Student chases train for a mile

[arabianights]

From the current bun:

A UNIVERSITY student risked her life chasing a train along live tracks for a MILE after it left the station without her.
The 34-year-old mystery woman was on her way to an exam in Preston when she got off at Burnley Central to buy a ticket.

But she didn't make it back in time - and watched horrified as the train pulled away from the station, with all her belongings onboard.

Instead of waiting an hour for the next service to Preston, the frantic woman decided to climb onto the live tracks and chase after her train.

Panic-stricken, she sprinted a mile across the Burnley Viaduct and made it as far as the next station, Burnley Barracks, before rail staff spotted her and pulled her off the tracks.

The woman was quizzed by police and issued with a £50 fixed penalty notice for trespassing.

(snipped - full article ici).

Burnley viaduct, by the way, looks like this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/47124_crosses_Burnley_Viaduct.jpg/800px-47124_crosses_Burnley_Viaduct.jpg

Smart...

 

[D365]

That story makes me boggle... Leaving your luggage on the train while buying a ticket? And sprinting a mile (!) over a viaduct to try to catch up? I don't see any live track - in the literal sense - but still. What was going through her mind?!

 

[A-driver]

That story makes me boggle... Leaving your luggage on the train while buying a ticket? And sprinting a mile (!) over a viaduct to try to catch up? I don't see any live track - in the literal sense - but still. What was going through her mind?!

I think that by 'live' they mean open to traffic, not electrified.

 

[D365]

That story makes me boggle... Leaving your luggage on the train while buying a ticket? And sprinting a mile (!) over a viaduct to try to catch up? I don't see any live track - in the literal sense - but still. What was going through her mind?!

I think that by 'live' they mean open to traffic, not electrified.

Yeah, I wasn't sure though.

 

[Ferret]

That story makes me boggle... Leaving your luggage on the train while buying a ticket? And sprinting a mile (!) over a viaduct to try to catch up? I don't see any live track - in the literal sense - but still. What was going through her mind?!

Never underestimate the stupidity of people! She's lucky that her ass didn't go through her mind as the train behind the one she was chasing caught her up!

 

[northwichcat]

Something strange about this from another article

The woman left her bags on the train when she got off at Burnley Central to buy a ticket after her card was declined when she tried to purchase a ticket on board. But the guard was unaware and gave the signal to depart.

http://www.itv.com/news/granada/201...-down-tracks-after-leaving-her-bags-on-board/

Why would she have got off at an intermediate station to buy a ticket if the guard had not told her to?

 

[Welshman]

According to the Burnley express, the woman's card was not accepted by the conductor's chip and pin machine, and she was advised to get off at the next station and buy a ticket from the kiosk.

Hence she left her possessions on the train while she went to do that.

Now I fully realise there is much more to this story than we know at present, but IF that was the case, and the conductor had advised this action, I'd have expected the conductor to hold the train for her, as I think there's only an hourly service on this line.



http://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/...fe-chasing-train-along-rail-viaduct-1-5227966

 

[ANorthernGuard]

According to the Burnley express, the woman's card was not accepted by the conductor's chip and pin machine, and she was advised to get off at the next station and buy a ticket from the kiosk.

Hence she left her possessions on the train while she went to do that.

Now I fully realise there is much more to this story than we know at present, but IF that was the case, and the conductor had advised this action, I'd have expected the conductor to hold the train for her, as I think there's only an hourly service on this line.



http://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/...fe-chasing-train-along-rail-viaduct-1-5227966

If she had got on at a station with an open booking office then its her fault, however if it was unmanned he could have given her a UFN which we can now state is for a return journey. but to expect a train to be held? I don't think so, the flack we would get would be horrendous from our bosses.

 

[NSEFAN]

According to the Burnley express, the woman's card was not accepted by the conductor's chip and pin machine, and she was advised to get off at the next station and buy a ticket from the kiosk.

Hence she left her possessions on the train while she went to do that.

Now I fully realise there is much more to this story than we know at present, but IF that was the case, and the conductor had advised this action, I'd have expected the conductor to hold the train for her, as I think there's only an hourly service on this line.

I doubt the conductor would have been willing to delay the train for that reason. If he did advise the passenger to alight, I'm guessing he would have meant for her to catch the next train. Given the poor service on the line, why did he not just advise her to buy at the destination? Does the line operate a penalty fares scheme?

