Message to some photographers and videographers: Sorry people but i need to rant.

[t_star2001uk]

This applies to only a tiny minority of photographers and videographers. You know who you are.

When you are at a station taking pictures please be aware of the metal barriers on the end of certain platforms. These are there for your safety and are not to be crossed. If you have crossed the barrier and are asked by staff to come back to the platform side, dont ignore us and carry on filming or taking pictures. The above occured on 17/03/2016. The gentleman concerned had to be asked 3 times before returning to the safe side of the barrier. And what did he achieve, a video of a loco a hairy assed driver in the way asking him to come back across the barrier. Now, as a driver if you ask for info or want a specific picture or video, if i can help or assist i will try, but people who just go to unsafe areas will get the rest of the rail photography and indeed the enthusiast community a bad name.

Sorry for ranting but i hope the gentleman concerned reads this and thinks about his actions next time he visits a station....

 

[TeaTrain]

Hmmm I have to say as a guard who works the 67/DVT stock from hhd to cdf and the man pic the one thing I have to do at least once a week is explain to the person sticking his head and camera out the window that if he does indeed like his camera. And head. To keep it inside. Amazing how many people have no sense. Im sure back when I was growing up there were adverts on tv teaching kids not to stick their heads out the train windows. Back in the 90's.

Its really not worth the video or photograph and like you say. Some of us know first hand the consequences of someone tresspassing. And it isnt nice.

 

[ScouserGirl]

Just look at all the people who trespassed for the flying Scotsman and then they decided to take photos of themselves on the track and post to social media! It's really not worth the risk to trespass!

 

[Antman]

Just look at all the people who trespassed for the flying Scotsman and then they decided to take photos of themselves on the track and post to social media! It's really not worth the risk to trespass!

Taking selfies does kind of give BTP all the evidence they need

 

[ComUtoR]

Unless people get prosecuted then its still going to be open season.

 

[ScouserGirl]

Taking selfies does kind of give BTP all the evidence they need

I know yeah the fools didn't think of that part did they!

 

[chorleyjeff]

This applies to only a tiny minority of photographers and videographers. You know who you are.

When you are at a station taking pictures please be aware of the metal barriers on the end of certain platforms. These are there for your safety and are not to be crossed. If you have crossed the barrier and are asked by staff to come back to the platform side, dont ignore us and carry on filming or taking pictures. The above occured on 17/03/2016. The gentleman concerned had to be asked 3 times before returning to the safe side of the barrier. And what did he achieve, a video of a loco a hairy assed driver in the way asking him to come back across the barrier. Now, as a driver if you ask for info or want a specific picture or video, if i can help or assist i will try, but people who just go to unsafe areas will get the rest of the rail photography and indeed the enthusiast community a bad name.

Sorry for ranting but i hope the gentleman concerned reads this and thinks about his actions next time he visits a station....

Add to thelist those who think it's a good idea to make large gaps in stone walls around the railway line at Ribblehead. Sawthe results earlier this week. An absolute disgrace that people should think it is OK to knock down dry stone walls to take yet another train photo

 

[Deepgreen]

This applies to only a tiny minority of photographers and videographers. You know who you are.

When you are at a station taking pictures please be aware of the metal barriers on the end of certain platforms. These are there for your safety and are not to be crossed. If you have crossed the barrier and are asked by staff to come back to the platform side, dont ignore us and carry on filming or taking pictures. The above occured on 17/03/2016. The gentleman concerned had to be asked 3 times before returning to the safe side of the barrier. And what did he achieve, a video of a loco a hairy assed driver in the way asking him to come back across the barrier. Now, as a driver if you ask for info or want a specific picture or video, if i can help or assist i will try, but people who just go to unsafe areas will get the rest of the rail photography and indeed the enthusiast community a bad name.

Sorry for ranting but i hope the gentleman concerned reads this and thinks about his actions next time he visits a station....

Nothing wrong with a well-placed rant! I agree with the sentiments - it's been a tedious struggle to have recognition of the freedom we all should enjoy to photograph scenes that are generally regarded as 'public' (notwithstanding the actual ownership of the land from which the photo is taken) - this applies to the wider environment and not just railways. Within that context, we should be completely observant of the restrictions that are necessary to enable such freedoms to work effectively, not least out of respect for those who work in the environment concerned.

In other words - stay where you are supposed to be and you won't alienate people!

 

[CheesyChips]

And whenever somebody gets hit and killed, the railways are blamed for failing to protect the public.

"Well the sign telling us not to tresspass was a bit dirty, how could he have known there would be a train coming!?"

