Trespassers

Wouldn't it be possible to waive the duty of care, at least to some extent, if a person signed a carefully worded disclaimer as part of the process?

I honestly believe you are overstating the risk of being lineside on a typical preserved line. It is different to the mainline as the speeds are much lower, and despite your suggestion, the vast majority of photographers are not 'working' within close proximity of the line, but will be a safe distance from the running line when performing their 'work'. There will be those who put themselves in a dangerous position while working, but for the majority the line is typically used to access locations that are remote from public access - these may well involve standing inside the fence, but at positions that are a safe distance from the running line. We don't generally want head-on shots. As I stated previously, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people lineside each weekend up and down the country, yet there have been a minimal number of injuries, as far as I'm aware. Do you know otherwise? All we are suggesting, by backing Fred's suggestion is a way of potentially improving the safety of those *already* at the lineside, by ensuring that those lineside have had at least a basic level of training. That might not reach your high standards initally, but it is a start. There are already many railways taking money for lineside access whether you agree with that or not. As far as I can see there are two options, ban lineside access, or do our best to ensure that those lineside have had adequate training. Even the Mid-Hants offer a system where photographers can gain lineside access, and I believe what is suggested is that a similar course is produced but to cover the general principles relevant to being lineside on any preserved line, with each railway in the scheme producing a set of additional guidelines relevant to their specific line.

 

Not at all, I merely asked the question. I spent 32 years working trackside on the big railway so I'm well aware of the real dangers.

So where were these injuries/deaths to photographers on preserved railways ? Enlighten us please.

 

Stop moving your goalposts chap, you asked how many had been killed on railways with a 25mph speed limit, and there are plenty of examples which illustrate that railways with a 25mph limit can be every bit as lethal as railways with higher limits. How many people have been killed on the national infrastructure by trains moving at less than 25 mph ? Or is that somehow different ?

Trying to make out its all to do with the speed is specious. As long as people are concentrating on an attention grabbing task whilst on or about the line and without the benefit of a safe system or work, then there is an increased risk of them being struck by a train - especially on heritage railways where much of the motive power tends to demand more of the footplate crews attention whilst simultaneously restricting their forward view, relative to modern traction.

In your 32 years working trackside on the big railway how many inexperienced blokes did you send out on the track to, for example, stand in the cess, back to traffic on an open line, and peer through a theodolite for two or three minutes without the benefit of at least a lookout ? Would you consider that safe ?

Flip

 

No goal post moving here - nor am I getting upset (as you seem to be). I'm merely asking you to justify the sweeping statements you make about deaths or injuries that have occured. Where were they ? Do you know? Or is this all empty rhetoric?

 

OK, some examples (not intended to be a definitive list) from the last several years of unfortunately fatal accidents on lines with a linespeed of 25mph or less.

Bronwydd Arms, Gwili, July 2006
Haslingdon, ELR, May 2003
Alresford, MHR, December 2007
Burmarsh Road, RH&DR, 2003
Battery Road, RH&DR, 2005

Speed, or the relative lack of it, is not the be all and end all. Running at 25mph doesn't make a railway non lethal and cuddly, if you're on the line then you're at risk whether it is 125mph or 25mph, especially if you're not working safely. Do you acknowledge that there are many accidents to trackside workers (on the national infrastructure) that happen at little more than walking pace ?

And I'm not getting angry, I am merely slightly bemused that a man with your experience sees nothing strange in a company actively encouraging inexperienced people to access its (open) infrastructure and work alone without any meaningful protection. I'm fed up with finding people stood back to traffic in the 4' of the Down Main with a tripod, photting the train on the Up Main; sizeable groups of people sat on bridge girders, again back to traffic, comparing photographs; people sat in the 6' setting up video cameras and microphones; people laid in the 4' of one line with their camera on the crossing nose of the crossover to phot the other line; people crouching between stock in a loop with their cameras. All things I've seen in the recent past. The vast majority use the privilege sensibly, but a minority put themselves at risk through ignorance, and an even smaller minority through arrogance or the pursuit of their perfect shot. The last group are the worst, they know how they should behave, but can't see the harm in putting themselves and, more importantly, our operation at risk.

