Spotters Trespassing

[Antman]

Would you like the UK to have as many people struck by trains or electrocuted by OLE as India has?

Obviously not but many European countries also have a far more relaxed attitude

 

[Jamesb1974]

Wear what you want. There isn't a bag police. However, my comment about second hand Hi-viz jackets was aimed at the small minority who think that wearing one allows them to trespass. If you want to stand at the end of the platform in a hi-viz posing pouch and nothing else, feel free to do so as long as you aren't trespassing!

As an aside, the issue rucksacks might be fine for commuting to work use, but they are bloody awful to lumping on an off a locomotive. I've had mine just over 12 months and the netting on the side pockets has ripped, the zips are on their way out, the hi-viz orange is filthy and the interior has the carrying capacity of a kid's school satchel. Cheap crap.

 

[Holly]

Would you like the UK to have as many people struck by trains or electrocuted by OLE as India has?

That is certainly highly undesirable.

But it is a better alternative than a nanny state society which brings us to where we are today.

"We are from your government and we are here to help."

 

[al78]

That is certainly highly undesirable.

But it is a better alternative than a nanny state society which brings us to where we are today.

"We are from your government and we are here to help."

If people don't want a "nanny state society" then perhaps they should behave in a responsible manner.

It is careless/reckless/irresponsible behaviour which results in increased rules and regulations.

If that irks you, then take your frustrations out on the careless/reckless/irresponsible people, not those who are trying to mitigate the resultant costs that are imposed on others.

Speak out against the provocation, not the retaliation.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

That is certainly highly undesirable.

But it is a better alternative than a nanny state society which brings us to where we are today.

"We are from your government and we are here to help."

So you're happy with hundreds of people being killed or injured each year with the resulting financial cost for the taxpayer to bear with healthcare, rehabilitation and disability benefits?

I hope you are not being serious, but I imagine that we have to have rules and regulations because of people like you.

 

[Antman]

If people don't want a "nanny state society" then perhaps they should behave in a responsible manner.

It is careless/reckless/irresponsible behaviour which results in increased rules and regulations.

If that irks you, then take your frustrations out on the careless/reckless/irresponsible people, not those who are trying to mitigate the resultant costs that are imposed on others.

Speak out against the provocation, not the retaliation.

Are we still talking about the ruthless criminals who photograph trains from locations where they shouldn't be?

 

[Llanigraham]

Are we still talking about the ruthless criminals who photograph trains from locations where they shouldn't be?

Do you understand the concept of Railway Trespass and the effects it has on the railway?
Enough people on here have told you that Trespass is illegal and therefore the people who do it are criminal.
You quite obviously do not work on the railway and do not realise how it affects us PROFESSIONAL railway workers, even though several people have provided you with details.

 

[Antman]

Do you understand the concept of Railway Trespass and the effects it has on the railway?
Enough people on here have told you that Trespass is illegal and therefore the people who do it are criminal.
You quite obviously do not work on the railway and do not realise how it affects us PROFESSIONAL railway workers, even though several people have provided you with details.

I think you have mentioned that previously, the fact is though PROFESSIONAL police officers often have more important priorities.

 

[ushawk]

I think you have mentioned that previously, the fact is though PROFESSIONAL police officers often have more important priorities.

Id say the police educating someone about Railway byelaws, which in turn could prevent a future one under to be a part of their job - certainly something for the BTP, which is their job.

Should also add that it might not be clear if they are spotters or not, as they may well be having a look around to come back and commit a crime, crime prevention is also a job of the Police, funnily enough.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Are we still talking about the ruthless criminals who photograph trains from locations where they shouldn't be?

Deary me. You aren't doing yourself any favours here are you? It isn't a case of degrees of criminality or whether there are sufficient BTP resources to catch trespassers. It is a case of clearly defined rules and boundaries to keep the untrained layman (which by your responses, I think you are) away from a very dangerous environment. Do you think that those expensive palisade fences are put up just to improve fitness as trespassers clamber over them, or do you think they are there to keep people off the railway? People who work on the railway are certified and trained to be there. You are not and neither are the "ruthless criminals who photograph trains from locations where they shouldn't be".

Your (non) argument seems to be solely based on whether BTP should trouble themselves with trespass incidents or stick to more serious crime? And by default, your position seems to be that if BTP don't trouble themselves with minor trespass incidents, then really it isn't doing anyone any harm? The problem is that when the 'ruthless criminals' hop over or through a boundary fence to get 'that shot', there is a very real risk of influencing the behavior and actions of others. "Well I saw him do it, so I thought it was Ok." And what happens when the 'ruthless criminals' damage a boundary fence and leave it open so that children can access the railway? Does a child know not to touch the conductor rail, or how far to stay away from the OHLE equipment, or which way the trains run on which lines?

