Trespassers

Not at all. It's all down to the individual railway's Risk Assessment and the policing of that Assessment. If the RA allows lineside photters, then providing that all the linesiders meet the RA requirements then fine. But if that RA is based on spurious grounds or without due regard to the local situations, then heaven help us all.

There are some lines that are, shall we say, more concerned with H&S than others. That may not please those who want to visit outwith the local regulations, but that's just the way it is. There isn't a one-size-fits-all policy, I'm afraid.

Going back to my industry, one of the greatest areas of concern is large goods vehicles reversing. Many construction sites employ banksmen - that is a trained site worker, fully kitted out with PPE, who's job is to ensure that reversing a vehicle is carried out under supervision. However, following injuries and fatalities to those very banksmen, other sites have withdrawn them, leaving the duty of care on the driver himself. We then get back to the cowboy operators who may well employ drivers who cannot reverse a large vehicle correctly or understand accepted banksman instructions.

Given the current H&S climate and the litigious nature of the ambulance chasers, it will only take one fatality to close many preserved lines. Do those of you who 'turn a blind eye' to trespass, in whatever form, want to see that?

 

Sorry Porous Pot, whilst your intentions may be honourable, this kind of scaremongering serves no useful purpose IMHO.

 

Your HO won't count for much if something goes horribly, horribly wrong.

 

Your HO won't count for much if something goes horribly, horribly wrong.[/quote:1bc0uj1e]

Maybe so.

 

I have to agree - We live in such a mad world that "Trespass" is no defence against a subsequent injury claim. In the old days the law would have taken the view that you should not have been there and you put yourself in danger. Sadly today in a civil case the law will more likey ask if enough was done to stop you hurting yourself.

 

No worries chap.

Indeed, most preserved railways run on single line principles, however the one where I spend my free time happens to be double track. No more or less dangerous, but very different at times. It's not always hard to spot the photographers who spend the majority of their time on single track lines - they tend to be the ones that assume they're safe as long as they're clear of the train they're photographing. Whilst it is of couse true that that is a dangerous assumption on any line, it's possibly even more so with double track. It is, perhaps, a good illustration of how a single policy for lineside photography on all preserved railways will be very hard to formulate given the differing nature of those lines.

I agree wholeheartedly, with the following reservation.

If some idiot comes to grief through an act of ignorance or negligence on their part after having made a concious decision to trespass on the lineside, then I suspect that there would be a lot less trouble for the line involved than if the corpse is subsequently found to be in possession of a permit from the line authorising them to (and certifying them as competent to) work on their infrastructure. For a start the RAIB will not be remotely interested in the matter

I fear that the investment of both time and money necessary to reassure a company that all the lineside photographers that turn up under such a scheme are equipped with similar training and equipment to their own staff who are permitted to work on or about the line would probably be unattractive to both parties.

Flip

 

A friend of mine once fell from a bridge whilst on the lineside
of a heritage railway. Serious injuries resulted. The various
agencies were informed at the outcome was? Not closure but
a simple rewriting of the rules regarding lineside access. As
for those predicting the closure of heritage lines in the event
of a fatality, how much of the national network has been
closed as a result of fatalities? The same question applies to
heritage railways that have suffered fatalities also.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

 

Railway companies can be, and have been, fined enormous sums following deaths on their infratructure. How many preserved lines could cope with such a penalty without facing a serious threat of closure ?

 

Please define "HO". All I can think of is either Home Office, or HO gauge as in model railways.

Chris

 

Hypothetically; a photographer who has undergone PTS training on say - the NYMR, gets himself killed by not following the rules he has signed up to follow. Tragic accident. Do we now say that NYMR are liable for Corporate Manslaughter or some drummed up H and S charge ?

 

Not at all, if the inevitable lengthy investigation concludes that his training, equipment, &c. were adequate and that it was entirely down to misadventure on the part of the deceased then there is still sufficient common sense in this world (at the moment) to conclude it was an accident. If deficiencies in the training he received are identified as contributing to the death, then that's another matter.

Hypothetical question number 2. A lineside photographer has joined a nationwide scheme used by all preserved railways to license photographers and assure their competency to work on the line. He joins at Preserved Railway A and is assessed as competent by their administrator and issued with his permit. He spends a few weekends pottering around at A, which consists of a short demonstration line, a restoration shed and a few sidings full of demic stock, then decides he wants a bit more "action" so takes himself off to Preserved Railway B where he shows his national scheme membership card, is given a comprehensive briefing sheet, signs in and, whilst lining up his first shot of the 1315 Down Express, is run down by a Jocko propelling stock in the yard, largely because his "home" line never do shunting on running days and nobody thought to mention something as basic as that there might be more than one movement going on at a time.

Who is responsible ? Railway A who trainined him ? Railway B, who accepted that training at face value and didn't ensure he was as competent as his permit suggested ? Both ? Neither ?

Flip

 

I'm not sure if your post is meant to be tongue in cheek but in this context it means 'humble opinion' as in 'IMHO - in my humble opinion'.

 

It would depend on the investigation team. If they felt that the rules were inadequate, misleading, open to misinterpretation, not enforced or not audited then all sorts of charges could be brought. Remember, the H&SE have far wider powers than your average Bobby, have far greater specific training and more importantly, nothing to loose by bringing a case against the railway concerned AND its Directors, both as a corporate entity and individually.

 

Wider powers have no bearing on the rules of evidence and standard of proof required by the criminal law. The RAIB boys (and girls) are thorough - I worked alongside them them often enough on rail accident investigations to know that.. But they deal in facts, not half-baked theories drummmed up to support their view of the world. I would have total confidence on the outcome of any RAIB investigation. So if what is so confidently predicted in this thread ever comes to pass, I'll go with the result!

In the meantime, I still believe its better to issue permits on completion of a PTS course (to an approved standard) rather that have permits with no training or no permits at all. Others have a different view - so be it.

 

No argument from me on that one !

Flip

 

I don't think we are far apart on our thinking here. RAIB and HSE are professional and focused - very narrowly focused in comparison to your average Bobby who has to be all things to all people. But it must be remembered that their powers are wide-ranging and extensive. That is why so many organisations strive to keep on the right side of them. Of course a PTS course, well audited and policed is far, far better than a simple 'sign on the dotted line' approach to line access.

I wouldn't go so far as to say anyone is predicting anything on this thread. It's just that some prefer not to look at the world with rose tinted glasses. Better not to deal with the accident than prevent it happening in the first place.

 

Thankfully the RAIB are no longer tainted with being part of the HSE, common-sense ruled when they managed to extricate themselves from that dreadful marriage! =D>

 

It was not tongue in cheek. Whilst I already knew 'IMHO', I neither understood, recognised or associated your 'HO' abbreviation with the former.

Chris

 

The RAIB was never part of the HSE. The HMRI was part of the HSE but is now part of the ORR. When it comes to "reportable" accident investigation on the big railway you get the BTP, RAIB and HSE all carrying out their own parallel investigations, not very nice I can tell you.

John

 

I think you know what i meant. However, I can't speak for HSE involvement, but BTP and RAIB work closely and, dependent on the cicumstances one would have primacy.