Evidently there's been a breakdown in communication somewhere.

 

[northwichcat]

Does the line operate a penalty fares scheme?

Technically no penalty fare scheme operates with Northern Rail. Although under a new scheme being trialled by Northern certain lines are seeing passengers being given a formal written warning if caught without a valid ticket and an £80 fine if caught again. This has apparently been extended to Calder Vale services but I think that's just Victoria-Halifax-Leeds and not including Blackpool-Halifax-York.

 

[sprinterguy]

Never underestimate the stupidity of people! She's lucky that her ass didn't go through her mind as the train behind the one she was chasing caught her up!

There wouldn't be much chance of that on a single track line with one train per hour, although that doesn't detract from the fact that this was still a daft thing to do.

 

[davido39]

Ha my old line - well Acrrington - If she is a university Student I do hope she will not be put in charge of anything that involves the safety of this country! We all are doomed!!!

 

[A-driver]

There wouldn't be much chance of that on a single track line with one train per hour, although that doesn't detract from the fact that this was still a daft thing to do.

That's a very risky thing to say and goes against all railway safety rules-you can't assume that a single line with an hourly service means you have an hour between trains-what about freight, diversions, railhead treatment trains, empty stock etc.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

That's a very risky thing to say and goes against all railway safety rules-you can't assume that a single line with an hourly service means you have an hour between trains-what about freight, diversions, railhead treatment trains, empty stock etc.

Never, ever assume anything on the railway, one of the first things I learned

 

[Wath Yard]

That's a very risky thing to say and goes against all railway safety rules-you can't assume that a single line with an hourly service means you have an hour between trains-what about freight, diversions, railhead treatment trains, empty stock etc.

None of which are applicable to the Colne branch.

If she was advised to get off and purchase a ticket then surely logic would dictate that the guard should also advise her to take her belongings, and if he didn't intend to hold the train then the most reasonable thing to do would have been to tell her to get off at Accrington; at least that station has 2 tph.

 

[A-driver]

None of which are applicable to the Colne branch.

.

How so? It never sees railhead treatment trains? Or a failed unit being left at the end if the line and moved out following a timetabled service?!

It's very dodgy to assume because you think you know the timetable that its safe to be on the line.

 

[Wath Yard]

I'm not saying what she did was sensible, however if another train had been using the line it wouldn't have come from behind her so she would have seen it.

 

[Darandio]

But how is the "normal" person supposed to know that?

The fact that there probably wouldn't be any further traffic is completely irrelevant here.

 

[A-driver]

I'm not saying what she did was sensible, however if another train had been using the line it wouldn't have come from behind her so she would have seen it.

Ok, we'll I'm not debating this as its way off topic but there are times when that statement wouldn't be true - there may have been a train behind the service one at clone for some reason following it up the line etc. Can happen no matter how unlikely.

Plus is it a perfectly straight line with perfect visibility? An in coming train could still hit her before she had time to move out the way.

 

[northwichcat]

Ha my old line - well Acrrington - If she is a university Student I do hope she will not be put in charge of anything that involves the safety of this country! We all are doomed!!!

Did you not see the story of the woman who was a so called project manager who complained about having to buy a new ticket to the Daily Mail after getting her coupons mixed up?

 

[sprinterguy]

Plus is it a perfectly straight line with perfect visibility?

It very nearly is. There is only the curve within Burnley Central station itself that impedes having a clear view all the way down the perfectly straight section to Barracks.

I did not say that it was "safe" for this girl to be on the line, hence the second part of my post which stated that it was a daft thing to do. However the risks of trespassing on this section of line are comparatively low compared to the network as whole and I don't feel that comments in the vein of "OMG SHE COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED" were really proportional to the act that has been committed, however ill-advised it was. Not least because there is the full width of a second track that has since been removed throughout this section of the route.

 

[tsr]

It very nearly is. There is only the curve within Burnley Central station itself that impedes having a clear view all the way down the perfectly straight section to Barracks.

