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

And it is attitudes like yours that make those in authority decide it is not sensible to issue lineside permits.

 

This isn't quite true, section 3 of part 1 of the health and safety act 1974 places the emphasis upon self employed persons within a working environment :

2)It shall be the duty of every self-employed person [who conducts an undertaking of a prescribed description] to conduct [the undertaking]in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that he and other persons (not being his employees) who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.

Assuming photographers have paid for a pass, and undergone some degree of lineside awareness training, to my understanding I would view them as a self employed person, operating within the railways land.

 

Can you tell us what insurance that self employed person is required to have?

 

£2m in my case 10 years ago.

 

Oh good grief no! As a GCR signalman the very last thing I want to be doing in addition to enabling and supervising the safe passage of trains, dealing with engineering works and the occasional equipment failure or potentially managing a busy timetable with multiple moves going on, is acting as switchboard for any Tom, Dick or Harry who deems it reasonable to call the box up for a chat. The presence of limited clearance areas is precisely why lineside photographers are barred from certain areas of the railway, Swithland viaducts for example, even under present rules. It's not for me to dictate policy on lineside access but as far as I'm concerned, if you are authorised to be there and someone has deemed you safe to do so, you should only ever need to contact the box if you happen to stuble across some sort of emergency situation requiring trains to be stopped or cautioned or the presence of the emergency services. And "I'm just popping over this viaduct to take a photo" isn't one of those.

 

Any proper risk assessment is also about risk of occurrence as well as severity of the outcome. Just because an activity has the potential to result in death doesn't mean it cannot be done safely with appropriate procedures,rules, instruction, equipment etc. and people adhering to them. In the GCR case the rules are there but unfortunately in too many cases the adherence isn't, so I don't blame them or higher authority deeming the risk of the current arrangements too great. I guess the 'chosen few' who can keep their passes are trusted by the railway to adhere to the rules.

With the GWSR it doesn't seem to be the case that people misbehaving has caused them to withdraw passes, unless I'm missing something?

 

whatever provides suitable cover for potential loss of earnings / significant accident cover at a multi million pound business which is the largest tourist attraction in Leicestershire?

 

I would have thought that the law in UK would also view that individuals carried some sense of own responsibility if individuals knowingly take themselves onto grassy banks and the like that are by their nature, unstable and posing risk of slipping when wet. If as a NT member I slipped on a wet path on an open path in a National Park or the like, I can't see how liability can be on the land owner or local authority? I understand the importance of H&S but surely the individual cannot be totally devoid of responsibility and judgement of risk? In many countries I have travelled, self preservation & taking of risk is seemingly personal to the individual.

 

Labrador hair is NOT rare, considerable numbers of homes, have great tumbleweeds of it drifting slowly down the hall glistening in the sunlight filtering through the window.

 

That view has become considerably more constrained during my lifetime.

 

Yeah. These day people appear to be less willing to accept responsibility for their actions.

 

But they all seem to know about their 'rights'

 

There are some entitled snowflakes posting on this thread aren't there.

All I'm seeing is...
Wah Wah Wah, I want, I want, I want, but if I hurt myself doing what I want, it's your fault and I want your money.

Pretty much evidence that the GCR have done the right thing (much as I would have loved to have had a permit on the GCR).

NB. I'm sure this doesn't apply to the majority with the lineside permits, but it only takes one bad apple...

 

The relevant pieces of legislation are the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (albeit not the sections on self employed staff which definitely won't be relevant) and the Occupier's Liability Acts of 1954 (for authorised visitors) and 1984 (for trespassers). All make clear that you have duties towards those who visit your land, but what those duties are will depend on the circumstances.

This is a very challenging area for railways because the possibility of claims (as referred to elsewhere) is potentially very high. I admire those railways who are confident that the risks can still be managed, but I don't blame those who focus on keeping all but working members away from trackside.

Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk

 

There is no automatic correlation between traffic volume and traffic injuries. For example in slow moving congested traffic collisions are at low speed meaning injuries are less likely and less severe. In any case traffic generated by temporary rail closures is dissipated over many different routes and times.

 

I very much agree, it's not an easy area to pigeon hole. I applied the assumption of self employed to photographers attaining a lineside pass for the purposes of financial work, entering the land of an operational railway to work but not for the railway (or catch its trains). My background is Environmental law more than H&S but certainly a railway will have differing and considerable legal duties both to people entering their land for permitted and non permitted purposes.

 

Meh...in among all the wibble, there seems to be general acceptance by GCR LPP holders that this widely appreciated privilege is no more. Time to move on!

 

Agree, anyone who wants lineside access should join a charter, there are four currently advertised and for photographers a much better proposition than a gala. Every aspect is controlled, apart from the weather and even that can be to a certain extent.

 

I agree with most of what you say but as someone with a regular M-F 9-5 job charters are out of the question unless I use annual leave which I’m sure Mrs Bantam would have something to say about if it was at the expense of other holidays. Also there is a cost difference at £80+ per day as opposed to an annual lineside pass.

 

Speaking as someone who arranges the occasional photo charter, I'll be the first to admit that there's a world of difference between paying £50 for an annual pass and all the variety of motive power that is available and paying £70+ for the privilege of photographing one loco (some charters involve more than one) for a day. And as you rightly point out, most charters are weekdays.