National lineside permits

but we don't always need to get up close

 

And?

Trespass itself is a crime and it cannot be justified - end of.

If I were a railway boss I would be far more concerned about being shut down by the ORR due to the lack of a proper SMS and PTS regime rather than making a few bob out of photographers.

Companies have to deal with the situation as it actually is - not as others might wish it to be. The results of cheap and easy litigation (which is what ultimately has driven much of the legislative changes over the past two decades) are here to stay - so get used to it.

 

I doubt it. Such types normally refuse to take off their rose tinted glasses and wake up to the reality that (1) the world has moved on since the 1950s in what is considered good practice and (2) In most cases the world is a lot safer place as a result of said actions (easily provable by analysis of relevant death & injury statistics).

 

I didn't say it can be justified and I'm not sure that trespass on a heritage railway is a statutory crime as it is on the national network. My point was that we have landed ourselves in a situation, not just with railways, where we employ unproductive people who do nothing but regulate others for no good reason and it's time to start resisting it. A few years ago I could go to, say the Bluebell Railway buy a day lineside pass and go on my way. Since the first heritage lines opened in the 60s how many photographers have been killed or maimed? Yes we can go lineside now on a charter but how long will it be before a man in a suit comes along and says, you can't do this anymore?
I believe the KWVR will still issue permits without formality to members and a lot of others do so but require you to take some pointless written exam first. What it needs is some form of guidance from above as I'm sure some lines are overreacting to what they perceive to be a problem that possibly doesn't exist.

 

I've seen the statistics for industrial injuries and it doesn't prove what you say taking no account of the decline in heavy industrial jobs over the years

 

I agree with that, you don't on a lot of locations but trackside walking is the only way of reaching a lot of them

 

Quite so and if a railway has put forward a safety case for line side photographic access that satisfies the authorities and their insurers then fair play to them.

 

I'm afraid John you probably have the 'claim farming' members of the legal profession to thank for this - in other words, what happens if the worst happens - if the ORR doesn't close the railway down and it go bust that way, then a hefty legal claim due to it not taking 'due care' could well finish it off another (the insurers not being interested if proper systems aren't in place and adhered to or they deem the risk too great to insure - and I seem to recall insurers involvement being mentioned in respect of events on the WSR).

In my experience, as I know I have said before, the vast majority of safety professionals (the real professionals) are 'can do' people who will work out how to enable an activity to be done safely - both in practical and 'liability' terms. The problem with Lineside Permits is that potentially there are large numbers of individuals over a considerable geographic area involved, with differing standards of comprehension of the risks etc. Many incidents occur when something out of the ordinary is happening, so unscheduled or unexpected movements provide a greater risk as the photographer will not focused on what they are not expecting! Sadly, there have also been numerous incidents where vastly experienced people have done things for which no explanation can be determined - and tragically often resulting in them not being about to explain why!

Steven

 

You are right, I don't suppose we will get it but what is required is a change in the law making people responsible for their own stupidity, the alternative is to end up with life so regulated that it won't be worth living. I did look it up, since 1960 there have been no deaths or serious injury to any linsider on a heritage railway.
Speaking to one or two European visitors on photo charters we are a bit of a laughing stock already

 

There is no need to monitor a "national" pass per se. The pass would be restricted to access to Heritage Lines only and be issued by either the HRA (as a national body) or the local Heritage Line (where most line-side accesses would take place). The permit could then be a standard charge to be agreed; the KWVR charges £20:00 plus membership of the KWVR so a price of £50:00 per year to include membership of the issuing line does not seem unreasonable.

I understand the points raised by Phil-d259 and accept that there needs to be a safety case for each Heritage Line but - surely - once a national standard lineside test is agreed then it should be s simple matter to update individual SMSs to include (a) acceptance of the new test (b) the issued lineside pass from other Heritage Lines and (c) the need for lineside visitors to sign in and pay for the "local access "restrictions" that are applied.

The main problem as I see it - and noted by others - is that if lineside access is denied then people will simply trespass and cause further problems but the operation of a lineside permit system at least shows effort being made to provide a measure of control; a further benefit is that linesiders can also act as observers and note reportable incidents such as infrastructure problems and trespass (especially by local people taking shortcuts).

I am minded of an incident at Corby in the 1980s when my neighbour used to take his dog over the railway to the lifted Corby Sidings yard each day. One Sunday when I met him whilst photographing the diverted services to / from St Pancras and I queried his presence he said that he came because there were "no trains" running. When I pointed out out the diverted express that was just passing en route to St Pancras he almost fainted with shock as he - like many others - knew that no passenger trains passed that point normally but had no idea that occasional freight services and Sunday diversions operated. After that experience he elected to find a different route for his dog walks.

