Mainline steam trespassing incedent !

And what is more, just look at those guys on the signal gantry.
Yes, it was 45 years ago, but in those days, those in authority (including the transport police) didn't bat an eyelid and surely in the environs of the station, it is not more dangerous that it was then?

 

Come on guys. Let's not go overboard. The image of the spotters off the platform is nothing compared to what was acceptable in 1968. It's still the same railway and still the same platforms!

I hope that is either a) a sarcastic remark or b) just some messing about to get me wound up. If not words fail me.

In 1968 higher levels of death and injury was considered acceptable. Furthermore it was considered the fault of the individual who got themselves killed. Today such people are "victims" and overworked members of staff hundreds of yards away "accountable" and they end up in prison or losing their jobs. For example that man climbing up onto the gantry. If he fell in 1968 it was his own fault - he lost his own footing. Today, the owner of the "unsafe" ladder would be blamed, and whoever responsible for it forced to answer for it. Again on the gantry the man who (from this angle) is stood under the starting signal: Say the signaller then decided to throw it back to danger (for whatever reason) and bring the mass of the arm and weight of the counter balance smashing down on the man's head and killing him. In 1968 it would have been the man's fault for standing under the signal. Today considering the Merseyrail incident, it is without doubt that the signaller would be found guilty of manslaughter or worse.................

On the topic of "it is still the same railway", even your own photo illustrates one of the uncountable examples of why it is not: I see there is a signal box at the left of shot. I don't know where this location was but would I be right in saying that the signaller there controlled the lines in this view? In which case he is probably somewhat aware of the people on the lines he controls and would signal trains accordingly. Today many signallers have no such view, and a train would be remotely signalled into that platform on the left there with no hesitation or question. That is the why BTP and staff must be so vigilant. Furthermore track work improvements mean approach speeds are higher into stations, and certainly line speeds are higher through minor stations so trains have even less chance of stopping.

I would go on but it would take me about 45 years to cover every difference between now and then!

 

Quite a few years ago I was on Shrewsbury Station to have a look at a Steam Special (I think a King). The platforms were crowded with enthusiasts and others. The loco and support coach had just turned on the triangle and had backed onto its train in platform 7 and a large crowd had gathered around it, not just on the platform, but beyond it and many were also standing on the track leading to the bay platforms 5&6. Then a DMU came off the Birmingham line heading for platform 5. The steam loco was blowing off and making a huge racket - nobody could have possibly heard any warning horns or any shouted warnings. Steam was drifting across the track and had obscured the dmu driver's view. It was only at the last moment that someone saw the train coming and got people moving. The look of sheer terror on the DMU driver's face said it all. Those down on the track all had the air about them of those who thought they knew what they were doing, but they were distracted and couldn't hear. I was standing at the top of the ramp with my (then) junior school aged children. But for someone down on the line happening to look around when he did we would have undoubtedly witnessed some fatalities. And just to get some photos...

It ain't worth it.

Steve B

 

It may be "still the same railway and still the same platforms" but it ISN'T the same operating environment, especially since in "olden times" there was less concern as people were more responsible about their own safety. Once that vanished and the responsibility for safety became a concern for the train operator(s) the consequent culture change produced a shock reaction that many of the older generation (including myself on occasions) find hard to reconcile with the "freedoms" we enjoyed in times past.

As I have noted before I always relate to the tragedy of the late Dave Hacker who used to organise weekend trips to Rheine to see the last go German (DB) Pacifics at work in the Ems Valley during 1974 / 75. In April 1975 Dave heard a Class 44 2-10-0 starting off from a water stop with a 2000-tonne load and raced across the tracks to get the "master shot". Sadly he tripped up on the rail and fell in front of the small Kof shunting loco and was mangled in the Kof's chain drive !! If a sufficiently "experienced" enthusiast as Dave Hacker can make such a drastic mistake then it woe becomes the rest of us to ignore the warning !

