishingly small, but then you get into a 'at A do X and B do Y' scenario, which diffuses the messaging.
There's a reason politicians chase 3-word slogans - because simple messaging resonates. 'Don't do it' is far better a message to get instilled in the population than 'You can do it on lines with less than X trains per hour with a linespeed of Y and when trains have passed less than Z minutes earlier.'

I do understand that and as I say I'm not condoning people setting up a tripod on a level crossing no matter how safe they think it is, or indeed how safe it actually is.

But that's not the same as suggestions that those who don't work on the railways are incapable of assessing the risks, because I do not believe that.

(And there are foot crossings that I am very reluctant to use at all because even though they must be "safe" or they wouldn't be there, I do not consider the sighting distances to be adequate).

I presume that the rules for staff to follow also work on a similar principle.

E.g. recently I was on a failed train protected with detonators. So far as I could see this was not necessary as the train was just outside a station and well within view of the signal that the "rescue" train would have been brought to a halt at before being allowed to enter an occupied section.

But a rule that says a train should always be protected is presumably simpler and safer than one that starts adding caveats.

 

[43066]

But that's not the same as suggestions that those who don't work on the railways are incapable of assessing the risks, because I do not believe that.

Some might be, many are not.

But a rule that says a train should always be protected is presumably simpler and safer than one that starts adding caveats.

And in just the same way rules prohibiting all behaviour that might be dangerous are simpler and safer than ones that start adding caveats. This is why railway trespass is an offence and there isn’t a defence along the lines of “it’s okay to trespass if you feel you can assess the risks”.

 

[zwk500]

But that's not the same as suggestions that those who don't work on the railways are incapable of assessing the risks, because I do not believe that.

Most people are perfectly capable of assessing the risk *they are aware of*. That is very different from being able to assess the full risk. I worked in the rail industry, and I wouldn't be totally sure that I knew exactly what was going to happen at any crossing even if it's one near my house and I've been observing the trains on approach.

I presume that the rules for staff to follow also work on a similar principle.

E.g. recently I was on a failed train protected with detonators. So far as I could see this was not necessary as the train was just outside a station and well within view of the signal that the "rescue" train would have been brought to a halt at before being allowed to enter an occupied section.

But a rule that says a train should always be protected is presumably simpler and safer than one that starts adding caveats.

Detonator protection is not just for the driver of the rescue train, but for anybody who might be lineside or moving about the train to warn them there is an approaching train.

 

[AdamWW]

Detonator protection is not just for the driver of the rescue train, but for anybody who might be lineside or moving about the train to warn them there is an approaching train.

Interesting.

What should I do if I'm in a train and hear the rescue train set the detonators off?

Nobody told us anything...

 

[43066]

Interesting.

What should I do if I'm in a train and hear the rescue train set the detonators off?

Nobody told us anything...

Nothing?

 

[zwk500]

Interesting.

What should I do if I'm in a train and hear the rescue train set the detonators off?

Nobody told us anything...

Move with care. Policy varies from TOC to TOC but I'd hope that there would be an announcement prior to the Dets going off that passengers might hear some loud bangs at they should remain seated or holding to the handrail while the attachement takes place - similar to the announcements made when coupling/uncoupling in normal service.

 

[AdamWW]

Move with care. Policy varies from TOC to TOC but I'd hope that there would be an announcement prior to the Dets going off that passengers might hear some loud bangs at they should remain seated or holding to the handrail while the attachement takes place - similar to the announcements made when coupling/uncoupling in normal service.

Nothing?

No announcement or mention from the guard as they came through the carriage regarding detonators, no.

I think some of the passengers would have appreciated a warning that there would be some loud bangs, but in these parts they don't make a big thing of regular attachments and tell people to brace themselves for it. It just happens.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Throughout railway history people have had a fascination about these type of photos. From album covers to adverts and posing for Facebook,photos like these will always continue to appear.
At one of the preserved signal boxes I work we supervise a gated foot crossing. Parents think nothing of photographing their children on the crossing whilst themselves stood in the six foot. I get daggers from them when politely asking them to desist.

