• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
It can be so much fun down in Anglia land trying to work the 37 set when some of the hardcore bashers are on board. Heads and arms out of windows, the sadly now almost normal noise and hygiene problems and the difficulty of getting to CDL panels to operate the doors. It sad when they need to be reminded they are on a proper service train not at a gala.

Same when I've seen a bank of tripods set up at Great Yarmouth at the height of summer across the platforms to shoot the hauled set, the hauled set that was packed to the gunnels with holiday makers with the platform now blocked by tripods.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

KingDaveRa

Member
Joined
15 Mar 2016
Messages
164
Location
Buckinghamshire
Ambiguity with signage is a wonderful thing for the opportunist. I know of a few people who use the 'parent and child' spaces in a car park, when their 'child' in the car with them is actually a fully grown adult.

A sign saying 'passengers must not cross this point' works for the opportunist spotter because they'll just rationalise it as 'well, that doesn't mean *me*, because I'm not a passenger, so on I go!'.

You can bet your bottom dollar, if there became outright bans on people taking photography on stations, these people abusing the privilege would be the first to complain - and complain the loudest!
 

t_star2001uk

Member
Joined
23 Aug 2011
Messages
723
Right. All of the posters who are mentioning signs and how ambiguous they are, if you go back to the beginning and read the original post i did not mention anywhere about signs. The whole point of my rant was the fact that there is a safety barrier at the end of the platform concerned and the particular gentleman chose, in front of my eyes, to climb over the said barrier to take either his picture or video. So just to recap, i did not mention anything about signs it is about a 4ft high metal tube safety barrier and how a small minority of photographers seem to think that it was put there just to look pretty. So can we get back to the subject at hand which is the small minority of people in the rail photograpy/ enthusiast community who think that safety barriers are not there for safety.

The station concerned is Solihull by the way....
 

fulmar

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2016
Messages
82
Thank you. I read your original post and understood fully what it was about.

In the meantime the conversation has broadened to include issues related to your original point. That happens with conversations when lots of people are involved.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,765
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Right. All of the posters who are mentioning signs and how ambiguous they are, if you go back to the beginning and read the original post i did not mention anywhere about signs. The whole point of my rant was the fact that there is a safety barrier at the end of the platform concerned and the particular gentleman chose, in front of my eyes, to climb over the said barrier to take either his picture or video. So just to recap, i did not mention anything about signs it is about a 4ft high metal tube safety barrier and how a small minority of photographers seem to think that it was put there just to look pretty. So can we get back to the subject at hand which is the small minority of people in the rail photograpy/ enthusiast community who think that safety barriers are not there for safety.

The station concerned is Solihull by the way....

I'm not sure what you're expecting people to come out with. It's highly unlikely you're going to get anyone coming out in disagreement with your original post, and we know that there will be certain individuals who choose not to follow rules and procedures. This is by no means limited to railway enthusiasts or the railway. Like it or not, part of working in the operational side of the railway industry is that you're going to experience passengers and/or individuals who don't behave in the way that you or I would desire. Sometimes it might be boarding a train whilst the doors are closing, or smoking on the train, or trespassing. All these things and more can be frustrating, however it's part of the job and likewise part of the job is to respond calmly and professionally to problematic situations - it's one reason why train staff are well paid. (I should add that I'm not suggesting you didn't, by the way).

Returning to the subject in hand, the point about signage as I see it is that the basically poor, inconsistent, ambiguous and in some cases unfit for purpose signage found in some/many areas of the railway creates the impression that the railway industry does not really care about this form of trespass. So we can't be surprised if some individuals exploit this. Contrast with London Underground where the boundaries are generally very clearly laid out, and in consequence there don't tend to be major issues when special trains run (no doubt there will be exceptions).

In the absence of being familiar with the location in question, am I correct that the barrier you describe partitions off a disused section of platform? If not, perhaps you could explain what the purpose of the barrier is, as it sounds like an unusual arrangement.
 
Last edited:

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,765
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
There is a big difference between exploiting and misunderstanding.