Flip

Flip

 

The RHDR accidents were caused by car drivers ignoring the dangers of a level crossing and colliding with a train, the Bronwydd Arms incident was a shunting accident, the Alresford incident was where someone fell from the platform while trying to board a train and the Haslingden incident was another level crossing accident. None of these incidents involved persons on the lineside, photographers or otherwise. Three were in fact road accidents that happened to involve a train at a level crossing.

 

That wasn't the question. The question asked was how many people had been killed.

60017 (I think) said the vast majority were safe - but it isn't the majority that get killed - it's the minority.

The only difference is, that at mainline speeds you get spread out more.

 

The thread is about trespass and none of the incidents quoted were as a result of trespass so the points raised are valid.
If we are simply talking about deaths on heritage lines then we can include the MHR footplate man who died as a result of a bridge strike and the reveller
who surfed an NYMR train and suffered the same fate, the guy who allegedly committed suicide by driving his car in front of an SVR train, the woman walking her dogs along across WSR and there are others no doubt. Tragic though these events were, none would have been prevented by a lineside photographer ban.

 

Seems the stats don't really support the argument some are making (though i can understand and respect why they are making it) Careless car drivers and shunting accidents are not something a linside photographer would be near nor involved in, true too many people are killed on railways but the vast majority of these will be trespassing braindead chavs (or people of similar ilk) with half a brain cell between them intent on causing vandalism and such like and suiciders who frankly woulden't give a stuff about the aftermath, to suggest a photter with lineside experience could be as ignorant and careless as the above example is insulting their intelligence i reckon, if they are stupid enough to get too near the running line when something is coming of wander into out of bounds area's then by all means ban the individuals concerned.

 

Well how do we get proof that they have lineside experience?

Photters HAVE been as ingnorant and as careless as that, but I bet the all of them wear a seatbelt in a car, so as to avoid that danger, but don't seem to think that going lineside is dangerous?

Individuals that have gone into stupid places have had all photters banned.

 

Ummmm...I have not exprressed MY opinion on this, so please don't assume I support the practice that you are so passionate against. All I did was to ask you to justify some comments you made, which you now have and for which I thank you.

The up/down main line scenario is frightening - I agree. But this thread is about people photographing on preserved railways where trains run mostly on single tracks. The up/down facing is not relevent in most of these cases, but I agree, trains are fatal at any speed.

My VIEW is this; You will always have ar******es who place themselves in danger on the main line and on preserved lines - this is NEVER going to change, you can't change it and no amount of 'policing' will alter the practice in the long term. Thankfully, these type of people are in the minority and, it has to be said, detested by the majority. If a private railway charges sensible prices for track safety courses and issues lineside permits for photography purposes - good for them. I doubt the ar*****s we all detest are going to amongst those numbers anyway. Why not tap in to those who are likely to behave responsibly on or about the track and have a national membership scheme as Fred suggested? It would be an administative nightmare sure - but where there is a will there is a way.

 

You are given an actual pass when you go lineside, production of one of these that also has the person's name would be sufficient proof, i'll admit it doesn't address the problem how do you start if you haven't experience.

People crossing the road or any other everyday task can be ignorant and careless and possibly lose their life as a result, are the rest of us banned from crossing the road as a result ?, if someone is acting irresponsibly then deal with the individuals concerned, why should someone who has a right to be there and is acting safely and sensibly be turfed out due to another halfwits actions ?, name are recorded on passes and when applying for them so "blacklisting" careless people is not that difficult a task, if someone tried using a false name then i suggest asking for passpoprt pictures to be supplied with any application.

 

The MHR withdrew lineside passes because of the actions of idiots. All the evidence to date would seem to indicate the idiots are still going lineside, whereas those who would have paid for a permit are no longer able to and are giving the MHR a wide berth. Banning an activity seldom if ever stops those who are determined to carry on regardless.