Would you still be justifying trespass as a trifling matter when someone dies?

 

[Antman]

Deary me. You aren't doing yourself any favours here are you? It isn't a case of degrees of criminality or whether there are sufficient BTP resources to catch trespassers. It is a case of clearly defined rules and boundaries to keep the untrained layman (which by your responses, I think you are) away from a very dangerous environment. Do you think that those expensive palisade fences are put up just to improve fitness as trespassers clamber over them, or do you think they are there to keep people off the railway? People who work on the railway are certified and trained to be there. You are not and neither are the "ruthless criminals who photograph trains from locations where they shouldn't be".

Your (non) argument seems to be solely based on whether BTP should trouble themselves with trespass incidents or stick to more serious crime? And by default, your position seems to be that if BTP don't trouble themselves with minor trespass incidents, then really it isn't doing anyone any harm? The problem is that when the 'ruthless criminals' hop over or through a boundary fence to get 'that shot', there is a very real risk of influencing the behavior and actions of others. "Well I saw him do it, so I thought it was Ok." And what happens when the 'ruthless criminals' damage a boundary fence and leave it open so that children can access the railway? Does a child know not to touch the conductor rail, or how far to stay away from the OHLE equipment, or which way the trains run on which lines?

Would you still be justifying trespass as a trifling matter when someone dies?

Oh dear we're just going around in circles here, I don't think anybody is condoning trespassing with intent to take photographs but just trying to put it into perspective. From the amount of criminal damage (graffiti etc) that I see on my train travels I think BTP have more important priorities.

 

[Greenback]

Cut out the petty squabbling please.

 

[bramling]

Id say the police educating someone about Railway byelaws, which in turn could prevent a future one under to be a part of their job - certainly something for the BTP, which is their job.

Should also add that it might not be clear if they are spotters or not, as they may well be having a look around to come back and commit a crime, crime prevention is also a job of the Police, funnily enough.

I don't think he's once said that trespassing is right. However, most railway staff will know that BTP resource can be very thin on the ground at certain times and places. As an example local to me, until recently there was no full-time BTP presence anywhere between London and Peterborough. With resources this sparse, any kind of on-train incident is already being left largely to its own devices. (in this example fortunately a new BTP police office has recently opened at Stevenage).

I fully appreciate that trespassing has effects for operating staff, however someone taking some photographs is largely a risk only to themselves. I would rather the limited police resources were not tied up with this, then making themselves less available to deal with, say, an on-train mugging, or a member of station staff having been threatened or assaulted. Any trespassing in a remote location is unlikely to get a BTP response in time anyway - I have enough trouble at times getting BTP when required in central London!

As an aside, I don't think we need to keep emphasising the word professional when describing various grades of railway staff. It's something that should be, and is, taken as a given - certainly where I work.

 

[Llanigraham]

Do the non-railway working members of this Forum understand what happens when a trespasser is reported?
From some of the responses I think not.

As a signaler the first report we invariable get is from a driver, sometimes with an accurate position, other times with just a rough area. To us, and I suspect to the drivers, it doesn't matter what they are doing. They are within railway property and we can only deal with the situation in one way.

We have to CAUTION the next train through the section

That means we have to stop the next train and speak to the driver, telling him where it is thought the trespasser is and ask him to proceed at reduced speed and check the situation, and to then report back. That cannot be done whilst the train is on the move, even with GSM-R. This results in a delay to that train and possibly others, a driver who is having to concentrate on not just driving but looking for the criminals and a signaller having to concentrate on that situation and at the same time deal with other trains.

The signaller also has to notify his Control, there-by causing him to concentrate on other things. Invariable we are told to wait for the report from the driver and ring them back when we have received that report. It is up to Control what happens next, but in our area it is more likely a MOM will be dispatched to make a further check.

If the report from the driver is that no-one was seen we can return to normal running. If the report was that the miscreants are still there then we will have to caution ALL trains in that area. Some drivers will stop and speak to the miscreants but from reports I've had that is often likely to end with a load of verbal abuse!

All this causes delay to trains and stress to all us professionals, where ever we are, and which I don't think those making comments about ignoring these "photographers" realise.

And the comment about using the term professional was because one member implied that none of us now working on the railway were true professionals, because they stopped when British Rail was abolished.

 

[Flamingo]

Do the non-railway working members of this Forum understand what happens when a trespasser is reported?
From some of the responses I think not.

