Trespassers

[Old Timer]

.......Of course we were only a few feet away from the opposite line where at one point a 170 came past at speed. But did anyone die? No, because people had awareness and didn't wander to places they shouldn't.......

Firstly either you you have not seen the Youtube video of the guy who was nearly hit by a train when photographing a steam train or you discount that as being representative, and secondly perhaps you will tell me where the line should be drawn ?

That is at what point should people not go on the line ? What is your criteria then ?

Your suggestion is that somehow spotters are more capable of keeping themselves safe on the running lines. Presumably this is against the fact that trained trackside staff run a 1 in 8000 risk of being killed. That is the highest risk in any industry and far exceeds that for firemen fighting fires.

Having dealt with fatalities including staff and others who thought they knew what they were doing I will be most interested to hear your observations.

I consider the track to be an extremely dangerous place to be but then I have only had half a century to learn that.

 

[Chester025]

Firstly either you you have not seen the Youtube video of the guy who was nearly hit by a train when photographing a steam train or you discount that as being representative, and secondly perhaps you will tell me where the line should be drawn ?

That is at what point should people not go on the line ? What is your criteria then ?

Your suggestion is that somehow spotters are more capable of keeping themselves safe on the running lines. Presumably this is against the fact that trained trackside staff run a 1 in 8000 risk of being killed. That is the highest risk in any industry and far exceeds that for firemen fighting fires.

Having dealt with fatalities including staff and others who thought they knew what they were doing I will be most interested to hear your observations.

I consider the track to be an extremely dangerous place to be but then I have only had half a century to learn that.

To give an idea of the 'danger' the stewards allowed to put us in: http://40145tours.fotopic.net/p42612678.html

The guy almost being hit by a train on youtube is a step too far, but as an 'Old Timer' surely you can see there was very little risk we were in at Kingussie.

 

[scotsman]

To give an idea of the 'danger' the stewards allowed to put us in: http://40145tours.fotopic.net/p42612678.html

The guy almost being hit by a train on youtube is a step too far, but as an 'Old Timer' surely you can see there was very little risk we were in at Kingussie.

Hold on a second here! I find it very unlikely that any Steward 'let' you wander down on to the line, given that a mate (also a Steward) got hauled over for leaning out the window to wave at someone - footage of which was subsequently used on another forum in a (failed) attempt to incriminate a passenger on the train.

 

[Chester025]

Hold on a second here! I find it very unlikely that any Steward 'let' you wander down on to the line, given that a mate (also a Steward) got hauled over for leaning out the window to wave at someone - footage of which was subsequently used on another forum in a (failed) attempt to incriminate a passenger on the train.

Nope it's true, even ask Nedchester who took that picture.

 

[scotsman]

Nope it's true, even ask Nedchester who took that picture.

What's your definition of let?

Did you ask the Stewards for permission to go on to the track?

or

Did you go down on to the track without being challenged?

 

[Chester025]

What's your definition of let?

Did you ask the Stewards for permission to go on to the track?

or

Did you go down on to the track without being challenged?

Surely both is the same?

 

[scotsman]

Surely both is the same?

No. One is telling you it's ok to take part in an illegal activity. The other is not doing anything/noticing that people were taking part in an illegal activity.

 

[ukrob]

What's your definition of let?

Did you ask the Stewards for permission to go on to the track?

or

Did you go down on to the track without being challenged?

Surely both is the same?

HUGE difference.

 

[Chester025]

A steward stopping us would have called us back? Can anyone see any danger we were in by where we were stood?

 

[TomBoyRacer]

This reminds me of the famous picture of Newark with hundreds of people on the track awaiting some or other railtour ( obviously not that famous as I can't find it ) blocking both roads. Obviously this is not of the same scale

however -

I still think going trackside in this fashion is wrong even if the siding is closed to traffic and the 40 is stationary
Ground staff , contractors and anyone else who go trackside in the course of their duties generally can't do so without PPE , PTS and often a site safety brief , informing the signaller etc.

If they don't have the right to do that then neither do you. If you had been injured then would you have been compensated?

It's simply better not to do so at all

 

[scotsman]

A steward stopping us would have called us back? Can anyone see any danger we were in by where we were stood?

Nope. Quite a lot wouldn't have noticed, they have better things to be doing. Entirely possible that there weren't any up that end of the train at the time. I can tell you that if I had seen you, I would have called you all back and pointed you out to the Train Manager.

 

[Old Timer]

To give an idea of the 'danger' the stewards allowed to put us in: http://40145tours.fotopic.net/p42612678.html

The guy almost being hit by a train on youtube is a step too far, but as an 'Old Timer' surely you can see there was very little risk we were in at Kingussie.

I do8ubt that you were in any particular danger at THAT location on THAT day at THAT time.

The bigger issue is that if you allow it at one location then how do you defend prohibiting at another location ?

