National lineside permits

I read it carefully and chose road workers since they have a similar vulnerability to live traffic as PTS holders to moving trains.

Road workers are in fact much less at risk than ordinary drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. At least road workers are subject to some sort of SMS, even if it is less effective than the rail ones. Your suggestion that any safety system is ok so long as it is better than the roads is not, I suggest, common sense. Your bar is much too low.

 

Yeah, right - that's never going to happen at a gala or any other day - there aren't enough of us about to police/ child mind that kind of thing.

Footplate crews can have enough on their hands at the public foot crossing at Northside Lane as it is & one "I" that won't be crossed is the lines insurance - the premium would be too much for very little gain.

For an e.g. to demonstrate - when we wanted to launch the cattle van into traffic we wanted to have real live cows in the cattle dock at Alresford........... insurance co & Defra were consulted...... the figure that came back was eye watering, so result no livestock & we had a farmer who was well up for it!

So can you imaging the premium for "trying to herd cats" on the lineside"?...... probably a damn sight more eye watering than the line could stomach, mainly I suspect due the ambulance chasing, bottom feeding legal beagles into todays compensation culture..........

Also,PTS is the "Green Cross Code" for railways requiring common sense from the user - just like those crossing a road......... & given the amount of idiots I come across who just step out into traffic instead of using a nearby crossing......... usually with something stuck on or in their ears........ is it any wonder why railways are shying away from letting Joe Public have access to the lineside?......

 

I wasn't going to respond to that but your first paragraph is nonsense, a train can only proceed on one trajectory and on a single line there can only be one train at a time. Road vehicles are not guided and driven by people of varying and sometimes questionable skills. There is no comparison

 

I think there is, I'll let it stand for others to judge.

 

I would have thought such an insulting post was beneath you but apparently not and it perhaps confirms my perception of the Mid Hants still bein g the most unfriendly line I've ever visited. The idea is a non starter as no serious photographers will allow themselves to be treated like a bunch of kids, I won't use your term cats. No one is asking for the lineside to be opened up to Joe Public but serious railway enthusiasts who know the rules and how to conduct themselves.
As for your cattle you should have asked the farmer about extending his insurance, it could probably have been done at very little or no cost, how do you think they manage to show livestock at agricultural shows?

 

I wasn't being insulting, just stating fact, there is a difference.

As for serious "railway enthusiasts" IIRC the main reason the line pulled lineside access had a lot to do with a cranks gala with "enthusiasts" encroaching into the 4 foot with an on coming train approaching in order to get the "master" shot........

As for your perception of the MHR I'm sure a lot of the station staff, TTI's, guards etc would take great offence to your comment.oh & I've visited other lines where I've encountered mini "Hitlers" & the rest, but instead of holding a grudge, I've had words with the "powers that be" there & then, & vented my spleen to make sure things are put right sooner rather than later for the benefit of others....... so why couldn't you do the same on the MHR?..........

But we digress.

 

This thread just stinks of a small group of guys upset they can't do as they've always done, and not being fully prepared to move with the times.

Instead of making the same moaning posts about no longer being able to do as you please, why not be grateful for the 30/40+ years enjoyment you've had? Nothing lasts forever, and as has been pointed out countless times (and ignored) all the railways concerned are doing what they see is best following the change in legally binding rules they are forced to obey. Failure to obey will result in no more railway - no ifs, buts or maybes. If you think there's a better way, then stop moaning on here and go make it happen - design/implement/maintain these better ways.

Failing that, just accept times have changed. What is arguing with every post that doesn't say you can go around as you please going to really achieve - it certainly won't impact upon the WSR decision making. But if you took a documented plan of how you feel LSP could be offered and maintained safely, then the worse they can do is say no.

 

I doubt it - Reading is apparently not necessary as Johnb clearly believes he is superior to other mortals

And I suggest you should spend more time mugging up on who enforces safety on our railways - because it most certainly is not the HSE!

The safety regulator for ALL railways covered by ROGS legislation is the ORR (Office of Road & Rail)

In fact since since last summer the ORR is also a road regulator - the DfT having turned the Highways Agency into an autonomous body supposedly independent of Whitehall (now called Highways England) like Network Rail and needed a statutory regulator for it.

With regards to railways, the ORR employ the HMRI to enforce ROGS legislation (which in itself places an obligation that all infrastructure providers are fully compliment with all H&S legislation e.g. the HSWA 1975)

As it happens one of the expected benefits of making the ORR the 'regulator' for Highways England is that they can bring a similar approch to the railways when it comes to safety - with things like the SMS regime being seen as a good template to use to drive up standards.

 

There are many good posts on this thread, I'm of the opinion that the idea is a total none starter, but out of interest, question for the people who think this is a good idea - if such a pass were avaliable, how much would you expect it to cost / how much would you be willing to pay for it?

 

I refer the honourable gentleman to my post at post 30 (above) for starters.

