West Somerset Railway General Discussion

A subject I discussed with WSR plc Director Ian Coleby last week.

Next steps are up to Ian and his fellow Directors.

Robin

 

The wrong wording has been used if the account is correct. Not fierce enough!

PH

 

No, that's not the problem.

The walkway at the south end of Crowcombe station is for staff / the signalman to deliver / receive a token, NOT for public use. The pre-existing signs made that clear, quite successfully.

Poorly thought through installation of the new awful things have encouraged at least some members of the public to think that thus is an acceptable place to cross the line rather than using the wider, more supervised Crossing at the north end.

The logical conclusion is that safety at CH would be increased by chucking the darned things away......

Q.E.D.

Robin

 

Of course butter , you wouldn't want a low cholesterol reading now would you ? Believe it or not but both my blood pressure and cholesterol are fine , at least that's what the doctors say .

 

It seems to me that members of the public seeing such a sign can reasonably assume that it is addressed to them. One would hope that they will then indeed stop, look and listen before crossing, and so remain safe. So the risk of someone coming to grief remains low, but apparently not as low as it was before. Now who would care to be held responsible for the decision to erect the signs?

 

Could the timetable be recast to allow for a cake stop at Stogumber, or could someone walk along the platform selling slices??

 

In that case I best get my orders in for the WSG as I intend to venture across the Irish Sea . Maybe we could share a breakfast table Yorkshireman ?

 

Up to a point. The counter argument is that a casual attitude towards minor heritage issues is likely to engender a casual attitude towards more major ones - or put another way, it's probably somewhat unrealistic to expect a railway to concentrate on a more heritage haulage and rolling stock situation you would prefer if they have little regard even for something as basic as signs.

As for safety: I'm not convinced any signage is especially helpful in a heritage situation - people tend to ignore them regardless of whether they are genuinely old, faux-old or modern. The answer to crossing safety on board crossings is for them to be staffed when trains are due, which hardly seems an onerous requirement. At which point, put up heritage signs (genuine or repro) for show, with staff ensuring actual safety.

Tom

 

As we have read many times on this thread (and the many earlier WSR-related threads) the WSR Plc is responsible for running the railway. The decision as always, and rightfully so, is theirs. Concerns should be raised with the Plc as indeed some of us already have done so.

Steve

 

The wording you quote is uber traditional for a sign alongside a lightly used public foot crossing over a railway line. I pass by such signs most weeks but the crossing is now very busy and controlled by wicket gates interlocked with the signals. The signs remain as a reminder of things past.

People on this thread seem to be allowing their aesthetic distaste for these new signs to cloud their judgement about the message they give. Seemingly the signs give the message "be careful", rather than "don't". The public can hardly be blamed for mis-interpreting. As I said before, old time wording does not always meet the present situation.

PH

 

The notices on electricity poles are much more direct "Danger of death".

 

The point has been made more than once to them. That is the issue.

 

I am sorry but "heritage" can never take priority over safety and no evidence whatsoever that lack of 100% "authenticity" in signage has any bearing on how authentic the rolling stock is.

PH

 

I would be pleased to do so and buy you breakfast. Please PM me.

 

I'm not suggesting that heritage should take priority over safety; I'm suggesting that relying on signs alone is a poor mechanism to manage safety - better to ensure, at stations at least, that crossings are manned - at which point, the signs are superfluous anyway, so might as well look right.

Tom

 

The problem here appears to be a sign which gives an inaccurate conditional warning rather than an absolute prohibition to the general public. It would seem that it is neither a suitable warning to the public nor an effective "get out of jail free card" for the railway.

PH

 

The main issues, as I see it, for the owners/operators of a railway, whether it be mainline or heritage/tourist is that whatever safety laws/regulations exist at the time - and we know how often amendments are made - is to abide by said laws/regulations and in addition to the the clauses and exemptions in their insurance.

 

There once was a story that there was a sign on the boundary of a certain Portland Down establishment that had wording such as "Trespassers will be Used" or similar

 

Why not just put up signs saying "beware of the Doberman?".......... Works for Posties!

 

A local pub has a "Beware of the cat" sign on the door. A warning to itinerant mice perhaps.