As a signaler the first report we invariable get is from a driver, sometimes with an accurate position, other times with just a rough area. To us, and I suspect to the drivers, it doesn't matter what they are doing. They are within railway property and we can only deal with the situation in one way.

We have to CAUTION the next train through the section

That means we have to stop the next train and speak to the driver, telling him where it is thought the trespasser is and ask him to proceed at reduced speed and check the situation, and to then report back. That cannot be done whilst the train is on the move, even with GSM-R. This results in a delay to that train and possibly others, a driver who is having to concentrate on not just driving but looking for the criminals and a signaller having to concentrate on that situation and at the same time deal with other trains.

The signaller also has to notify his Control, there-by causing him to concentrate on other things. Invariable we are told to wait for the report from the driver and ring them back when we have received that report. It is up to Control what happens next, but in our area it is more likely a MOM will be dispatched to make a further check.

If the report from the driver is that no-one was seen we can return to normal running. If the report was that the miscreants are still there then we will have to caution ALL trains in that area. Some drivers will stop and speak to the miscreants but from reports I've had that is often likely to end with a load of verbal abuse!

All this causes delay to trains and stress to all us professionals, where ever we are, and which I don't think those making comments about ignoring these "photographers" realise.

And the comment about using the term professional was because one member implied that none of us now working on the railway were true professionals, because they stopped when British Rail was abolished.

It's no good, Antman thinks you're making it up, or overreacting...

 

[tsr]

I'm sure Antman wouldn't think we were making it up if he had to examine a four-track third-rail equipped mainline at 3am on a Sunday morning because some idiots had decided not to use the subway under the track... and then remembered that the same applies if some random person is fiddling around with their phone camera whilst stood in the cess.

 

[Merseysider]

I'm sure Antman wouldn't think we were making it up if he had to examine a four-track third-rail equipped mainline at 3am on a Sunday morning because some idiots had decided not to use the subway under the track... and then remembered that the same applies if some random person is fiddling around with their phone camera whilst stood in the cess.

Or if he had to search a mile-long section of track for body parts because some poor spotter slipped/tripped/got too close to a train!

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Do you think this thread has run its course guys?

 

[DarloRich]

Do you think this thread has run its course guys?

it has reached troll feeding levels.

 

[Llanigraham]

And this is what we have to put up with:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=801731053249395&fref=nf

 

[RichmondCommu]

Do you think this thread has run its course guys?

Just out of interest why do you say that?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Obviously not but many European countries also have a far more relaxed attitude

However does that mean that they are right in doing so?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That is certainly highly undesirable.

But it is a better alternative than a nanny state society which brings us to where we are today.

"We are from your government and we are here to help."

Whats wrong with a nanny state if it stops people being killed on the railways. I'm all for a nanny state because members of the public can't be trusted to make sensible decisions like not trespassing on the railway. A so called nanny state does no one any harm so whats the problem?

 

[Tomnick]

I can't believe this is still going either, though it is becoming rather circular. It seems to me that one side is arguing - quite rightly - that trespass on the railway is illegal, causes lots of problems and should be dealt with, whilst the other side is arguing - also quite rightly - that, whilst it's illegal and caused lots of problems etc., the finite resources (BTP and Network Rail) are generally better spent elsewhere. Am I far wide of the mark?

For what it's worth, and certainly not condoning either, I'd consider kids playing on the line or locals regularly taking a shortcut across running lines to be a far more serious problem than an enthusiast who's technically trespassing but not in any sort of danger and unlikely to be reported by passing drivers (perhaps at the bottom end of a former goods yard that's within the railway boundary but well clear of the running lines). We have one location where a number of businesses are established in one such former yard, with an open space between their premises (the former station buildings) and the nearest running line, but no physical boundary. Yes, some enthusiasts really do put themselves in dangerous positions, but isn't that what this argument's all about? It's all relative, and - whilst we'd all prefer it not to happen at all - it's inevitable that some trespass incidents will be far less significant than others, with a suitably less urgent response.

 

[snail]

Do the non-railway working members of this Forum understand what happens when a trespasser is reported?

Well I didn't for one. Thanks for the detailed explanation. Very informative.

 

[Rich McLean]

Most crew would simply accept that a uniformed staff member, seemingly of the appropriate grade, was qualified to relieve them. The point here is how did he manage not to cross tracks with the genuine relieving Driver, assuming it was a booked crew change? If it wasn't a booked changeover then I would expect most crew to phone their control and confirm what is going on.

How far did our imposter manage to get?

For me, unless I recognise them, I will always ask to see their ID and Cab Pass where appropriate. I always ensure my backside is covered