 

The "expected" train can only come from one direction, but there may be something un-expected by you for various reasons, such as unpublished movements, rescue engines & shunting, if the line is a siding and stock is being propelled it may also be almost silent.

 

I think we are all well aware of that, it's what's kept me alive in over 50 years of lineside photography and generally we don't spend our time milling around stations and sidings, that's the whole piont, getting away from the crowds. Referring to other posts I'm not superior and given the tone adopted by Phil-d I would suggest that's a case of pots and kettles. If the ORR are going to try and apply rail safety rules for the roads good luck to them, the only way of remaining safe there is to assume, as I do, that every other road user is mentally subnormal and sometimes I'm not wrong.
I assume the cranks gala was for the diesel enthusiast who are a different breed, you don't get a master shot anywhere near the four foot.

 

@Johnb you say that photographer enclosures are not necessary for "serious railway enthusiasts who know the rules and how to conduct themselves." How would you identify those who *don't* have these qualities? Maybe ask them to prove their knowledge by sitting some sort of test?

 

So you are suggesting that in return for the current cost of a LSP on one individual railway, you should instead be given a LSP valid across all heritage lines?

Essentially you are asking any line participating in the scheme to continue to be involved in an administratively complex scheme; add in the extra administration at a central body; remove none of the insurance costs on each line, but do it all for far less money within the overall heritage movement than is currently being paid for the privilege of having individual LSPs...

Tom

 

Joe Public as it has been put would not be prepared to pay the sort of money needed for a photo permit and I've seen the sort of questions in one of the tests which wouldn't really tax anyone's brain, it's no more than applied common sense. I know the current laws need such things so one idea, if the powers that be are really interested in overall safetupy would be a facility to do the test online.

 

There is no cost if you charge it to the permit holders. The last thing I want to see is precious resources being spent on this sort of thing

 

I'm glad you are so alert. Unfortunately, the evidence is that intelligent, trained, railway staff have died or been maimed because their attention has slipped momentarily. You really should read that Shawford report for an example. There, it was a GPS device. Cameras can be just as attention grabbing.

Whatever we think about the proportionality of the impact on lineside permits, the argument that it's H&S gone mad, without considering context, does no one any favours. All I hear from your posts on this thread is the voice of someone who's in danger of losing his toy and is absolutely adamant that the risk can never happen to him because he is spot on in his safety consciousness. I hope you are, and I sympathise with your frustration. But it's not an attractive voice, and it conveys a worrying sense of complacency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I did read about Shawford but what has been discussed is not about the high speed multitrack national network. There is a risk in everything we do if I visit a heritage line the main risk, by far, is the road journey to get there. I just feel that those who's job depends on regulating others have blown the risk out of all proportion, I've said before there have been no deaths of linesiders on heritage railways in getting on for the 60 years they have existed which must count for something, it's not complacency.
I gather from other posts you have made that you are of the younger generation and have not experienced a world much more tolerant than now where people were responsible for there own well being.

 

That's a fair reply, and you are right, I am a generation younger.

I happen to agree with you that this has taken risk aversion too far, for precisely the reasons you state. However, I am less inclined to blame H&S itself, more the combination of high legal standards and the reasonable desire of insurers to minimise their risk.

To push back, especially for a marginal activity like lineside photography, requires playing by the rules as they are, and seeking to loosen them a sensible amount. It would also be interesting to know how it is that different railways have assessed their risks.

I'm an armchair member of 3. One (NYMR) doesn't to the best of my knowledge offer permits. One (Bluebell) does, but requires a PTS course. The third (GCR) has what I understand to be a less onerous requirement. From the outside, I'd be fascinated to know how what allows the GCR to do as it does when, from the outside , I'd have said it is the highest risk environment.

I suspect a combination of corporate objectives and capacity for management to accommodate the demands of a scheme within their other work are involved, but it would be very interesting to know more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Your point re different standards relates to the point made by phil-d259 in his collected postings that each heritage line has to have an SMS which relates specifically to that individual line. In that context the NYMR SMS does not include lineside access to photographers; the Bluebell Railway SMS does subject to undergoing a PTS course and test and the GCR SMS does have rules within its for lineside access.

My suggestion is that the question of a PTS course or similar course and test should be operated by a higher authority (e.g. the HRA) and permit holders have their permit issued by their local heritage line. When visiting any other heritage line they should first present themselves at a booking office and sign in whereupon they will pay a fee for the issue of a sheet / book containing restrictions peculiar to that line. Possession of the book indicates a payment has been made whilst non possession means trespass and action be taken as appropriate.

It appears that many lines have differing policies and all I am seeking to do is identify a way forward that gives (financial) benefit to the heritage lines whilst granting privileges to those linesiders willing to pay a reasonable fee to enjoy their hobby to the mutual benefit of both parties. Phil-d259 suggests that ROGS needs to be amended but my question is whether it is easier to re-align the "PTS" system and include it in all heritage line SMS documentation; at the moment I believe many lines are unwilling / unable to change their SMS documentation to allow this.