Mainline steam trespassing incedent !

When steam services were commonplace, trains ran into stations at "decent" speed.

Much has changed on the railway in my lifetime but the most significant change as far as this discussion is concerned was the introduction of the 1974 Health & Safety at Work Act. Developments due to this act are on-going and complex. As has been stated previously there has been a cultural shift in our attitudes towards self-responsibility and our responsibilities to others. The members of this forum have varied perspectives. One certainty is that the broad management of the railway will not be influenced by the froth generated on this forum.

 

The mass "trespass" indecent referred to above, and the one I witnessed at Nutfield, these days seems mainly to be one-off trippers, sightseers, casual photographers, and generally people who do not hang around railways that often and no idea of rules, operations, etiquette or safety. The mass indents are much more dangerous, space gets tight, jostling and tripping are a real risk. The major catalyst for this seems to be the Local Paper, Local Radio News, or the local Jungle Drums.

 

Im not going to argue with you, but please see sense... A 175 rolling down the bank to Platform 3b will be on top of those people at the far 'a' end before they have seen or heard it over the noise of other trains. Before the black 5's arrival there was a line of people sat on the edging stones of 3a, and a pair of Class 97s on the up and down main. The idiots just would not move and I suspect some poo came out for the driver of the Manchester-Llandudno.

And MrK - The people discribed above should have some common sense, and the people off the platform, irrespective of "type" are obviously in the wrong.

 

Yes, I think a good few of you are missing the point. Noone wants to ruin anyone's fun or label Enthusiasts as irresponsible. The point is, just as soon as one of these loonies are killed or maimed, that will be that for Mainline Steam.

Enthusiasts should be setting a good example in these situations and even stepping up to police the situation themselves. The first moment someone steps over the line, SOMEONE should yell at them!

 

And so the debate continues.

I take a very simplistic view on this issue.

Trespassing on Railway land etc is a criminal offence.

So I don't do it.

 

I don't do it (any more)

 

To be honest I don't think it will be...

BUT - it will be a unnecessary death on the railway. A death that a driver will have to live with. At the moment at our place there always seems to be a driver off following a fatality. We must be into double figures for 2013...

There are comments about variation in signage...

The bit of the platform rail users use is public and is safe - but keep back from the edge.
Anywhere rail users don't go, nobody should go - ramps, overgrown areas and trackside are off limits.

 

I am perfectly aware of the very wise basis under which RAIB work to learn from accidents and make recommendations to prevent reoccurrence and reduce wider risk. I sensed somewhat of a feeling at the time that the report was with-held until after the criminal case was over because it didn't wholly back the portrayal of events central to the Prosecution Case, but clearly, use of the findings of an RAIB report in a criminal trial would undermine the organisation's central aim of not apportioning (or being involved) in apportioning blame.

Nevertheless, and having lectured me on the aim of RAIB, you then proceed to state that the report does blame the guard. I suggest you read the whole report, and probably a few other RAIB reports, to get used to their style of reporting, which stems from that principle aim you rightly highlight from the introduction to every report. It can seem brutal perhaps at times but it states facts and then aims to understand them, learn from them and make recommendations to avoid future reoccurance.

As for the judge's comments, had his Lordship been able to read the RAIB report, he would not have made a blatantly untrue assertion. A major point here, and on many trains of similar vintage, is that the door controls operated by the Guard are next to an automatic door with no opening window. It seems from the RAIB report that, as that is effectively the cab door and not a passenger door, the train can move with it open on Merseyrail units, unlike many similar units, and some guards did ensure they had a continuous view of the platform by departing in this way - strictly contrary to rules and regulations. However, the laid down dispatch procedure meant an inevitable period when the guard can see little of the platform between closing the door, giving the train ready to move signal and moving to the opening cab window to resume observation of the platform; a position from which the panel could not be reached nor could any faster method of sending"stop" to the driver be deployed. The report is very clear on this. It is equally clear that the view wasn't perfect either, and that research had shown oft repeated tasks can involve "looking without seeing".

How could the judge have known what the Guard was thinking? And where do the RAIB say that he lied to them (I have seen them make such inferences in other cases)? Indeed, the list of evidence refers to witness statements, not witness interviews, so there is nothing to say he (or other staff involved) even spoke to RAIB.

I and many other have presumed that there is an appeal but the longer time passes without there being news, one cannot be sure. Many in the industry have drawn the conclusion that there were many factors at play here and it was not simply a "criminal disregard for safety". A look at other, similar cases where prosecutions have not resulted (listed briefly in the report) would only heighten a sense of unease over being unable to see a clear dividing line.

How is any of this relevant to mass trespass related to mainline steam? As I have already stated, anybody involved with train despatch was left taking a long hard look at whether they could, in the worst of circumstances, could find themselves being blamed for a tragedy where the victims, systems and equipment design all played a part in them being held responsible and liable for what then happens.

This is the parallel with what could happen if the worst occurred when people are so desperate for the master shot of a steam loco that the wander everywhere. By definition, their attention is with the steam loco, not other traffic on the line they are standing on or near. We clearly no longer have a society which would simply say "more fool them", and perhaps rightly so - their family, the train crew concerned and all the other people who have witnessed the tragedy have to live with what they have seen.

However, could anyone on really expected the attitude would be "more fool them"? Would the reality be that questions would be asked of the station operator - why were the platforms not fenced, were warning signs adequate, what did the staff do or not do, was the signal box informed, why was all traffic not stopped and the BTP called? Did they walk past a member of staff who said nothing, or stood watching them on the lines without acting? Is that member of staff "criminally negligent"? Who is financially liable? Did the steam train promoter or operator do enough to prevent a problem? If an approaching train does an emergency stop leading to injuries on board, who is liable then?