I did not say that it was "safe" for this girl to be on the line, hence the second part of my post which stated that it was a daft thing to do. However the risks of trespassing on this section of line are comparatively low compared to the network as whole and I don't feel that comments in the vein of "OMG SHE COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED" were really proportional to the act that has been committed, however ill-advised it was. Not least because there is the full width of a second track that has since been removed throughout this section of the route.

She could have been killed, though. There could have been another train there. She could have been electrocuted by a high-voltage cable. She could have tripped up on debris or a sleeper and ended up lying, seriously injured, on the tracks. It remains that, as far as we can reasonably ascertain, she was not a PTS holder, was not allowed to be on the tracks at all, and was wholly unaware of the hazards and took no mitigating action at all (quite the opposite).

We do not know whether or not she actually stayed off the tracks, so this means we cannot judge her actions in this regard.

 

[SS4]

I'd like to know why UNIVERSITY and MILE are in caps lock. I think even the average Sun reader knows when to use upper and lower case.

 

[sprinterguy]

She could have been killed, though.

Yes, and that eventuality is probably less likely than one of us being knocked down by a car the next time that we cross a road. There's a whole host of other possible outcomes arising from trespassing on the railway that lie between certain death or arriving unharmed at the destination for a stern telling off and the possibility of a hefty fine. Though obviously having uninitiated members of the public running helter-skelter around what is essentially a workplace with heavy machinery that can move at great speeds has many inherent dangers.

My original post was simply in response to Ferret's post that made it sound as if the next (scheduled) train would have been along at any moment, when the reality is a low frequency service on a branch line. I do not believe that the person involved was right to do what they did or that they did not put themselves in a position of danger that they needn't have been in.

 

[Wath Yard]

There could have been another train there.

There couldn't and there wasn't.

She could have been electrocuted by a high-voltage cable.

How could this have happened? Do Network Rail have uninsulated high-voltage cables lying around?

It remains that, as far as we can reasonably ascertain, she was not a PTS holder, was not allowed to be on the tracks at all, and was wholly unaware of the hazards and took no mitigating action at all (quite the opposite).

I think the fact she doesn't have a PTS card can be taken as a given. She also may not have attended the Tufty Club but she has managed 34 years without being mowed down by a car.

 

[route:oxford]

Deffo wrong for her to be on the tracks...

But as to the risk... Personally, I'd be running on the wide gravel (ballast) path alongside the single track.

With the acceleration of the pacer, then deceleration to stop for the next station (if it stopped there)...

I'd imagine that some people would have been able to catch up with it over the 600m(?) between stations.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

I am glad she actually got fined. Too many stories like this where people get away with breaking bylaws (like the feet on seats prosceution that a judge threw out).

What is official policy on cases like this where a card does not work and passenger has no other payment?

 

[A-driver]

There couldn't and there wasn't.



How could this have happened? Do Network Rail have uninsulated high-voltage cables lying around?



I think the fact she doesn't have a PTS card can be taken as a given. She also may not have attended the Tufty Club but she has managed 34 years without being mowed down by a car.

Firstly there deffinately could have been another train. Just because none are timetabled and its a single line dosnt mean there will not be another train there-I have already explained why.

As for high voltage cables the signalling cables are 110v and have been known to be live through damaged insulation.

Then there are the other dangers already mentioned-sleepers are very slippery, debris blown about make trip hazards, ballast is incredibly hard to walk on, I have slipped over before walking on ballast-it just moves beneath your feet. Say she slipped and hit her head on a rail, stranded lying across the track for the next train an hour later to get her.

As for the earlier post saying the track is straight with good view of approaching trains that's irrelevant-how about in the fog, or even in a clear day trains seem further than they are and even diesels are practically silent until on top of you.

I can't understand your reasoning for trying to say that this section if railway isn't dangerous?

 

[northwichcat]

(like the feet on seats prosceution that a judge threw out).

Something like that shouldn't go to court. Police don't investigate a lot of petty crime like theft of small value items so why send someone to court for possibly making a seat dirty?

What is official policy on cases like this where a card does not work and passenger has no other payment?

Isn't it a UFN in normal circumstances?

 

[Wath Yard]

Firstly there deffinately could have been another train. Just because none are timetabled and its a single line dosnt mean there will not be another train there-I have already explained why.

And you've explained incorrectly. Talking generally about single track lines does not mean that is the case on this particular branch.