• 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!

More dangerous lineside behaviour around Flying Scotsman

Status
Not open for further replies.

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,382
Then the parent (assuming they are) should be prosecuted, and not just for trespass. If the child had been killed, then a prosecution for manslaughter would have been in order as well, I would suggest. That's what the law is there for.

Glad that's sorted. Child is killed. Family lose a child. Somebody is picking up bits of child.

But it's OK - we'll prosecute the parents for manslaughter ...
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Mountain Man

Member
Joined
15 Jun 2019
Messages
310
It's silly because the economic value of Scotsman and similar steam tours is enormous
Please provide the evidence behind that statement,including the economic loss caused by delays and cancellations they cause including the cost of using BTP resource
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
I saw Flying Scotsman today in two locations. Both were very busy, but I didn't see any trespassing (and one of the locations was right next to a lineside access point!).
 

Mountain Man

Member
Joined
15 Jun 2019
Messages
310
My honest opinion? I think it is what it is. Truly horrific though I am aware they are, it's just not possible, without taking disproportionate measures,
In this instance, where it is shall we trespassing due to stupidity, as opposed to say a trespasser seeking to vandalise. Then a few high profile punishments with major publicity would solve 99% of it pretty much overnight.

If you gave a few of the trespassers 12 month prison sentences, all but the hardened idiot would stop.
 

DanDaDriver

Member
Joined
5 May 2018
Messages
338
BAll it takes is for a savvy lawyer to point at the inadequacies of the boundary fencing to show that Nitwit Rail isn’t doing all that it can.

I don’t believe that any reasonable court would would agree that Nitwit Rail had done all that was reasonably practicable.

It doesn’t matter how much money Nitwit Rail spend on putting up high fences elsewhere if the point at which access is actually gained is weak.

That being so, how could Nitwit Rail possibly say it’s taken all reasonable steps to safeguard that person and prevent them from being killed?

The potential damage to reputation as well as any financial penalties would quickly mount up against Nitwit Rail.

This really isn’t as hilarious as you perhaps think it is.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
Who’s laughing? I’m being deadly serious.

Or are you objecting to my use of the phrase “Nitwit Rail”? It’s a phrase I’ve consistently used for many years, as my posting record shows. But it doesn’t detract from what I’m saying.
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,459
Location
Sheffield
Or are you objecting to my use of the phrase “Nitwit Rail”? It’s a phrase I’ve consistently used for many years, as my posting record shows. But it doesn’t detract from what I’m saying.

Actually, it does. I doubt I am only person who cannot take people seriously if they continually uses 'witticisms' which might be mildly amusing the first time but very quickly become grating.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
If you object to my posting style then feel free to ignore it. It doesn’t bother me one bit. Alternatively please do feel free to have a look at my posting history and get to know me a bit to see that I’m very far from frivolous. But be assured that what I’m not going to do is change in the face of your or anyone else’s disapproval. I have no interest in scoring points nor competing for the moral high ground, and I don’t see any reason why even serious topics cannot be leavened with a little humour.

But if you feel so strongly then please do report my posts to the moderators for their consideration.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
If you object to my posting style then feel free to ignore it. It doesn’t bother me one bit. Alternatively please do feel free to have a look at my posting history and get to know me a bit to see that I’m very far from frivolous. But be assured that what I’m not going to do is change in the face of your or anyone else’s disapproval. I have no interest in scoring points nor competing for the moral high ground, and I don’t see any reason why even serious topics cannot be leavened with a little humour.

But if you feel so strongly then please do report my posts to the moderators for their consideration.

Well said. I for one find all your posts well written and thoughtful, and if people are prepared to disregard all that for the sake of disliking one particular word then it’s their loss.
 

Greg Read

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2019
Messages
53
I’m happy for you to disagree, but I’ve heard too many tales of reasonable courts making unreasonable rulings. I don’t disagree that high fences around the entire network seems disproportionate, but, when faced with an individual case involving a fatality where a person accessed the line at a weak point, I don’t believe that any reasonable court would would agree that Nitwit Rail had done all that was reasonably practicable.

You have to understand that there is a world of difference between Health & Safety law which outlines the responsibilities of an individual, an organisation or an employer, and incident investigation. What we’re talking about here is the latter rather than the former, and in this instance ALL factors, whether causal or contributory, will be taken into consideration and lessons drawn from them. It doesn’t matter how much money Nitwit Rail spend on putting up high fences elsewhere if the point at which access is actually gained is weak. That being so, how could Nitwit Rail possibly say it’s taken all reasonable steps to safeguard that person and prevent them from being killed?


Who is this 'Nitwit Rail' ? or are we just being like a 9 year old ? :) lol

Whilst post is good, just seems let down by a silly phrase, it's like when people say $ky
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
My honest opinion? I think it is what it is. Truly horrific though I am aware they are, it's just not possible, without taking disproportionate measures, to prevent fatalities on the railway. I'm not saying that all involved should stop trying to keep incidents as few and far between as is reasonably practicable. But, the key word there is 'reasonably'. To me, I don't think that there is anything more than is already being done that can reasonably be done.

I really, truly feel for those staff who have to deal with the aftermath of the incident which will seemingly inevitably happen because of this moronic behaviour; but I don't think any responsibility at all for that incident now rests with the railway. I genuinely think we've reached a point where nothing more should be done, and if a stupid person chooses to ignore all the warnings they are given, that's entirely their own fault.

I also want to bring up the purely economic argument. Human lives have a value, of course they do, but that value is not unlimited. At what point does the cost of measures being taken to save lives become too high to justify? It's a question that comes into play in this case, as well as with level crossings, etc. There are numerous ways (yet more additional staffing, policing, barriers/fences, etc.) that the railway could be made safer to operate, but for the number of lives that might be saved, I just don't think it is appropriate to spend the sums of money that would be required.

And of course it is not just the Driver, (and possible passengers that may have sight of it) there is the Signaller that takes the call, the MOM that attends when he is called, the Police that arrive, the ambulance crew that get called, the clean up staff from the Contractors that have the task of clearing the mess up, then when the train gets to the depot, the depot staff that have to clean up the train and examine it for any remaining body parts....
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
No. It’s just a way to try and undermine what I’m actually saying without actually engaging with it. Discredit the messenger and you discredit the message. It’s pathetic. I’ve been a member here since 2006 and never before has my choice of words been an issue.

Do you have a problem with what I say on this topic? Then let’s talk about it. If not, everything else is off-topic. If you don’t like my posting style, may I suggest that it is your problem rather than mine.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
And of course it is not just the Driver, (and possible passengers that may have sight of it) there is the Signaller that takes the call, the MOM that attends when he is called, the Police that arrive, the ambulance crew that get called, the clean up staff from the Contractors that have the task of clearing the mess up, then when the train gets to the depot, the depot staff that have to clean up the train and examine it for any remaining body parts....

At the end of the day every frontline member of railway staff knows (or should know!) when they sign up for the job that being involved in a fatality incident is a possible part of the job. Indeed for certain incident response staff it’s pretty much a certainty rather than a possibility. This doesn’t make it any more pleasant when it happens, but unfortunately to a large extent it goes with the territory. It’s one thing to add to the list of reasons why railway staff are well paid for what they do.
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
At the end of the day every frontline member of railway staff knows (or should know!) when they sign up for the job that being involved in a fatality incident is a possible part of the job. Indeed for certain incident response staff it’s pretty much a certainty rather than a possibility. This doesn’t make it any more pleasant when it happens, but unfortunately to a large extent it goes with the territory. It’s one thing to add to the list of reasons why railway staff are well paid for what they do.

That is indeed very true, although of course it does not make it any easier for any of those involved, some Drivers never manage to get back on the footplate, I recall a Driver on the SR back in the 70's, he was involved in a fatality, and off for many months, on his first or second trip after returning, rounded a corner along the Mid-Sussex line only to see a group of PWAY or S&T staff on the track ahead of him, he hung on the horn, and placed train into Emergency, the staff on track got out of the way with seconds to spare, he never drove a train again. :(
Being a Signalman, I am a little removed from the actual incident, but the call, and tone of voice of the Driver still sends chills down my spine, the one that stick in my mind most of all is from some few years ago now, we had SLW in operation, and this night the SLW had switched roads, sadly this was missed by a member of staff, who was walking along the open line, and was hit by the Mail Train that was on the SL.
 

DanDaDriver

Member
Joined
5 May 2018
Messages
338
At the end of the day every frontline member of railway staff knows (or should know!) when they sign up for the job that being involved in a fatality incident is a possible part of the job. Indeed for certain incident response staff it’s pretty much a certainty rather than a possibility. This doesn’t make it any more pleasant when it happens, but unfortunately to a large extent it goes with the territory. It’s one thing to add to the list of reasons why railway staff are well paid for what they do.

That doesn’t mean we should be tolerating the type of behaviour that we’ve been seeing. If it needs a ban to prevent fatalities then that’s what it needs.

And I suggest that the misguided anger against the idea should be directed against the morons that stand trackside rather than the people who want to go to work and go home rather than run the risk of killing someone in order to indulge someone’s hobby.
 

221129

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2011
Messages
6,520
Location
Sunny Scotland
Bluntly, I disagree. My reading of Health and Safety law is that you take all reasonable steps. Network Rail have done just that. I find it difficult if not impossible to see how a reasonable court could rule otherwise.
Banning the Scotsman would be seen as a reasonable step if Network Rail were aware of the risk. Which they very much are.
 

centraltrains

Member
Joined
3 Jan 2015
Messages
480
Location
West Midlands
1) Economic value to who? I very much doubt that the Scotsman visiting is pumping much value into towns and villages along its route, most are there to see the loco not buy ice creams, Burgers, and other local wares. Network Rail probably provide these routes at a loss when the normal delays are involved because of trespass and that's not even thinking about the policing cost to BTP.

If they changed the delay attribution system so that train companies were responsible if it was their train which encouraged people to trespass to see their train, I wonder how long it would keep running for...
 

Robin Edwards

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
368
I'm not ruling out that a ban of FS may result but if we simply apply similar "Ban It" mentality throughout life we would be cutting our noses to spite our faces on a regular basis - in my humble opinion.
Do we not need to first hear how many trespassers have been caught and the full force of the law applied as a deterrent?
Given how social media is used to boast of idiot behaviour in general, it can't be that difficult to parade a few culprits via mainstream media to make it apparent that breaking the rules just won't be tolerated. I'm not even sure that those photographed by the trackside last time round have been found to date. Is it that hard or is this not a funded priority of police forces anymore whereby we just want to ban something that might not personally interest just because we don't want to deal with an unwanted situation?

If you want to ban something that poses risk when idiots our out and about, how about those that use their mobile phones behind the wheel of their vehicle resulting in banning sale of phones or closure of roads - silly comparison perhaps yet the resulting carnage of death is probably far higher than from someone being run down whilst taking a photograph of a steam locomotive down to their own actions.
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,686
Location
Devon
Why aren't BTP making arrests or issuing cautions?
Exactly my thoughts too.
A public display of a few culprits being fined would definitely make a difference here.
Otherwise I think it should be confined to preserved railways or possibly the Settle and Carlisle for a bit.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,034
Location
No longer here
Well of course we don't know they aren't. If they are I would like to see the culprits named and shamed on the BTP website.

If they had taken any action at all they would be very public about it, given the pressure from the railway fraternity and their paymasters.
 

bobbyrail

Member
Joined
25 Dec 2018
Messages
101
If you want to ban something that poses risk when idiots our out and about, how about those that use their mobile phones behind the wheel of their vehicle resulting in banning sale of phones or closure of roads - silly comparison perhaps yet the resulting carnage of death is probably far higher than from someone being run down whilst taking a photograph of a steam locomotive down to their own actions.

It's 6 points now for using a mobile at the wheel on the road, you only need to get 12 points for a magistrate to have to consider a 12 month ban.

Or 6 points if you have passed within the last two years.
 

DanDaDriver

Member
Joined
5 May 2018
Messages
338
Why aren't BTP making arrests or issuing cautions?

Because you’d be frankly scared if you knew how few them there were in each vast area they cover outside of London.

Of course London, as ever, can have as many as it wants...
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
Because you’d be frankly scared if you knew how few them there were in each vast area they cover outside of London.

Of course London, as ever, can have as many as it wants...

Rest assured they’re also extremely thin on the ground in London.
 

HOOVER29

Member
Joined
26 Mar 2009
Messages
482
Well stick it in a museum then.

I like it.
Sick to death of hearing about the FS every time it ventures out.
Ideally they should stick it on the Settle & Carlisle to run specials between Leeds & Carlisle but will that just attract the idiots again?

Stuff & mount it in a museum?
That’ll just get every Beardy Branson lookalike moaning.

Put it on a uk tour of preservation lines?
That’ll give lines much needed revenue.

Main question should be has any one been fined for trespassing when FS is present yet?
There’s no excuse in this day & age.
With today’s photo technology faces are easily recognisable.
What with all the paperwork involved are they thinking is it worth it!

Then again why am I bothered?
FS is a (nearly) 100 yr old steam emitting device most of which were scrapped years ago as they weren’t fit for the modern world.
There’s only one kettle I’m interested in (apart from the one I boil water in in my kitchen) & that’s The Duke 71000.
All the others are mere pretenders as far as I’m concerned.

And no I don’t care what anybody thinks.
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
Banning the Scotsman would be seen as a reasonable step if Network Rail were aware of the risk. Which they very much are.
And that's where I disagree, because if you go down that road then where do you stop. People break the law when they see Scotsman, so let's ban it. People trespass on level crossings, let's ban them. People sometimes jump off footbridges, let's ban them. Of course those are ridiculous examples, but that's the whole point. The problem here isn't running the Flying Scotsman on the mainline, it's people wilfully breaking the law. It shouldn't be (and in my very much non-expert opinion isn't) Network Rails problem that people are putting their lives at risk by breaking the law. There are fences, and signs, and an enormous great publicity campaign - several of them, in fact - warning people of the danger of trespassing on the railway. I say again that, in my view, if people are too dumb to listen to what they're being told, then that's their own fault and the consequences are their problem, nobody elses.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,994
Location
here to eternity
I say again that, in my view, if people are too dumb to listen to what they're being told, then that's their own fault and the consequences are their problem, nobody elses.

Except that if one of then gets hit, the line closes and there is disruption - that I suggest is anything but just their problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top