An added element to the current situation is that I have been on Network Rail PTS courses where you learn a lot about dangers trackside on the modern railway and potential consequences. Sadly the cost is too great (£400+) for individual enthusiasts / linesiders to go on these courses but it would be a salutary experience for many to do so !

 

The tragic James Street incident, raised by brasso 1 and commented on by campainr is a most inappropriate analogy to the hordes of enthusiasts spilling down the platform ramps at Chester. This was a young 16 year old Wirral girl who was very drunk and she was the only person on the platform and was still leaning on the train as it was signalled away by the guard.

 

Well maybe, but remember it was reputedly the behaviour of "enthusiasts" at the Eastleigh open day in 1974(?) who spilt all over the tracks to get their shots of Evening Star(running shuttles to Salisbury) which kept steam off the third rail for almost 20 years....

 

7P6F I am not suggesting that people standing on a platform ramp equates to the tragic death of the girl at James Street. I was merely using it as an example of how staff are now held to account. It wouldn't take much for those scenes at Chester and at Shrewsbury as described by Steve to turn into similar tragedies, and then station staff would be asked why they had done nothing to stop it and very serious inquiries could soon follow.

 

The guard at James Street was convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence by a unanimous jury. The judge said it was criminal negligence and a complete disregard for the girl's safety. There is no comparison to what this guard did with any scenario that might have happened at Chester and to insist there is just devalues the not unreasonable argument that spilling over and past the platform ramps is not good.

 

Maybe Unions may pick up on this, and use it as a reason to try to ban mainline steam.. after all "its not my job to watch train spotters".

 

I can't get my head around your connection between these incidents. Of course the unfortunate James Street guard was "held to account",he gave the right-away. The rights and wrongs of what he and the unfortunate girl did or did not do have been debated ad-ifinitum on this and other forums. I can't see the connection between this incident and a supposed query as to why platform staff "had done nothing to stop" a possible incident at Chester.

Whilst accepting the behaviour of the bystanders at Chester was completely unacceptable,surely anticipation of this kind of problem is part of the duties of the TOC managing Chester station. It had after all been known for weeks if not months that these 2 trains were to be in the station at this time.Chester is a very busy station and crowd-control is or should be part of the platform staff's duties. Could not an extra member of platform staff(preferably in an HV vest and with a loud-hailer)have been stationed at the end of each platform to keep order and dissuade the lunatic fringe from spilling over the tracks?

 

I hope people quickly stop using the mersey rail guard as an example of an innocent being blamed for someone else's stupidity. He was, in every sense of the word, criminally responsible for someones death. This is almost as bad as blaming everything on the common market.

And another thing, while I am ranting, why does everything on this board end up with "it will give them an excuse to ban steam on the main line"

 

Hope Helmsdale is a scrap yard Ralph!

 

To alastair and 7P6F I never intended to connect the James Street incident itself into my argument as greatly as you understand. I was merely using it as an example (albeit a very serious one) of what can happen to staff following a death of a member of the public on their watch. All rail staff have been woken up now to the dangers of the "platform/train interface" - an interface which when there is a steam train in a station typically has a rail enthusiast in it. Therefore I find it very unfair that platform staff are given grief by enthusiasts who have removed them from a place where they could have been a threat to themselves. I have already specifically said that I am not linking people just standing on platforms taking pictures of trains with what happened at James Street. The whole thing has got somewhat confused.

And to MrKnowun from what I can gather I agree that different actions by the guard on that train might have prevented that girl's death in that particular manner. However as I am neither him or an eyewitness that is really all I can say on the matter.....

Let's let the James Street tragedy rest now.

 

Suggest you might like to read the RAIB report, which was not allowed to be published until after the criminal case was over, before being quite so definite on any aspect of this tragic case.

The reality is that every railwayman, career or volunteer, needs to carefully consider where that verdict left them, and every operator needs to decide what unacceptable risks they are exposing themselves, their staff and, of course, users of their facilities to.