 

[zwk500]

No announcement or mention from the guard as they came through the carriage regarding detonators, no.

Not great, although I can understand it slipping the mind in between everything else.

I think some of the passengers would have appreciated a warning that there would be some loud bangs, but in these parts they don't make a big thing of regular attachments and tell people to brace themselves for it. It just happens.

Funny, I used the Southern Coastway splitters for around 20 years and they almost always announced the division and attachment at Haywards Heath.

 

[AdamWW]

At one of the preserved signal boxes I work we supervise a gated foot crossing. Parents think nothing of photographing their children on the crossing whilst themselves stood in the six foot. I get daggers from them when politely asking them to desist.

Could be worse - in the US people are very happy to treat the (unfenced) railway lines in the same way.

Oh look the railway goes over a high bridge - let's walk onto the bridge so we can admire the views...

(Or, in one case on a guided walk a park ranger had us all stop on a railway line to consider the geology of the ballast...)

Funny, I used the Southern Coastway splitters for around 20 years and they almost always announced the division and attachment at Haywards Heath.

Yes in my experience they are keen on that on Southern. They make it sound quite a dramatic process. But not everywhere is like that.

 

[43066]

No announcement or mention from the guard as they came through the carriage regarding detonators, no.

I think some of the passengers would have appreciated a warning that there would be some loud bangs, but in these parts they don't make a big thing of regular attachments and tell people to brace themselves for it. It just happens.

Ideally yes - fair point. Possibly also an announcement re. the attachment. There’s nothing specific passengers aboard a train should if they hear dets, though.

If you’ve actually been on a train that require assistance, that’s more than I have! It’s a pretty rare occurrence.

 

[zwk500]

Yes in my experience they are keen on that on Southern. They make it sound quite a dramatic process. But not everywhere is like that.

They really don't make it sound dramatic. 'We're closing the doors just for a second and you may feel a slight bump' is pretty much all they say. It lets you know why you haven't immediately departed and gives you time to make sure your coffee isn't going to spill.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Maybe we have lots of people who can weigh up risk correctly? There is more than a slight whiff of an over-reacting, self important, hall monitor behaviour in this thread, basically summed up as 'we understand the risks as we know railways, but normies don't!'

Wait until I mention I walked over the rail bridge near Bourne End once.

 

[AdamWW]

Wait until I mention I walked over the rail bridge near Bourne End once.

I have twice walked along railway bridges.

Neither in the UK, in both cases following a marked hiking trail.

In one case there was plenty of space to do so safely. In the other it meant walking in the 4 foot and I wasn't very happy about it. I know that a large diesel engine can approach surprisingly quietly.

 

[Mikey C]

Maybe we have lots of people who can weigh up risk correctly? There is more than a slight whiff of an over-reacting, self important, hall monitor behaviour in this thread, basically summed up as 'we understand the risks as we know railways, but normies don't!'

Exactly. I actually used the Angerstein level crossing on Saturday, which gets trains a couple of times a day. Network Rail's approach to close it was quite rightly rejected, as the risks there are incredibly small.

The line between Marlow and Bourne End is busier, but again just single track and once a train has departed, especially if towards Maidenhead, you know where will be a long time before the next one.

By contrast I've been over several 3rd rail foot crossings in Kent, where not only are there far more trains (and quieter electric ones too), but there's also the risk of live rails. Those are far more dangerous. Or the ones over the Chiltern Mainline near Princes Risborough where trains pass through at a decent speed.

And people do make risk judgements, or else we'd never cross the road. Even a zebra crossing or pedestrian crossing carries a risk, as there will always be the 1 in 100,000 driver who doesn't stop.

 

[AdamWW]

And people do make risk judgements, or else we'd never cross the road. Even a zebra crossing or pedestrian crossing carries a risk, as there will always be the 1 in 100,000 driver who doesn't stop.

Never mind the public footpaths that cross dual carriageways that are motorways in all but name, where the only protection is a sign saying "Pedestrians crossing ahead".

