The use of drone cameras over heritage railways

What its 100% safe in this day and age? More dangerous driving on busy roads to your railway of choice than being blitzed by a drone.

 

Same for cars, planes, buses, trains etc.. Gonna ban all them?

 

Thanks for the link very useful.

Personally I would be less inclined to use one at galas as the noise would annoy people trying to get a nice video or photo. On a more 'average' running day, there's less likely to be as many people and cameras around.

 

What risks you and I take as individuals is one thing; in this case I am writing as a railway operator, which is quite another. When running a railway, or any other operation which involves responsibility for other peoples safety, you must consider all risks. The point about drones is that gravity always works and what goes up always comes down, eventually. This is not a problem as long as the drone's operation is properly managed, but if something went wrong and one came down and hit, say, a small child, I know only too well who would be held responsible.
It may seem like overreaction, but I recall the trouble and expense that resulted from a 2-year old falling from a carriage seat when a train stopped suddenly. All she sustained was a nose-bleed, but I hate to think what effect collision with a crashing or out-of-control drone would have.

 

My understanding is from a friend in the radio control aircraft fraternity that operators have to be licensed to fly their aircraft at public demonstrations and that there are various 'levels' of qualification according to the perceived risk. I assume that, for some reason, these drone cameras are exempt. Ray.

 

They would be more then welcome to film at my clay pigeon club. Can't guarantee the drone's safety though

 

How do you enforce that? I can see it being just about possible at a heritage centre, where you have control over all the entry / exit points; rather more difficult at a heritage line where there may be multiple public crossings that allow access to the line, and where there may also be perfectly legitimate access to land adjacent to the railway that is completely outside the railway's own control.

Probably one for the lawyers, but for example, if I crossed a boundary fence on foot without permission it would be trespass. But what about if I stand in a public area but control a drone remotely over someone else's private property without permission?

Tom

 

Actually, in New York City, someone was killed by their own small helicopter (head injuries, IIRC). So they are quite dangerous.

Noel

 

Trespass is not a crime anyway , you can be asked to leave and sued for any damage you cause, that is all.

 

Small helicopter is not the same as a "drone", at least not the ones which carry video cameras. Rotor blades and engine are a totally different size/power.

Then you need to apply the usual risk assessment procedures: consider both the level of injury/damage that might be caused AND the actual chance of this happening. A drone flying over a railway line, away from a station, is highly UNLIKELY to cause any SIGNIFICANT damage/injury.

Injuries have been caused by slippery footbridge steps and the step between the platform and the carriage door. But I don't see these being banned.

As with anything, the law/guidelines exist to reduce the risk or severity of harm.But there will always be some people who are not aware of them or choose to ignore them.

Richard

 

So I ask my pilot friend to fly me up to Wansford to do some air to ground photography. Aircraft runs into problems and we force land in the NVR carpark, causing damage and injury. Are you trying to say the NVR will be held responsible? I very much doubt it. I see drones in the same way, especially if the operator is not on railway property.

 

In most cases yes but trespass on military property and other government owned areas is a criminal offence.

 

Railway Trespass is different - from the CPS Website:

"Railway Trespass
Several summary offences deal with this (Stones 7-7041):

• Section 16 Railway Regulation Act 1840: it is an offence to wilfully trespass on any railway or premises connected therewith and to refuse to leave when asked to do so by any officer or agent of the railway company. 'Wilfulness' can be proved by the refusal to leave. The offence is punishable by one month's imprisonment
• Section 23 Regulation of the Railways Act 1868: this prohibits passage upon or across any railway line except for the purpose of crossing the line at an authorised point. A person commits an offence by so doing after having once received warning by the railway company, their servants or agents, to desist
• Section 55 British Transport Commission Act 1949: this penalises trespass on railway lines or property in dangerous proximity to such lines or electrical apparatus. Evidence is required of a notice exhibited at the station nearest the place of offence providing a clear public warning not to trespass on a railway. Punishable by a fine."

The Section 16 offence states that it is an offence to wilfully trespass and to refuse to leave - in other words, the offence of trespass is complete by presence on the Railway or associated land, whereas refusal to leave is necessary on other land (there are various types of non-Railway trespass which are offences in addition to that on other Government property). The CPS take refusal to leave as showing trespass is wilful. This suggest they wouldn't prosecute where somebody leaves when asked, but they would have the legal right to do so.

Some heritage railways have bye-laws which definitely extend the offence of Railway trespass to them.

Steven

 

I'm not sure there is any definitive terminology to differentiate among 'drone', 'model helicopter', etc.

In this particular instance, an article about the guy's death indicates that the model helicopter in question "measur[ed] several feet end to end", which is pretty much the same size as the first helicopter photo drone I found in a quick Google search (which is 36"x34").

The article also mentions several other deaths caused by remote-control model helicopters. Of course, most accidents aren't that serious; the article contains this link to a page about other injuries, and the hazards of model helicopters.

Look, I'm not taking any position about whether these things should be allowed. I just want to point out that the dangers aren't just theoretical, or some nervous-Nellie scaremongering.

Noel

 

Are some people getting their priorities confused? Or worse, playing the public safety card in their own favour, rather than in its own right? If we propose that we can safely manage pressure vessels with the potential destructive capability of a very large bomb, and lumps of heavy metal being moved about the premises with the sort of energy that crushes human flesh and bone without thinking about it or noticing, a small aerial device that emits a buzzing noise, even in amateur hands, ain't much of a threat in the grand sacheme of things. And if they serve to raise the standard of interest in railway videos posted on Youtube some of which are both tedious and eye-wateringly inept, the benefits are surely not to be sniffed at? If we are going to say that the whole drone enterprise should be banned because one was found at the top of a mountain, then it follows that SMR must close simply because one of their engines once found itself accidentally at the bottom of one. The West Somerset video mentioned above, and there is a similar one of GWSR, are fascinating. Most of the ground based tat on Youtube is not. Equally, the results of a drone hitting DB's very robust OLE is easy to predict - drone breaks and falls on the ground. End of! The train service won't notice -it is OLE, not candy floss!

 

The pressure vessels are heavily regulated. The Drones are not.

 

well you would, just stand by for the claim(s)

 

Obviously I didn't make my point simply enough. The point I was making was that if the drone was 'lost' then it must have been out of control at some point. Fortunately it didn't fall to Earth amongst a crowd of people watching the T.T. but on an isolated mountain side. It is interesting that no-one has mentioned the recent magazine article which relates to a bystander suffering facial injuries from one of these supposedly harmless toys. I hope the owner had good insurance! Of course life is never going to be 100% safe but we can all take reasonable steps to minimize the risks. Ray.

 

Try using one wilfully or without due regard and you will find the CPS have plenty of remedies against you under existing law. There has been much mention of safety, all of it speculative. Do a list of the top 100 bad things likely to happen on or about the railway, and Drones will not appear on it. Any sane railway hazard analysis will contain poor maintenance, poor training, poor workshop tidiness, out of date testing and assessment, low levels of competence, speeding, non-compliance with national standards, elderly or unfit staff who sent somebody else to do their medical, antiquarian drivers not reading the Notices because they've left their reading glasses at home, engines being used when they should not be, deferred pw renewals, out of date PTS cards, trip and fall hazards, unmaintained lineside fencing, inadequate compliance with level crossing legislation, non-existent safety briefing systems, examples of which all exist in the heritage movement today, though fortunately not all on the same railway. Calling for a "Drone Act 2014" is just displacement activity and fixes nothing.