It doesn't really matter whether the people doing this are enthusiasts or just interested passers-by - the heightened risk will affect a wide range of people being willing to be tolerate and facilitate mainline steam on their part of the network.

A full ban would not as simple as "BRB says so" as it once was, but RAIB might have to recommend that steam trains are not run from large stations or on busy lines, and ORR might struggle not to have to act. Equipment that imports unnecessary risk of any type can be prohibited from or restricted in operation on the network, so at least restrictions and an end to many of the popular high profile trips that get most videos and photos on here could be possible.

I would also add that whatever the criminal or moral liability, staff and others involved would probably never be quite the same again - I know people who have been affected by the end result of the stupidity of others, and indeed can all too well remember serious operational incidents when I have been working. This is no minor point but do those who think that, because they are enthusiasts and know it all, can stand that bit nearer the edge or lean that bit further out past the photographer in front, ever stop and consider what their position may look like to the crew of an approaching train and what effect it might have if that crew have been involved in tragedies which they could nothing to prevent previously?

Steven

 

>I am perfectly aware of the very wise basis under which RAIB work to learn from accidents and make recommendations to prevent reoccurrence and reduce wider risk. I >sensed somewhat of a feeling at the time that the report was with-held until after the criminal case was over because it didn't wholly back the portrayal of events central to the >Prosecution Case, but clearly, use of the findings of an RAIB report in a criminal trial would undermine the organisation's central aim of not apportioning (or being involved) >in apportioning blame.


>>Nevertheless, and having lectured me on the aim of RAIB,

The lecturing started in your house.

>>you then proceed to state that the report does blame the guard. I suggest you read the whole report,

I have, Have you read the causal factors? 67A


>>and probably a few other RAIB reports, to get used to their style of reporting, which stems from that principle aim you rightly highlight from the introduction to every report.

I have read numerous RAIB reports,


>>As for the judge's comments, had his Lordship been able to read the RAIB report, he would not have made a blatantly untrue assertion.

Oh Ok I see. The Judge is a liar and the RAIB report cleared the guard.


Sensible discourse ends here I think. I'll leave you too it.

 

just call them morons and if the btp want their names give them and hopefully after a prosecution they will be banned for life.

 

Going off topic for "MrKnow itall"

The report gives a balanced view. Sadly our legal system does not.

The guard got it wrong. He made an error of judgment. He did what many had done many times before. I have, prior to the incident exposed myself to similar risk.

The court case was judged, in my view, with a very emotional view. Very little blame was placed on her state - drunk and drugged at 16 and behaving badly jumping on and off the train at other stations. The judge made assumptions which neither he, nor anybody else can actually be sure of.

Once again

"The link is simply that she took a risk but did not deserve to die on the railway - Enthusiasts are taking risks and one day one of them might also die on the railway"

 

What about Causal Factors 67 b to d? (And one should never link the list or ordering of casual factors to apportioning blame - as I said, that isn't how the reports are written). And which is it - do RAIB apportion blame or not - you say they don't and then state who they blame!

So you think the comment you quoted from the judge is not contradicted by the detailed RAIB reporting of the sequence of events and the pictures of the guard's door and door control panel? Now, I will admit, that, seemingly unlike you, I have not read a transcript of the trial so I can only conclude that what was said in Court did not cover these points.

I have not said that the RAIB report cleared the guard as I concur that it's purpose is not to apportion blame. However, and of most relevance to the trespass danger that this thread highlights, it makes clear a number of factors contributed to the set of circumstances leading to the James Street tragedy and and we all know that an individual member of staff was held criminally liable for it. The parallel to many factors contributing to a situation of foreseeable danger arising from the behaviour of some around steam trains on the mainline (and, actually, heritage railways too at times) is surely reasonably clear and the result on the tolerance of such risk by Station Operators, their staff and those staff's union representatives must surely be just as clear.

Steven

 

A clown in the circus is funny, a clown on the railway is a danger

 

>>> Going off topic for "MrKnow itall"

Ah the ultimate failure in discussion - attack the poster and not the post.

>>The report gives a balanced view. Sadly our legal system does not.

>>The guard got it wrong. He made an error of judgment. He did what many had done many times before. I have, prior to the incident exposed myself to similar risk.

>>The court case was judged, in my view, with a very emotional view. Very little blame was placed on her state - drunk and drugged at 16 and behaving badly jumping on and >>off
>>the train at other stations. The judge made assumptions which neither he, nor anybody else can actually be sure of.

Even the balanced view of the RAIB report did not list her state as a causal factor. Her state ( and as you suggest he knew her state) should have resulted in the Guard acting with greater vigilance.

 

It was a low insult but I could not resist. I do accept that I won't convince you over James Street - but I hope you are never in the position of "making the wrong call and it costing you dearly" and if you are you are looked upon with some compasion.

It is fair to say that unless you have worked a train in similar circumstances you won't understand what happened that night.

Swinging back to the original topic, some stratergy needs to be found to deal with this trespass problem.



Does anybody have any constructive ideas which will not cost the station operators a fortune. I am aware we have some volunteer tour stewards on here and I remember on a past-time trip years ago the stewards did protect the platform ends during water stops at Taunton and Exeter. Doesnt help come departure time but at least it was something. Maybe the tour companies could find some local volunteers to keep the platform ends tidy - RTC must have some local people for the excursions based in the North West.

 

only the police have any powers, staff, stewards et al can only 'request' people to move and are certainly not allowed to use any force

 

A physical presence and a request is often (though not always) all you need.

Transport Police resources are extremley limited and it would be wrong to tie them up in babysitting duties.

 

just let em trespass, if they get killed, then they get killed, simples

 

And screw the driver that has to live with hitting them?

 

So whoever gave drink to 16 year olds with no sense of responsibility shoulders no blame ?.