GCR Ending of Lineside Passes, ex-Bridge that Gap: Great Central Railway News

In the days of regular steam on BR, only a few lineside permits were issued to recognised photographers, and you certainly couldn't pay a tenner and then gain the right to walk all over the place in an orange jacket taking photos and spoiling other people's photos. It only takes some idiot to get run over and steam will be in jeopardy. I'd scrap all lineside permits and only the railway's publicity department would have access to the lineside for photography. There are plenty of photos that you can take from bridges and platforms. Station shops usually sell perfectly good postcards! I would ban orange jackets being worn by anyone on railway premises except staff working on the track. Thank goodness I'm unlikely to be elected as a dictator!

 

On what basis do you believe that a lineside photographer has a right to access the GCR’s infrastructure ?

 

Often taken by lineside photograpers and/or working volunteers!

 

Agreed, and it's a privilege that is conferred by the railway (for a fee) who are not obliged to do so, and if they wish to forego the fees paid for whatever reason then that is up to them.

I'm struck by the similarity between cyclists and photographers: most behave reasonably and thoughtfully, but there are a few of each who attitudes of rights and entitlements give the rest a bad name (and frequently get in other people's way).

Steve B

 

Spot on there

 

just proves that the operators are 'just playing trains'

 

If that is a direct quote and the GCR management feel that I, amongst others am disloyal I shall be taking my £35 refund on my line side pass and donating it to an alternative preservation group who might appreciate my support rather than donating it to the David Clarke Railway Trust as they suggested I might want to.
I also won’t be renewing my membership next year or visiting again for the foreseeable future, how to alienate your supporters.....

With a proper statement and better communication this could all have been handled without any ill feeling. As I stated previously if the decision is purely down to safety and insurance then they have done the right thing and have no problem with that, how the management have communicated it is where they have failed and have really shot themselves in the foot on this issue

 

If I am out working on PWay, particularly in winter, my clothing will suit weather but will certainly include hi-vis trousers and jacket. If work takes us through a station (like today) I suspect that the Santa Train visitors would prefer to see me with trousers on.

 

Nonsense

 

Re Hi Vis- as above complete removal of Hi Vis is not always easy if you have been working trackside - in winter I prefer to wear a hi viz waterproof work coat rather than just a slip on orange vest over a "normal" coat. I do have a reversible hiz fleece which means I can look less orange in stations without getting too cold/wet

 

In what way ?

 

I have never had a pass there so I am not affected but I must admit it appears the way this change has been handled was not the best from a PR perspective if you are an organisation that relies to a large extent on donations in one form or another.
Maybe the GCR use the same agency as the RMT who seem masters at the "own goal" press release and ignoring its subsequent fall out.

 

I am sure that the tiny minority - probably in single figures - of those who are chucking their toys out of their prams about their sense of entitlement being dented and how the GCR has somehow done this 'wrong' will be vastly outweighed by everyone else who either isn't aware or isn't bothered by the issue. And, as others have said, by those who are rather relieved that the hi-viz mushrooms which sprout at the lineside during every gala will have been harvested.

Given today's litigation-happy, blame-anyone-except-oneself-when-things-go-wrong society, I'd be far more inclined to just be grateful to the GCR that it lasted for as long as it did.

... the vast majority of which no doubt don't come from those who have purchased lineside passes.

Probably best not to feed the troll.

 

What can a railway actually do to enforce removal if you are challenged for being unauthorised line side?

Obviously you could be ask to move on but what if someone was belligerent enough to initially refuse to do so. I've seen it happen!!

Call the police - would they really respond?

 

The County force certainly will respond to trespass incidents on the GCR, and in my personal experience have. We have even had the BTP out before (although not strictly their problem, I think they were interested enough to take a look).

A trespasser commits a criminal offence if, having been asked by a member of staff, they refuse to leave, or if they subsequently return (although subsequent legislation means an offence is committed immediately the trespass occurs, if the railway has publicly displayed notices forbidding trespass at the nearest station (all GC stations have such a notice displayed). In practice a member of staff meeting a refusal to quit should try to obtain evidence of the offenders identity (easier these days with everyone having a phone in their pocket) and report the details of the offence to the duty traffic manager, who will organise for the Police, or if they cannot respond in time, to pass the offenders identity to the Police for subsequent action.

Even if the request for a name and address is refused, I would imagine that the photograph of the guilty party should produce results if shared around with a request for same. The railway photographic community is not that big, and anyone that belligerent will be bound to have annoyed one or more of their peers sufficiently enough for them to bubble them.

Of course, if the photographer is posing a risk to himself or others, then it may be necessary to stop traffic in the area, which would rather obviate their reason for trespass in the first place . . .

 

This from our chairman was circulated in a volunteer newsletter for the GWSR today, it seemed relevant to this discussion so hopefully folk won't mind me posting it here:

"One issue which has understandably caused considerable disappointment, is our decision to stop the issue of lineside photographic passes. The original decision was taken following a ROGS safety audit we arranged to have early in the year. It was strongly recommended then that we withdraw the passes for safety reasons. After receiving a number of heartfelt pleas from various people, we considered the matter again in detail during the year and tried to work out a system which would allow us to maintain all necessary safety procedures whilst allowing unlimited access to photographers. In subsequent discussion with the ORR, we were put on the spot and asked why we were considering reintroducing the passes, when they were such an obvious potential safety risk. It was explained to us in no uncertain terms that the ORR would not look at all kindly on any attempt by us to continue to issue such passes. So, regretfully we have had no option but to maintain our original decision. I hope you understand why we have been obliged to make it. I am very sorry if you feel aggrieved by this necessary decision. There are still a huge number of vantage points to photograph our trains from, without having to go lineside."

Surely the only question one can ask after that is to wonder how other heritage railways can continue to issue lineside passes, and how long it will last. I must admit I feel a lot more comfortable with the decision now that a few other railways have had to follow suit and we've had this message as well, as I and others were just as disappointed on the GWSR as folk are here.

 

Yes,safety must be paramount. I would gladly disclose the identity of a belligerent trespasser, because trains can do serious damage to people, and we don't want to give the killjoys any ammunition.

 

No doubt the nanny state will catch up with them eventually. The aim seems to be to make life so safe it won't be worth living

 

Even those who attitude seems to be if a photographer gets run over, it is their own stupid fault must concede that the physiological effect on the crew would be devastating and, although there is every chance they would suffer real and intense feelings of guilt, the reality is it would almost certainly not be the crews' fault in any way - it can't 'serve them right'.

I am amazed that a double track mainline, where risks are considerably greater than on a single track (where they are great enough) appears to have continued to issue passes on application and payment of a fee, and pretty much without limit as to numbers, and without any training. I am not surprised that they are now ceasing to do so.

Failure to appreciate the risks and manage access to the lineside properly is exactly the sort if 'blind spot' that makes many in the 'Big Railway' shake their heads at the preservation movement and conclude it is a 'bunch of puffer-nutters playing trains'.

Steven