Quite so, however the end result is the same - someone in a place we don't want them to be. In the misunderstanding case then adequate signage should hopefully prevent the misunderstanding in the first place, whilst in the exploiting case they are much more likely to think twice about it if they know they are likely to get pulled up on it and have no realistic defence. And, of course, in the cases where the individual still chooses to ignore, it prevents any loopholes developing should some form of prosecution follow, or should the person injure themselves it may well help absolve the industry of any liability.
 
Last edited:

KingDaveRa

Member
Joined
15 Mar 2016
Messages
164
Location
Buckinghamshire
The whole point of my rant was the fact that there is a safety barrier at the end of the platform concerned and the particular gentleman chose, in front of my eyes, to climb over the said barrier to take either his picture or video.

Surely if somebody is the wrong side of such a barrier that's then trespass? If so, I'd say let BTP go have a word with them.
 

richa2002

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
2,275
Meanwhile in Europe, everyone just gets on with common sense... Only in this country do we seem to have this special brand of hysteria. Not saying it's okay to disobey such signage but the reaction that comes from some people makes me think they've lived a very sheltered life.
 

Llanigraham

On Moderation
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,103
Location
Powys
In the absence of being familiar with the location in question, am I correct that the barrier you describe partitions off a disused section of platform? If not, perhaps you could explain what the purpose of the barrier is, as it sounds like an unusual arrangement.

Does it matter why the barrier is there? No it does not!!
There is a barrier.
It is to stop people going beyond it.
Idiot photographer climbed over it!!
End of story!! :roll:
 

gimmea50anyday

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2013
Messages
3,456
Location
Back Cab
It will always be an issue of "i know what i am doing so the rules dont apply to me" with some people. Enthusiasts/cranks/spotters SHOULD know better, however some individuals tarnish the collective by using their "knowledge" to push the boat out as far as they can get away with, as I know only too full well when I have challenged such individuals at York only to be met with a tirade of abuse because "Im an officialdom in uniform spoiling th shot!"

Yes and Im also the one refusing you travel on my train because of your behaviour and attitude and oh, look here are the BTP boys coming to escort you off the station!

The idiots who blocked the ECML ought to be ashamed for their behaviour especially when they were taking kids with them. Unfortunately they wont care. Those tracks had trains doing 125mph along them. Anyone hit would have been a mass of jam and peanut butter along a 1 mile stretch of track. I dread to think what the implications on those kids had they witnessed an incident of that nature....
 

silverfoxcc

Member
Joined
17 Apr 2012
Messages
439
I agree 100% regarding the attitude of some photgraphers. I have never physically gone the wrong side of a fence or platform sign, they are there for a purpose. BUT my tripod has gone over the fence to get a slightly better view because of trees ,and in these circumstances it is always within arms length with the proviso that if near to the running lines, 15ft or less, it doesnt go over, but these are extreme and very rare occurrences possibly four times in 25 years of videoing. Otherwise just use commonsense.
 

TDK

Established Member
Joined
19 Apr 2008
Messages
4,155
Location
Crewe
I have read this thread and sorry people but anyone on here posting knows where or where not they can go, "do not cross the line" means don't be an idiot and risk your life!

The only people who do not understand these signs are possible people who do not understand the English language, as for people trespassing when photographing trains you know where you cannot go.

All this rubbish about ambiguity is people trying to clutch at straws to find an excuse for being an idiot.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,765
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I have read this thread and sorry people but anyone on here posting knows where or where not they can go, "do not cross the line" means don't be an idiot and risk your life!

The only people who do not understand these signs are possible people who do not understand the English language, as for people trespassing when photographing trains you know where you cannot go.

All this rubbish about ambiguity is people trying to clutch at straws to find an excuse for being an idiot.

It doesn't seem like the problem is the people posting in this thread - no one has (thusfar) condoned the actions of the person.

However there evidently *is* an issue with some forms of trespass as incidents keep happening. This suggests there is scope for the railway to do better on this. It's quite clear - lay out the rules clearly, expect people to comply, and deal with those who don't. It becomes difficult to do the latter when things are haphazard and inconsistent, which is very much the case in many locations.
 

fulmar

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2016
Messages
82
"do not cross the line" means don't be an idiot and risk your life!

"Do not cross the line" means "Do not cross the line". If there is some other meaning such as "Do not pass this point", the wording should make that clear.


This suggests there is scope for the railway to do better on this. It's quite clear - lay out the rules clearly, expect people to comply, and deal with those who don't. It becomes difficult to do the latter when things are haphazard and inconsistent, which is very much the case in many locations.

This.
 

SouthStand

Member
Joined
8 Aug 2010
Messages
263
If the sign says "Do not cross the line" at a station with a subway/foot bridge, does it mean the subway/foot bridge is out of bounds also?
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
If the sign says "Do not cross the line" at a station with a subway/foot bridge, does it mean the subway/foot bridge is out of bounds also?

Of course it doesn't.

You could have "Do not cross the line, except by means of the subway or footbridge", but to say that "Do not cross the line" means that the subway or footbridge is out of bounds is really splitting hairs. (or b****ring flies, as the French would say)
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,423
If the sign says "Do not cross the line" at a station with a subway/foot bridge, does it mean the subway/foot bridge is out of bounds also?

If a rule says that ordinary bicycles are not allowed on a train at peak times, does this mean that only Penny Farthings are not allowed, and any modern day bicycle, historically known as the safety bicycle, is fair game?

I think it would be better all round if people acted like humans with intelligence, which includes the ability to use initiative, rather than acting like dumb computers that have to have everything explained exactly correctly before they do what you want them to do.
 

SPADTrap

Established Member
Joined
15 Oct 2012
Messages
2,352
I agree 100% regarding the attitude of some photgraphers. I have never physically gone the wrong side of a fence or platform sign, they are there for a purpose. BUT my tripod has gone over the fence to get a slightly better view because of trees ,and in these circumstances it is always within arms length with the proviso that if near to the running lines, 15ft or less, it doesnt go over, but these are extreme and very rare occurrences possibly four times in 25 years of videoing. Otherwise just use commonsense.

And one of them has taken the time to post here! Great example of what you're all talking about.

Couldn't make it up! 'I hate those that do it but I do it responsibly and I am OK because X Y Z 15ft it doesn't go over' :lol: extreme and very rare circumstances to photo a train.

This forum is great :razz:
 
Last edited:

TBirdFrank

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2009
Messages
218
I fear none of you have ever been picked up by "m' learned friends" and wheeled into court.

I got summonsed as a railway employee because of a wrongly worded summons describing the land where an offence took place as public.

I had no option but to deny its public status and get the scrote off the charge when I did so.

Signage means what it says and doesn't either mean more or something else.

If signs should say "members of the public" and not just passengers then that is what they should say - otherwise "m' learned friends" would win hands down if the miscreant is just a spotter and not a passenger.

The law is what it is - not what you want it to be. Now if someone were to be charged with railway trespass after passing the sign, that would be interesting, as in so many examples there is plenty of "platform" especially post TOC leases beyond signage.

Where does trespass begin then??? The Railways Act 1993 says the formation and tracks so there is definitely a grey area.
 
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
49
Location
Timbuktoo
It doesn't seem like the problem is the people posting in this thread - no one has (thusfar) condoned the actions of the person.

However there evidently *is* an issue with some forms of trespass as incidents keep happening. This suggests there is scope for the railway to do better on this. It's quite clear - lay out the rules clearly, expect people to comply, and deal with those who don't. It becomes difficult to do the latter when things are haphazard and inconsistent, which is very much the case in many locations.

Those trespassing incidents occurring while Flying Scotsman or other trains are passing are almost certainly going to be by the more determined ''enthusiast'', who will undoubtedly know more about Railway rules & regulations than most and will certainly know what a sign or yellow line means.
Most ordinary rail passengers and general public will be taking photos as they happen to catching a train at the time and are usually distributed along their next trains platform. Whilst sometimes being verbally abused by arrogant spotters(taking their 130th Photo of the same train) telling them''to get out the way''.
Perhaps a PTS bought & paid for by spotters should be introduced if they wish to use Railway property to film to prove that they can be trusted to behave in a safe manner without disrupting other passengers..
 

t_star2001uk

Member
Joined
23 Aug 2011
Messages
723
How far can this off topic discussion about the wording of signs and what they mean be taken. If the sign says "Passengers" do the small minority say "well i'm a photographer not a passenger so that does not apply to me" do you totally ignore the signs. How far do you go, just past the sign halfway down the ramp, the bottom of the ramp, on the ballast or even go and stand in the four foot in the path of an approaching train. Yes the signs should possibly just say DO NOT PASS THIS POINT but they dont. The following is taken from the Network Rail website

On the platform
You need to act safely and sensibly at all times.

Stay clear of the platform edge and stay behind the yellow lines where they are provided

Be aware of your surroundings.
Please do not:

Trespass on to the tracks or any other part of the railway that is not available to passengers
Use flash photography because it can distract train drivers and train despatch staff and so is potentially very dangerous
Climb on any structure or interfere with platform equipment
Obstruct any signalling equipment or signs which are vital to the safe running of the railway
Wear anything which is similar in colour to safety clothing, such as high-visibility jackets, as this could cause confusion to drivers and other railway employees
Gather together in groups at busy areas of the platform (e.g. customer information points, departure screens, waiting areas, seating etc.) or where this may interfere with the duties of station staff.

the sections highlighted is pertinent to the original post
 
Last edited:

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,437
Location
UK
Signage means what it says and doesn't either mean more or something else.

If signs should say "members of the public" and not just passengers then that is what they should say - otherwise "m' learned friends" would win hands down if the miscreant is just a spotter and not a passenger.

The law is what it is - not what you want it to be. Now if someone were to be charged with railway trespass after passing the sign, that would be interesting, as in so many examples there is plenty of "platform" especially post TOC leases beyond signage.

And that shows the morally bankrupt state of this country more than anything else.

We all know why the signage is there and its intent. We know were we should be and where we are not allowed. It shows more about the person than the sign when you deliberately find loopholes.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,765
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
And that shows the morally bankrupt state of this country more than anything else.

We all know why the signage is there and its intent. We know were we should be and where we are not allowed. It shows more about the person than the sign when you deliberately find loopholes.

Okay, let me provide a real example. I dealt with a fatality at a London-area station. The person in question had walked off the end of the platform and crossed an electrified track, using the juice rail as a step. He fell straight across all rails and remained there for 10 minutes until being run over by a train, then further struck dragged and dismembered by a further two trains. It wasn't established why he accessed the track, but it certainly wasn't to take photographs.

After the dust had settled the first question everyone was asking was "was all the signage present and correct?".

We can debate the rights and wrongs of this to the last, but the reality is this is how things are. If the industry wants stakeholders to take the issue seriously, it needs to demonstrate that it does too.
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
Hang on, you want to ban people from wearing yellow jackets?
If by "yellow" you mean "high-visibility fluorescent", in the context of railway estate, do you have a problem with that? (Yes, some will be wearing them for a reason other than to look like a railway operative, but, in the context, they should take them off)
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,167
Location
UK
If by "yellow" you mean "high-visibility fluorescent", in the context of railway estate, do you have a problem with that? (Yes, some will be wearing them for a reason other than to look like a railway operative, but, in the context, they should take them off)

Well plenty of cyclists wear high viz jackets, and would be unaware of a need to take them off when they get to the station, however my objection was

"Wear anything which is similar in colour to safety clothing"

My 3yo's yellow jacket is similar in colour to a high viz jacket. It even has a fluorescent strip on it. When we get to an unmanned deserted station in the middle of nowhere I'm expected to strip his nice warm jacket off and let him freeze to death?
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,437
Location
UK
After the dust had settled the first question everyone was asking was "was all the signage present and correct?".

I am acutely aware of the litigious nature of society today.

I can also freely accept the need for correct and unambiguous signage. I do however believe that many many people are well aware of both the risks and the intent of the signage provided. The fact that they deliberately ignore it really is not the fault of anyone but the person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top