Let us come back to the real world. Why should they? Modern TOCs are there to run the train service they are contracted to run and make a profit for their shareholders (and not necessarily in that order!). They get paid a comparatively small sum for other TOC's trains calling at stations they manage. This is laid down and regulated. If a train calls, picks up a few well behaved passengers who left no litter and didn't use any toilets provided, then it could be "money for old rope", but the sum is very unlikely to cover providing extra staff, requiring specific risk assessments or risking prosecution of staff or the station operator after an incident. The regulatory system may make it difficult to prevent certain types of train using the station again and the possibility of a reoccurrence but you can bet TOCs will try and who can blame them if all they get for a load of extra costs, hassle and increased risk is a few quid.

I really cannot understand why some enthusiasts seem to think the mainline operators (and for that matter, heritage railways as well) should put with irresponsible and frankly selfish behaviour, all too frequently by people who have not even paid for the privilege of putting themselves and others at risk. Trespass - just don't do it!

Steven

 

I was first to link Chester to James Street... Heres why...

The James Street Incident involved a member of the public taking a risk. In that case, I accept, the actions of the guard have been judged negligent - and so it is not 100% comparable.

However, the link is the risk of death on or around railway platforms. The second link is location - and the concern of staff, particularly in this area of causing a death. Anyway. Regardless of the legal side nobody wants to kill somebody. It happens enough on the railway - mostly with people who wan't to go but its nasty and affects drivers badly. Some don't drive again...

There is also a small but valid concern that, for whatever reason, if a fatality took place, a court may place some blame on the driver.Having worked trains, I would say that the negligence exibited by the Merseyrail guard was an error of judgement which could have easily been any (or at least many) of us. I would say all traincrew took a good look at how they handle drunk rail users on and aroud trains after the incident. I will not lie - I gave two on the buzzer with drunk people banging the outside of the train before now. They could easily have fallen between and I could easily have been sent to prison for it. I pick up far more delays now on Friday and Saturday nights.

 

Regarding staffing, once again, why do suposedly grown up adults need baby-sitting. There is a sign at each platform end, and at some point in the next few years I guess NR will fence them at vast expense.

A already mentioned above, the charge the TOC gets for a station call is minimal. I believe it is actually less than the charge for "disposal of bagged rubbish" though some trains do dump a lot of that! And I can confirm, at least one additional member of platform staff was rostered for that day too.

The railway is very different now. It is a passenger focused railway with a timetable more like mass transist in places. DMU and EMU services are faster, quieter and more frequent than in the past. Trains are still doing a decent speed when they hit the platform.

 

I have, I suggest YOU read the introduction preface 1 and 2 of every RAIB report, that state it is not the intention of any report to assign blame or liability and should not be used for such. It was also evidence, which is why it was not published, not for some other reason you are trying to suggest.

Despite that, the RAIB report lays the blame clearly on the guard. As did the court, (note he was charged with manslaughter - not a lesser charge) and the jury who's job IS to assign blame and liability. Let me quote you this bit from the judges summing up.

In passing sentence Mr Justice Holroyde said: “you displayed an appalling disregard for her safety and she paid for your criminal negligence with her life.”
You were not distracted at the vital moment, or required to turn away in order to operate controls. You had a continuous and perfect view of her.
“In the horror of what you had done you may later have persuaded yourself that you thought she was moving away, but I do not believe you did think that at the time.”


That last bit is key, he lied to the RAIB investigators, he filled out false accident reports and he showed no remorse for any of his actions

So yes I am definite, so is the legal system, and the industry, and his union that he acted in a deliberately criminally negligent manner. That is why i suggest his actions be ring fenced and not dragged into the discussion about railway staff being inadvertently blamed for passenger accidents.

 

I say again. Regardless of the legal issues, no member of railway staff wants to kill a member of the public. No member of the public should expose themselves to any risk either through drink and drugs or through wanting to get a lovely photo of a steam train......