 

As a KWVR lineside permit holder, please allow me to correct your "beliefs". The permit is issued once you are a member with an issued membership number. When you apply for a lineside pass you are issued with a Rule Book and a 10 question questionnaire which must be returned before the pass is approved. To answer the questionnaire you need to read the Rule Book thus - by definition - if you answer the questions correctly you have read the Rule Book hence have no excuse for breaching the rules.

There is no reason why a national test couldn't apply similar processes but - like Phil-d259 - I am aware that some linesiders still take risks and I am minded of the GCR member who stepped too close to the trackside and was injured by a passing train hence consequently disciplined by the GCR. Such individuals do exist and any system needs to take note of that risk but that is no reason not to consider the operation of a national Heritage Line Access Permit to counter it.

 

Third paragraph is the most relevant Fred, I've put out the odd lineside fire and on one occasion some years ago waved down a train on the SVR to warn the driver about some sheep on the line due to someone a lot less responsible than me leaving a field gate open.

 

Haven't we all? Long while ago now but I took a holiday on the KWVR back in 1976. I think me and my mate spent as much time putting out line side fires as we did taking photographs.

 

Then I suggest that you also read some recent RAIB reports (Redhill, Shawford and the class report on track worker incidents will do for starters) for an insight into how easily incidents occur, and lives destroyed. I have seen accounts from the GCR about drivers being concerned about photographers focussing so intently on their shot that they've been oblivious to other trains around.

A balance does need to be found, and it may well be too far in one direction at present. But you do your side of the argument no favours by arguing in those terms.

 

It seems there's enough pro-LSP people here to form a national LSP body to sort it all out

LSPs used to matter to me but I admit these days I'm more likely to seek out locations with public access so I'm not bothered about lineside access.

Steve

 

The guidance is there - its called complying with ROGS legislation. 'Resisting it' as you put it will do nothing to change that - in fact all such a stance would achieve is increase the risks of large fines ir the railway being shut down by the ORR as not having a SMS fit for purpose.

You need to get your head round the fact that Heritage railways MUST comply with the law that is ROGS - and ROGS simply does not permit any organisation to let any organisation allow persons to be on the track without taking a 'pointless exam' as you put it to demonstrate that the railway concerned as adequately addressed all the risks pertaining to their infrastructure. As I said earlier, the fact that hazards may be very similar between two different organisations or be 'common sense' as many like to quote, means nothing to the regulators / legal profession - who demand a full paper trail being left proving every last detail.

If you dislike this then rather than harping on at the Heritage railway sector you need to start being politically active and get the legislation that underpins the current approch changed via the Westminster Parliament.

 

The only one 'harping on' is you.

 

However if the a prospective linesider still needs to have a safety briefing and pass a test on the 'local restrictions' (as demanded by ROGS via each railways SMS) then you have to ask what is the point of the national test anyway? You might as well simply include the 'national' part of the test in with the local one anyway - if people have answered that section correctly on other railways then they shouldn't have any trouble answering it again for the latest railway they wish to visit and it is hardly going to add significantly to the duration of the process, plus it means said railway also has a paper trail to show should something go wrong and the ORR start investigating.

Ultimately what many people still have trouble comprehending is that regardless of whether there is some form of national scheme, a holder of such a pass still cannot gain them access to any railway they want. Far too many lineside photographers seem to want the ability to simply turn up when they want on multiple different railways whenever they wish like they used to be able to 20, / 30 / 40 years ago. Well I'm sorry life changes and the current ROGS legislation effectively bans such a relaxed attitude from being possible and effectively demands all lineside photogrpahers they take a PTS test for the particular railway they want to visit first and that aspect can NEVER be addressed by any 'national' scheme.

 

I'm not suggesting anyone wanders around the national network, a very different matter to a 25mph heritage line. The fact that no incidents have occurred over the past 55 years tells me that all this nonsense is not required.

 

I know you are not, but you miss my point entirely - the incidents in the reports referred to may have been higher risk because of the speeds involved, but they relate to behaviours that put people in unnecessary danger, and which have been seen (though fortunately without death or serious injury) on preserved railways. I would suggest that some of those behaviours are also being exhibited on this thread.

I don't find it contradictory to also consider that the current risk management approach enshrined in law is becoming overly onerous.

I have no interests to declare, having never held an LSP and no desire so to do.