 

[t_star2001uk]

Now the majority of photographers that i see out there know where they can and cant be. It just seems to be that small minority of the community that seem to think that the normal rules and laws do not apply to them. Safety barriers and No Trespassing signs are there for a reason.

 

[bramling]

This applies to only a tiny minority of photographers and videographers. You know who you are.

When you are at a station taking pictures please be aware of the metal barriers on the end of certain platforms. These are there for your safety and are not to be crossed. If you have crossed the barrier and are asked by staff to come back to the platform side, dont ignore us and carry on filming or taking pictures. The above occured on 17/03/2016. The gentleman concerned had to be asked 3 times before returning to the safe side of the barrier. And what did he achieve, a video of a loco a hairy assed driver in the way asking him to come back across the barrier. Now, as a driver if you ask for info or want a specific picture or video, if i can help or assist i will try, but people who just go to unsafe areas will get the rest of the rail photography and indeed the enthusiast community a bad name.

Sorry for ranting but i hope the gentleman concerned reads this and thinks about his actions next time he visits a station....

Don't disagree with the sentiments, however there's some places where the railway needs to get its house in order too.

Firstly there are locations where the sign is not at the end of the platform, in many cases this appears to simply be to utilise an existing post (eg a lamppost) rather than for any other reason. There are plenty of locations where doors on the longest trains will stop in the area between the sign and the ramp.

Secondly the wording on many signs reads "Passengers must not cross the line". Apart from being ambiguous, it doesn't prohibit someone from passing the sign, nor indeed accessing a ramp. Combined with the seemingly arbitrary siting of some signs this is inviting problems.

The signage should be properly sited and worded along the lines of "authorised railway staff only beyond this point". No scope for doubt then.

 

[yorksrob]

Add to thelist those who think it's a good idea to make large gaps in stone walls around the railway line at Ribblehead. Sawthe results earlier this week. An absolute disgrace that people should think it is OK to knock down dry stone walls to take yet another train photo

That's vandalism, which is surely even more serious than trespass!

 

[Gutfright]

Im sure back when I was growing up there were adverts on tv teaching kids not to stick their heads out the train windows. Back in the 90's

There was that episode of The Young Ones were Vyvyan stuck his head out of an HST.

I can still remember some public information films about trespassing on the railways from the 80s and 90s which frightened the [rude word] out of me as a kid. I don't think they broadcast stuff like that nowadays. Perhaps because they've decided that traumatising an entire generation of children isn't a good idea, or perhaps because kids today are too busy shouting homophobic slurs at one another while playing online Xbox games or looking at internet porn to ever leave the house, so trespassing on the railway's no longer a problem?

 

[yorksrob]

There was that episode of The Young Ones were Vyvyan stuck his head out of an HST.

Yes, the best railway safety film ever made

 

[Bellbell]

Don't disagree with the sentiments, however there's some places where the railway needs to get its house in order too.

Firstly there are locations where the sign is not at the end of the platform, in many cases this appears to simply be to utilise an existing post (eg a lamppost) rather than for any other reason. There are plenty of locations where doors on the longest trains will stop in the area between the sign and the ramp.

Secondly the wording on many signs reads "Passengers must not cross the line". Apart from being ambiguous, it doesn't prohibit someone from passing the sign, nor indeed accessing a ramp. Combined with the seemingly arbitrary siting of some signs this is inviting problems.

The signage should be properly sited and worded along the lines of "authorised railway staff only beyond this point". No scope for doubt then.

This is silly. So you see a sign that says 'passengers must not cross the line' and think to yourself, hey, you know what, I'm a spotter, not a passenger, so it is obviously completely fine for me to be here. Gee, I wonder what it is the passengers have done? It's not ambiguous, you're deliberately looking for ambiguity and exploiting it when you manage to find a hint of it. Where does it end? Last time I looked the closest overbridge to me doesn't say I shouldn't climb over the railings, so presumably were I to slip and fall (and survive!) I would not be to blame because I had not been warned.

This is in no way specific to train spotting, it's a horrible facet of society these days. Show some common sense and take some responsibility for yourself.

 

[30907]

Firstly there are locations where the sign is not at the end of the platform

No doubt. But the OP refers to a metal barrier, which is rather more definite than a warning sign.

 

[Deepgreen]

This is silly. So you see a sign that says 'passengers must not cross the line' and think to yourself, hey, you know what, I'm a spotter, not a passenger, so it is obviously completely fine for me to be here. Gee, I wonder what it is the passengers have done? It's not ambiguous, you're deliberately looking for ambiguity and exploiting it when you manage to find a hint of it. Where does it end? Last time I looked the closest overbridge to me doesn't say I shouldn't climb over the railings, so presumably were I to slip and fall (and survive!) I would not be to blame because I had not been warned.