 

When I saw Tornado at Eastleigh there were people asking Police if they could go down the platform ramps to get photos. No one did though luckily.

 

I've started reading the posts on this thread and like many others it seems to have deteriorated into the usual 'I'm right, you're wrong' or 'what's the problem anyway' scenario.

The real facts, whether we like them or not, all come back to basic common sense and a changing in attitudes towards Health and Safety. When the great railway photographers were practicing their art, attitudes towards H&S were very different to those of today. In a major building project, if a scaffolder fell and injured himself or heaven forbid was killed, then in those days an ambulance was called and work carried on. Today, all work stops, the site is closed and becomes a crime scene. After a full enquiry, new Method Statements are drawn up and eventually work recommences. I'm not saying that either approach is correct, merely that's the way it is.

These days it is not acceptable that a preserved railway has a policy of allowing photographers access to the lineside if in possession of a valid pass, the railway needs to show that the policy is vigorously policed. That of course incurs costs, not just in approaching the potential trespasser, but in the documentation and resulting paper trail. In the event of an incident, the resulting enquiry will look at the policies in place, both formal and ad-hoc, and the action taken to ensure that those policies are not being breached. Heaven help the poor railway which is found to be lacking in their approach to these policies if the Health & Safety Executive get involved. If the policy is found to be poor or not properly policed, then there is every possibility that the particular railway could be forcibly closed, and if that happens then there is the certainty that more Draconian measures will be foisted on the preservation movement as a whole.

Again, I am not saying that this is necessarily correct, merely that it's the way of the current world. Different railways will have different views on the interpretation of the HSE rules, hence the different lineside policies in place. That interpretation may well have recourse to PTS certificates, showing examples to members of the public, PPE (personal protection equipment (Hi-viz vests, safety shoes, hard hats, goggles, ear defenders etc etc)), staff safety, security etc, etc.

We would all like to think that we are responsible and capable of conducting ourselves sensibly on the lineside. However, that is only our own assessment of ourselves and in order to meet the criteria that needs to be independently assessed. It's up to the individual railway to decide a) whether they can afford such assessment, b) whether it is worth it, c) whether they want to.

In the 60's, when I was a lad, I bunked sheds in the North West. Had I had an accident and lost a limb (let's say) it would have made the inside pages of the local evening papers. Had I done it today it would still be on the inside pages, but this time of the Nationals.

That's the world we live in today. Please don't try and buck the system for the sake of personal gain. Instead let's just accept the constraints that the management teams of our favourite preserved lines have to work to.

 

That's the crux of the argument though .. it would seem that all preserved railways have (almost all) the same constraints. Some lines manage this better than others, and in the case of the MHR when it comes to lineside photography it is simply a case of not now & probably never again; whereas other lines are better equipped to endorse schemes that work, are managed effectively and quite obviously efficiently otherwise they would have adopted the MHR's policy.

As far as a line being forcibly closed for poor or poorly policed policies, this would, I assume, only come after the requisite improvement &/or prohibition notices have been served and expired?

 

Yes, all railways operate to the same H&S guidelines and restraints. What differs, of course is the different interpretation of those guidelines, which are only tested in the event of an incident. It's all about how blase or proactive management teams want to be. In business it's often referred to as the difference between the cowboys and the professionals, and in my industry (road transport) there are many cowboys who have a cavalier attitude to H&S. It is those that tend to have a grater incidence of injury and Vehicle safety failures (GV9 and GV9(S)) but their actions result in increased involvement from the enforcement authorities for the industry as a whole.

As far as closure only happening after a period of consultation and notice - don't you believe it! Depending on the incident, closure can be immediate and not to be revoked until ALL recommended changes have been implemented. That can involve the total re-writing of the rule book, replacement of Directors and other senior management and other changes. Not to be taken lightly!

 

Porous pot,
Are you suggesting the heritage lines that issue
lineside permits are cowboys?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]