Network Rail are quite clear in that they operate a policy of zero tolerance on trespass. It is their Railway (for now) and they can operate any policy they wish, irrespective whether or not we agree with it or not.

This debate could go on for ever and ever without any rational end, and result in people falling out over it.

In my view the issue is that if you let someone trespass in one location then you are on a sticky wicket in stopping it/them at another location. You also know the attitude some on here hold regarding photography at stations. now translate that to a situation where we turn a blind eye to such photographic trespass on a random basis.

What is danger and who can assess it ?

I had to escort a photographer off the trackside on a 100 mph line with restricted visibility a while back. He was stood in the cess taking photographs of trains travelling on the opposite line. An extremely hazardous position. In between that he was hiding in the bushes, which is what initially led me to suspect he was an attempting suicide.

The location is action prohibited to staff whilst trains are running and the lines had to be blocked whilst I went to get him.

His perception was that there was no danger.

Whose judgement is the right one ?

I do not accept that a spotter/photographer without the correct training can make any safety judgement in relation to on track safety, and suggestions that anyone can are both arrogant and unacceptable. We do not tell them how to do their jobs (assuming of course they are employable) in turn we do not expect them to enter into debate with Railway staff as to whether or not being on or about the track is safe.

 

[Chester025]

If they don't have the right to do that then neither do you. If you had been injured then would you have been compensated?

Any injury occured would have been MY responsibility, I wouldn't of expected compensation.

I do not accept that a spotter/photographer without the correct training can make any safety judgement in relation to on track safety, and suggestions that anyone can are both arrogant and unacceptable. We do not tell them how to do their jobs (assuming of course they are employable) in turn we do not expect them to enter into debate with Railway staff as to whether or not being on or about the track is safe.

Although I do not approve of all trespass that occures on the railway, common sense prevailed in this instant and no-one was injuried.

 

[87015]

Worth pointing out that driver/guard of said 170 at Thurston did not deem the 'near miss' worthy of reporting and therefore officially it is not classified as such. If it hadn't have been pushed around the various forums then NR wouldn't have been any the wiser.

The ones who publish such vids/pics and plug them x amount of times to get their hits up are doing just as much damage to the chances of future specials on the network as those actually trespassing.

 

[nedchester]

Any injury occured would have been MY responsibility, I wouldn't of accepted compensation.

Part of the problem with UK society nowadays is people telling you that you cannot do something not because it is unsafe but for fear of litigation!! Good comment Chester025 (oh by the way occured is spelt occurred!!!!!!! )

 

[Chester025]

(oh by the way occured is spelt occurred!!!!!!! )

Isn't that slightly rich?

 

[Old Timer]

Although I do not approve of all trespass that occures on the railway, common sense previaled in this instants and no-one was injuried.

It is a fact that at some other location trespass will result in people putting themselves in danger. Indeed I think this point was made either in this topic or in one similar recently.

The point I was trying to make is that it is not in the gift of anyone who is not trained to be on or about the track to make judgements as to what situation is safe and more importantly what is not. You end up in a situation where people then make "judgements", and this brings with it situations where those "judgements" are invalidated.

I would also go so far as to say that even train crew are not always aware of locations where their safety is at risk. The railway from the ground is far different from the driving cab, and there are many locations where environmental noise will mask the sound of approaching trains.

Anyway irrespective of what anyone thinks, the Law makes it a Criminal Offence to be on the railway line without proper authority. No-one has the ability to over-ride that.

 

[scotsman]

Chester025 - can you please consider rewording your previous comment on the Stewards 'letting' you on to the track. You have made it clear that no one stopped you going on the track, which is not the implied meaning of what you said!

 

[nedchester]

Isn't that slightly rich?

Just getting you back for your criticism of one of my previous typographical errors!!

 

[Chester025]

Chester025 - can you please consider rewording your previous comment on the Stewards 'letting' you on to the track. You have made it clear that no one stopped you going on the track, which is not the implied meaning of what you said!

How do you think it should be phrased then?

 

[scotsman]

How do you think it should be phrased then?

"I went on the track and no-one noticed me."

 

[Chester025]

"I went on the track and no-one noticed me."

Unless you were there, I don't think you really know.

Why are there so many do gooders on this forum?

 

[GB]

So people who respect boundries and laws are now "do gooders" are they?:roll:

 

[scotsman]

Unless you were there, I don't think you really know.

Why are there so many do gooders on this forum?

Given that I'm a Steward for the operator in question, it could be argued as self-preservation?

But seriously, he's breaking the law and I don't tend to hold back on people breaking the law. (In a nice way)

 

[Old Timer]

There's nothing harmless about trespassing into the cab of a moving train whether it is the leading vehicle or not and whether the door was left open or not. The sensible thing to do would have been to either close the door and/or alert the Train Manager. The filmer certainly wasn't "standing in the doorway" in the video I saw rather he was being an idiot.

I understand from Virgin Trains that this matter is now the subject of an investigation in conjunction with the BT Police.