I'd take most level crossings over one of those any day.

 

[zwk500]

Never mind the public footpaths that cross dual carriageways that are motorways in all but name, where the only protection is a sign saying "Pedestrians crossing ahead".

I'd take most level crossings over one of those any day.

Yes those are completely ridiculous and should be removed/replaced. Similarly with foot crossings saying 'Stop Look Listen' over 4-track 125mph mainlines.

 

[Ediswan]

Never mind the public footpaths that cross dual carriageways that are motorways in all but name, where the only protection is a sign saying "Pedestrians crossing ahead".

If you're lucky. There is a footpath crossing the A602 between Stevenage and Hitchin with no warning signs. From memory, there were signs when that bypass opened.

 

[Deepgreen]

As a keen photographer and former railway employee, this is tricky, but one where commonsense should prevail. I think the risk taken by the photographer was minimal, but any such photos should be accompanied by a note that no trespassing was done and that permission is required to enter private land, etc. I have taken photos while crossing places like this either pausing very briefly or actually while still walking (with a fast shutter speed). However, something not mentioned here is the fact that a camera or phone could be placed on the ground and operated from the public side of the boundary. I have no idea of the rules around this, as it is not littering or fly-tipping if the camera is then retrieved again. The size of camera would almoast certainly make it invisible to a train driver and thus would not cause stress or alarm. I'm not advocating it per se, but it is a technique seen on TV a lot, when a train appears to run over a camera operator!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 May 2023 ==

Yes those are completely ridiculous and should be removed/replaced. Similarly with foot crossings saying 'Stop Look Listen' over 4-track 125mph mainlines.

At the risk of gong off-topic, I also find the painting of SLOW on roads as faintly ridiculous (especially if in, say, a 60mph zone) - has anyone ever actually slowed down as a result of these signs, I wonder.

 

[zwk500]

As a keen photographer and former railway employee, this is tricky, but one where commonsense should prevail. I think the risk taken by the photographer was minimal, but any such photos should be accompanied by a note that no trespassing was done and that permission is required to enter private land, etc. I have taken photos while crossing places like this either pausing very briefly or actually while still walking (with a fast shutter speed). However, something not mentioned here is the fact that a camera or phone could be placed on the ground and operated from the public side of the boundary. I have no idea of the rules around this, as it is not littering or fly-tipping if the camera is then retrieved again. The size of camera would almoast certainly make it invisible to a train driver and thus would not cause stress or alarm. I'm not advocating it per se, but it is a technique seen on TV a lot, when a train appears to run over a camera operator!

It could be counted as placing and obstruction on the track - but tbh setting up the camera and retrieving it would take longer than just crouching down. If you want the 'passing over' shot then the camera should be strapped down otherwise it risks being pulverised by flying ballast of thrown about in the air turbulence, potentially onto something vital on the underside of the train. Obviously anything being secured to the rails should absolutely never be done without prior arrangement of NR.

 

[AdamWW]

It could be counted as placing and obstruction on the track - but tbh setting up the camera and retrieving it would take longer than just crouching down. If you want the 'passing over' shot then the camera should be strapped down otherwise it risks being pulverised by flying ballast of thrown about in the air turbulence, potentially onto something vital on the underside of the train. Obviously anything being secured to the rails should absolutely never be done without prior arrangement of NR.

I got the impression this wasn't about putting the camera in the four foot, but placed on the "wrong" side of the fence.

At the risk of gong off-topic, I also find the painting of SLOW on roads as faintly ridiculous (especially if in, say, a 60mph zone) - has anyone ever actually slowed down as a result of these signs, I wonder.

Well on those roads that keep crossing the English/Welsh border at least it lets you know which country you're in.

Anyway here's a question:

If I come to a level crossing with red/green lights, the lights are out and the sign says that in such circumstances I should phone the signaller but the phones have already been removed because the crossing is about to be replaced by a bridge.....do I do a 2 mile detour on foot or use the fact that I know the line is under a possession and nothing is going to be moving all that fast and cross anyway?