This is in no way specific to train spotting, it's a horrible facet of society these days. Show some common sense and take some responsibility for yourself.

I think the ambiguity being referred to was whether the line was being crossed or not when passing the sign, not whether it applied to non-passengers. However, you are completely right about responsibility and common sense. Some signs may appear to be illogically-placed, but that's tough - avoid problems and obey their spirit and meaning and we'll all benefit.

 

[Bellbell]

I think the ambiguity being referred to was whether the line was being crossed or not when passing the sign, not whether it applied to non-passengers. However, you are completely right about responsibility and common sense. Some signs may appear to be illogically-placed, but that's tough - avoid problems and obey their spirit and meaning and we'll all benefit.

If that's the case I can only apologise to the OP.

That said, even if I've interpreted incorrectly I don't think it completely negates my point - there may be points on platforms that accommodate part of a train insofar as it is not overhanging the platform but it may still be that the passenger should not be beyond that point (a loco or dvt, the locked out rear set on a multiple unit etc). I still think it's common sense based.

 

[yorksrob]

Although, when I see a sign saying that "passengers must not cross the line" nailed to a post, I assume that means the railway line. Generally I regard the platform itself as passenger territory.

This view isn't universally held as I vaguely remember a thread a couple of years ago in which some felt that "the line" included anything beyond the sign, including the platform.

 

[Elecman]

It could well be that the sign location may mean the section of platform beyond it may not be being maintained and the fore not for use?

 

[bramling]

This is silly. So you see a sign that says 'passengers must not cross the line' and think to yourself, hey, you know what, I'm a spotter, not a passenger, so it is obviously completely fine for me to be here. Gee, I wonder what it is the passengers have done? It's not ambiguous, you're deliberately looking for ambiguity and exploiting it when you manage to find a hint of it. Where does it end? Last time I looked the closest overbridge to me doesn't say I shouldn't climb over the railings, so presumably were I to slip and fall (and survive!) I would not be to blame because I had not been warned.

This is in no way specific to train spotting, it's a horrible facet of society these days. Show some common sense and take some responsibility for yourself.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with the differentiation between passengers and other groups, but everything to do with the message conveyed being that you must not "cross the line".

Does this mean:

1) You must not cross from one platform to another by way of the tracks

2) You must not pass this point

3) You must not pass onto the ramp

4) You must not pass beyond some kind of painted line at the end of the platform.

The reality is (1), in which case the other scenarios are not covered. You can't then expect to admonish people, who may legitimately not be aware of what you can and can't do -- especially when they may have seen passengers alighting or boarding from a door beyond the sign. Some staff also seem to feel that more than (1) is included. Once things start being inconsistently applied then reality is compliance will fall.

As I said previously, it shouldn't be too difficult nor expensive to convey a clear and unambiguous message.

 

[yorksrob]

It could well be that the sign location may mean the section of platform beyond it may not be being maintained and the fore not for use?

Generally (up here anyway) there's usually a pretty firm demarcation between in and out of use sections of platform (usually including a dividing fence and vegetation on the out of use section) so I wouldn't assume that the remainder of the platform was out of use without some sort of a boundary.

Of course, this is all pretty academic in terms of the OP, as (with the exception of where there is a foot crossing) everything beyond the crest of the platform is out of bounds.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does, so far as I know, mean cross the tracks. However, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be unacceptable to pass that point, though it would be sensible were the signs simply changed to say that, as indeed they are in some locations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No doubt. But the OP refers to a metal barrier, which is rather more definite than a warning sign.

Quite, it seems fairly obvious that if there's a fence you aren't intended to pass it. Fences are not put there for a laugh...

 

[Bellbell]

It's got absolutely nothing to do with the differentiation between passengers and other groups, but everything to do with the message conveyed being that you must not "cross the line".

Does this mean:

1) You must not cross from one platform to another by way of the tracks

2) You must not pass this point

3) You must not pass onto the ramp

4) You must not pass beyond some kind of painted line at the end of the platform.

The reality is (1), in which case the other scenarios are not covered. You can't then expect to admonish people, who may legitimately not be aware of what you can and can't do -- especially when they may have seen passengers alighting or boarding from a door beyond the sign. Some staff also seem to feel that more than (1) is included.

Well in that case I do sincerely apologise, honestly.

However () while I concede that ambiguity is introduced if they see other passengers boarding or alighting beyond that point I don't know why you might not just assume all of the above, unless expressly told otherwise. Certainly if in an environment I knew to be rule-heavy and potentially fatal, I'd probably err on the side of caution when confronted by such a sign. If I saw streams of people boarding or alighting I might well wonder if I'm in the wrong, sure. If I saw only one person boarding or alighting, I'd either assume that they were in the wrong, or that they were in fact not a passenger, but someone dressed in civvies (to the untrained eye my manager is in civvies at first glance) who is in fact rail staff.

I'll be honest, I'd admonish someone who had passed such a sign and was, say, at the bottom of a ramp, even in the absence of any other signage. Of course, I wouldn't admonish someone if I in any way felt they were there for darker reasons, just to be clear, I'm talking spotters only, since this is the subject of the thread.

 

[yorksrob]

Bottom of (or along) a ramp is different though. There's a clear demarcation from the platform.

 

[bramling]

Well in that case I do sincerely apologise, honestly.

However () while I concede that ambiguity is introduced if they see other passengers boarding or alighting beyond that point I don't know why you might not just assume all of the above, unless expressly told otherwise. Certainly if in an environment I knew to be rule-heavy and potentially fatal, I'd probably err on the side of caution when confronted by such a sign. If I saw streams of people boarding or alighting I might well wonder if I'm in the wrong, sure. If I saw only one person boarding or alighting, I'd either assume that they were in the wrong, or that they were in fact not a passenger, but someone dressed in civvies (to the untrained eye my manager is in civvies at first glance) who is in fact rail staff.

I'll be honest, I'd admonish someone who had passed such a sign and was, say, at the bottom of a ramp, even in the absence of any other signage. Of course, I wouldn't admonish someone if I in any way felt they were there for darker reasons, just to be clear, I'm talking spotters only, since this is the subject of the thread.

Remember that not everyone's a 'spotter'. Indeed, many of the latter group are likely to be well aware of the rules. However, many more casual people may not be so aware. This may include more casual enthusiasts for example taking the opportunity to photograph a rare steam train, or just a normal passenger who wants privacy whilst making a mobile phone conversation (both real-life examples).

Generally the railway doesn't run on assumptions, so much better to lay down the ground-rules clearly and unambiguously.

And, from a staff's point of view, the last thing you want is a situation where there's ambiguity, as it's asking for conflict.

 

[kevin5025]

This applies to only a tiny minority of photographers and videographers. You know who you are.

...
Sorry for ranting but i hope the gentleman concerned reads this and thinks about his actions next time he visits a station....

No, please rant, it is deserved! Now, for some humour. A steam loco was heading through Dingwall a couple of years ago. Most people stayed in safe areas, a couple didn't and got sent back onto the platform. But, what provided some humour for me was the guy in the ajoining waste ground. He was having some difficulty getting over a barbed wire fence and tore his trousers in the process . Not on that but he ended up standing behind eye level weeds, so he probably didn't even get a good shot.

 

[Bellbell]

Remember that not everyone's a 'spotter'. Indeed, many of the latter group are likely to be well aware of the rules. However, many more casual people may not be so aware. This may include more casual enthusiasts for example taking the opportunity to photograph a rare steam train, or just a normal passenger who wants privacy whilst making a mobile phone conversation (both real-life examples).

Generally the railway doesn't run on assumptions, so much better to lay down the ground-rules clearly and unambiguously.

And, from a staff's point of view, the last thing you want is a situation where there's ambiguity, as it's asking for conflict.

You're right that not everyone's a spotter, of course. I guess I see it from a different angle thought and think that if you're a casual photographer/phone user and are not entirely clear on what a sign means, why not just take it at it's strictest interpretation? Can't go wrong then, can you.

I agree that as staff we don't want ambiguity but I disagree that every single prohibition needs to be spelled out for people, I think some should be obvious. We've moved away from the original post via both your and my posts but my point is ultimately that the railway is a dangerous and unfamiliar environment to many which means the railway as a whole most certainly has a responsibility to protect users and prevent incidents. Undeniably so. However, I also think users have a responsibility to respect that they are in a dangerous and unfamiliar environment, and choose their actions with this in mind.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bottom of (or along) a ramp is different though. There's a clear demarcation from the platform.

Indeed, but bramling's original post merely mentioned 'accessing' a ramp.

 

[swt_passenger]

The ambiguity about the text of the typical 'platform end' signs has been discussed before, and IIRC that is why the latest design being fitted by Network Rail includes this longer text under the pictogram:

"Passengers must not pass this point or cross the line."

As shown in this photo: http://c8.alamy.com/comp/DFJGDN/passengers-must-not-pass-this-point-or-cross-the-line-DFJGDN.jpg

Personally, I think from the public's standpoint they would be better writing 'tracks' rather than 'line' though...

 

[fulmar]

"Passengers must not pass this point or cross the line."

So non passengers are free to wander wherever they like whilst passengers are permanently stuck on whichever side of the line they are currently on.