 

[Geezertronic]

I was watching one of the (many) police programmes on TV last night and there was a guy who was pulled over initially as he had no tax or MOT but as the police investigated further they discovered the car was indeed unroadworthy and had bald tyres, defective brakes and insufficient lights. His excuse for no tax was that they don't spend it on the roads. The driver also could not understand why his car was deemed unroadworthy and in his eyes he would not have caused an accident by driving it. He might not have had an accident but if he had of done, then he could have possibly affected the lives of other people by causing serious injuries to himself and others.

In a similar vein to the car driver, there are always people who believe they are in the right when doing things that by law or instruction (rules) are not allowed whether that be driving a defective motor, travelling by train without first purchasing a ticket, trespassing on the railway etc...

Any injury occured would have been MY responsibility, I wouldn't of expected compensation.

People have to realise cause and effect - that their own actions can have a positive or negative effect on others. Had the near miss guy been hit by the 170, his injuries or death could have caused serious angst to those around him, those on the train, the driver, and others. Just because he was a lucky SOB doesn't change what could have happened and who it could have affected. It only takes a momentary lapse in concentration and people could be picking you up either in one piece or many. If you get injured or killed it would be your responsibility but what about those affected by your injuries or death - including your family and friends?

I personally don't think that a photo opportunity is worth breaking the rules and trespassing on the railway for.

 

[Old Timer]

I am told that yesterday there was a reported near miss between a photographer and a Class1 service on a foot crossing near Kibworth.

I imagine he didn't consider there was any danger either :roll:

 

[TGV]

I understand the views of those who don't see the problem with "a little trespass" - but I'm on the other side of the fence. Excuse the blatant pun. It's a crime - no point in trying to justify it any more than 80mph is in fact perfectly safe in a modern car on a motorway in good visibilty - the fact is that it's against the law and if you get caught, it's a fair cop.

Anyway - my point is that 2 years ago I was walking through the Cambridgeshire countryside somewhere between Huntingdon and Peterborough - I'll not say exactly where. Now, I knew the ECML was just nearby as my geography is good and I'd heard trains through the trees. I was off the beaten path (although on a public right of way according to the signs and my OS explorer map) and as the trees cleared I found myself with 2 options - one was to follow the path to the left and it ultimately ran alongside and underneath the railway OR turn right and there was the ballast trackside. No fence. There was a fence at the start of the overbridge but not where I found myself standing. Was I trespassing? No. I was still standing on a public right of way. About 8 feet to the right and maybe BTP might see it the other way.

There were no signs indicating it was railway property (although it clearly is) and no fence in the immediate area. Now, I have PTS, so I wasn't being stupid. I kept a respective distance from the edge of the ballast which *I* took to be the boundary of the railway given that there was no other way of telling. There may have been signs and/or fence at one point but on that day at that time, anyone could have wandered onto the track.

My point is that any idiot could have been where I was (I was breaking no laws) and could have decided that turning right was more interesting and just start walking along a 125mph stretch of track.

So lets imagine that happened - a couple of people decide that the ballast looks like a type of path and start walking. One of them gets hit by a train. It goes to the courts and they rule in favour of the "trespassers" because the law says that you NEED to have signs and fences to make things obvious to the lowest level of intelligence. Simply relying on common sense just doesn't work.

I wonder how many other isolated spots like this there are in the UK?

 

[Old Timer]

TGV
With regards to Railway Trespass the Law only requires that the do not trespass signs are displayed at each Railway station in order to secure a successful prosecution.

Although additional signs are placed at other locations this is simply to enforce and assist in a prosecution. The absence of the signs here does not cause the prosecution to fail.

With regards to fences, there is only a legal requirement for a fence to be provided to prevent farm animals, horses, etc from accessing the track. There is NO legal requirement for the Railway to be fenced to prevent trespass.

Whilst fences obviously prevent trespass, there is no requirement for a fence to be present in order to secure a successful prosecution. Long established practice deems that stepping onto the ballast is accepted as primae facie proof of trespass, and that a reasonable person will know they are on a railway line. The Law operates on the premise that a reasonable person is fully familiar with the full extent of the Law, hence there is no defence of "ignorance".

From the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845.

The company shall make and at all times thereafter maintain the following works for the accommodation of the owners and occupiers of lands adjoining the railway; (that is to say,).................sufficient posts, rails, hedges, ditches, mounds, or other fences, for separating the land taken for the use of the railway from the adjoining lands not taken, and protecting .........the cattle of the owners or occupiers thereof from straying thereout, by reason of the railway.

 

[TGV]

I also used the ballast edge as a rough guide to what belonged to NR and what I was entitled to walk on as according to the OS map. My only thoughts were that it's dangerously close to being a "grey area". Most places have a fence or sign that removes doubt but this location was admittedly unusual in having a public right of way immediately next to an open railway line.

The law surprises me there, but I'll trust your source. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer.