More dangerous lineside behaviour around Flying Scotsman

bionic · 22 Jul 2019

800002 said:
I'm sorry to continue this, but could you please provide reference material.

I am sure, Module TW5 of GERT8000,
Preparation and movement of trains: Defective or isolated vehicles and on-train equipment (Issue 9)
Doesn't specify that the unit has to be taken out of passenger service.
Module TW5 (Issue 9) - https://catalogues.rssb.co.uk/rgs/rulebooks/GERT8000-TW5 Iss 9.pdf

The rule book applies to passenger and non passenger trains so the instruction about going out of service will be in company instructions. I've not seen West Coast's instructions so for all I know they happily let trains carry punters with safety equipment isolated, but it's certainly not permitted anywhere I've worked and not in the spirit of the rulebook (see starting a journey). You will see that this rulebook section applies to the equipment becoming defective during a journey, not some joker just isolating it because he feels like it.

EDIT: in fact I dont even know why we are arguing the toss about wording and where certain instructions are written down and by whom. The driver of the train at Wooton Bassett was utterly damned in the report, as were the company themselves and both were found guilty of health and safety breaches as a result.

I'm not going to get sucked into pointless arguments about the rulebook. The rulebook must be read in line with other instructions that must be followed. Just because something isn't written in the rulebook does not mean there is no requirement to do it.

The guy isolated a piece of safety equipment that was not defective, he didnt report it to the signaller or presumably his control, he didnt have a competent person in the cab (unless the fireman wasnt firing and was purely acting as a competent person) and was not travelling at 40mph (as the rule was then). Its a catalogue of negligence.

I've said my piece on it and I'll sit back and let everyone else carry on now.

RailUK Forums

Mountain Man · 22 Jul 2019

Bezza49 said:
Been reading this thread and the consensus seems to be..

Ban steam because some idiots stand too close to the track?

I was at Preston to see the Flying Scotsman on Saturday and everybody was well behaved, and there was a lot of people there. To ban the operation for safety reasons just spoils it for the 99.9%. The minority here are the problem - and they need dealing with. Getting rid of the FS is like going to change a car tyre and replacing the whole car instead.

It only takes for one of the 0.1% to get killed or seriously injured.

farleigh · 22 Jul 2019

Football matches bring out idiotic and dangerous behaviour in many people but I don't think they should be banned.

ComUtoR · 22 Jul 2019

farleigh said:
Football matches bring out idiotic and dangerous behaviour in many people but I don't think they should be banned.

But they do have security, police, road closures, and they do ban fans from games due to poor fan behavior.

johnr57 · 22 Jul 2019

from another forum

clearly a cyclist so lets ban cyclists .....

Bromley boy · 22 Jul 2019

Mountain Man said:
It only takes for one of the 0.1% to get killed or seriously injured.

And it only takes stupid behaviour by the 0.1% to incur thousands of delay minutes, even without any injuries or fatalities.

farleigh said:
Football matches bring out idiotic and dangerous behaviour in many people but I don't think they should be banned.

At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what you, or I, or most others posting on this thread think.

There are posts upthread from people who either work for Network Rail or otherwise have “inside knowledge”. They have stated that a ban is likely to be forthcoming if these incidents continue.

28 pages of righteous indignation and irrelevant comparisons to football matches and cyclists will not be changing that!

800002 · 22 Jul 2019

Don't forget it is down to Network Rail to ensure the integrity of the network boundary.
As for stations, like the video posted above, it would come under the Station Operators remit, surely.
Surely It can never be the Train operators responsibility (in the case of national operators operating through regional operators stations) to ensure the integrity of the network boundary - only to mitigate against the latter's failure / inability to do so.

Those individuals in the video are clearly putting themselves and others in danger - no matter how much time / experience they may have to spent on or near to the railway. They need calling out, constructively, and educated - as I said much earlier today.
Clearly on the video there is no indication available to see with regards train movements on the opposing line - it's horrifying to watch knowing the potential of what could have occurred.

Elecman · 22 Jul 2019

Mountain Man said:
Yes. There are photos on social media of people standing the wrong side of barriers at crossing

Hoghton Level crossing specifically, they even bent the crossing arm inwards towards the tracks pushing on it for a better view

6Gman · 22 Jul 2019

PHILIPE said:
Perhaps the police should attend and remove anybody trespassing out of the way until it has passed

How many police do you think are available to visit a series of viewing points?

Mountain Man · 22 Jul 2019

800002 said:
Don't forget it is down to Network Rail to ensure the integrity of the network boundary.

Well that case, please don't complain when rail fares double.

If they face the burden, they will pass on costs to TOCs who in turn will pass it on to passengers

philthetube · 22 Jul 2019

Bromley boy said:
Not to take the conversation too far off topic, but it is an important point.

@bionic was clearly referring to the situation where the safety system was being improperly isolated, with no authorisation to do so. Either because the crew did not understand what they were doing or because they did understand it, but choose to ignore it, for the sake of operational convenience.

The fact that there are many situations where safety systems can quite properly be isolated is irrelevant and does not detract from the seriousness of an improper isolation.

I will not labour the point any further.

Always with mitigation to replace the system

800002 said:
Don't forget it is down to Network Rail to ensure the integrity of the network boundary.
As for stations, like the video posted above, it would come under the Station Operators remit, surely.
Surely It can never be the Train operators responsibility (in the case of national operators operating through regional operators stations) to ensure the integrity of the network boundary - only to mitigate against the latter's failure / inability to do so.

Those individuals in the video are clearly putting themselves and others in danger - no matter how much time / experience they may have to spent on or near to the railway. They need calling out, constructively, and educated - as I said much earlier today.
Clearly on the video there is no indication available to see with regards train movements on the opposing line - it's horrifying to watch knowing the potential of what could have occurred.

Are you suggesting that Northern should provide staff at every unstaffed station the Flying Scotsman goes through, while someone else makes profits at their expense?

Mountain Man · 22 Jul 2019

farleigh said:
Football matches bring out idiotic and dangerous behaviour in many people but I don't think they should be banned.

A poor comparison.

An issue at a football match is a self contained issue.

An issue caused by the Scotsman has knock on consequences far and wide from train delays

800002 · 22 Jul 2019

Mountain Man said:
Well that case, please don't complain when rail fares double.

If they face the burden, they will pass on costs to TOCs who in turn will pass it on to passengers

Just another 'Idiot Tax'.
Granted it could be expensive to acquire temp staff / redeploy current staff and place them in these vulnerable locations.
But of course, on the other hand that may simply push more people to take risks in the less accessible locations.

It will come down to what is considered 'reasonable' with all the options available for consideration.

800002 · 22 Jul 2019

philthetube said:
Always with mitigation to replace the system

Are you suggesting that Northern should provide staff at every unstaffed station the Flying Scotsman goes through, while someone else makes profits at their expense?

If it can be charged back to the train operator / promoter, yes.
It's not difficult - other industries (ie, football) do it quite easily in a similar fashion.
There are known risks / previous learning led assessments which can be made to help mitigate further incidents.

221129 · 22 Jul 2019

800002 said:
If it can be charged back to the train operator / promoter, yes.
It's not difficult - other industries (ie, football) do it quite easily in a similar fashion.
There are known risks / previous learning led assessments which can be made to help mitigate further incidents.

If the costs are passed back to the tour operator then the train wont run. So easy win really.

Bromley boy · 22 Jul 2019

800002 said:
Don't forget it is down to Network Rail to ensure the integrity of the network boundary.

And it is within the power of Network Rail to simply ban the operation of the loco on their infrastructure if the actions of daft spotters cause too many delays!

As we have heard upthread, that is precisely what they will do if it continues.

Mountain Man · 22 Jul 2019

If the options were put to passengers in a vote

1. Pay an increased rail fare and keep the Scotsman on the mainline.

2. Keep rail fares the same and put the Scotsman on a heritage line.

I'd be staggered if less than 99.8% voted for 2.

800002 · 22 Jul 2019

221129 said:
If the costs are passed back to the tour operator then the train wont run. So easy win really.

Which, to me, is as unacceptable as a blanket ban.
I'll say this, for the last time, people need to be educated - if that's by prosecutions or by onsite staff, so beit. Hopefully it won't take a life changing or ending incident.

221129 · 22 Jul 2019

800002 said:
Which, to me, is as unacceptable as a blanket ban.
I'll say this, for the last time, people need to be educated - if that's by prosecutions or by onsite staff, so beit. Hopefully it won't take a life changing or ending incident.

What you find unacceptable is irrelevant really.

bb21 · 22 Jul 2019

Mountain Man said:
If the options were put to passengers in a vote

1. Pay an increased rail fare and keep the Scotsman on the mainline.

2. Keep rail fares the same and put the Scotsman on a heritage line.

I'd be staggered if less than 99.8% voted for 1.

You will almost certainly be disappointed.

800002 · 22 Jul 2019

221129 said:
What you find unacceptable is irrelevant really.

We all have opinions, and are able to express them.
Your statement is irrelevant, so why post it?

Oh, yes, that's right - you have freedom of speech as well. Thanks for sharing.

Bromley boy · 22 Jul 2019

800002 said:
Which, to me, is as unacceptable as a blanket ban.

With respect, it won’t be you making the decision. All that matters is that the ban will be acceptable to Network Rail.

It’s their train set. They get to decide what runs on it!

Mountain Man · 22 Jul 2019

800002 said:
Which, to me, is as unacceptable as a blanket ban.
I'll say this, for the last time, people need to be educated - if that's by prosecutions or by onsite staff, so beit. Hopefully it won't take a life changing or ending incident.

Education? How do you educate basic common sense?

You don't need to sit in a classroom to understand that standing a couple of feet away from a really busy railway line might be a really stupid idea.

Sometimes you just have to accept some people are idiots and plan accordingly

Mountain Man · 22 Jul 2019

bb21 said:
You will almost certainly be disappointed.

I doubt it.

Preserving old steam trains is lovely until you clobber people in their wallet.

800002 · 22 Jul 2019

Bromley boy said:
With respect, it won’t be you making the decision. All that matters is that the ban will be acceptable to Network Rail.

I am intreiged to know though how NR are able to ban any traction, let alone just steam.
What actual grounding / procedure are they able to employ?
It may have been discussed previously in which case my apologies.

bb21 · 22 Jul 2019

Mountain Man said:
I doubt it.

Preserving old steam trains is lovely until you clobber people in their wallet.

That's what I said isn't it?

Mountain Man · 22 Jul 2019

bb21 said:
That's what I said isn't it?

Yeeeeeeeeeah OK. I meant option 2.

Mountain Man · 22 Jul 2019

Mountain Man said:
Yeeeeeeeeeah OK. I meant option 2.

Corrected it.

bb21 · 22 Jul 2019

Mountain Man said:
Yeeeeeeeeeah OK. I meant option 2.

You had me worried for a mo. I thought I was going senile.

Mountain Man · 22 Jul 2019

bb21 said:
You had me worried for a mo. I thought I was going senile.

Hahaha, that makes 2 of us.

More dangerous lineside behaviour around Flying Scotsman

Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Emeritus Moderator

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Emeritus Moderator

Member

Member

Emeritus Moderator

Member