'Enthusiasts' beyond the end of platforms

[HMS Ark Royal]

https://flic.kr/p/7KasF8

How does one react to this?

With caution - this raises a double aspect and I'd certainly expect to be seeing red soonish *sniggers*

Joking aside, Hull has signs stating no passengers beyond the sign, but if i am not intending to travel could I pass through with impunity?

 

[the sniper]

IMO an OFF-DUTY copper threatening to arrest someone for swearing is the definition of the power-crazed arrogance the public has come to expect of the United Kingdom's police force.

Meh... Might have taught this bloke to be more careful about who he was randomly swearing at for no reason in future. Having been in a similar situation with some bloke on a power trip making up his own rules, relying on the ignorance of joe public, showing a staff pass was all I could do to bring my ridiculous encounter to a swift end.

 

[A-driver]

Meh... Might have taught this bloke to be more careful about who he was randomly swearing at for no reason in future. Having been in a similar situation with some bloke on a power trip making up his own rules, relying on the ignorance of joe public, showing a staff pass was all I could do to bring my ridiculous encounter to a swift end.

You honestly believe he would swear at someone unprovoked? Seriously believe he was that stupid to risk his job like that?!

 

[the sniper]

You honestly believe he would swear at someone unprovoked? Seriously believe he was that stupid to risk his job like that?!

Mate, honestly I wouldn't disbelieve it. That's not to say it definitely happened, but I certainly wouldn't discount it. I know one or two guys who might do something stupid like that. I imagine most people who work at/through/out of Birmingham New Street (who know people) could name the one person who's liable to swear unprovoked at passengers who's behaviour they don't approve of!

 

[DelW]

Coppers are often the worst offenders, wondering around on the railway lines willy-nilly, without the signal box knowing. In 13 years of signalling trains (not long I know) I can honestly say I have had to caution trains a lot more because police are on the line without letting anyone know, than I have had to with enthusiasts. Of course, a black police uniform entitles them to do what they want in the pitch dark!

How it used to be in the 'good old days...' (not my photo or website, just from a Google search)

http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/00001-a-trotter-UK0418.jpg

How would today's railway react to that?

 

[Drogba11CFC]

I've seen such behaviour first hand; The Cathedrals Express runs to Winchester every year and there used to be enthusiasts down the ramp and alongside the line. Of course, nowadays there are gates at the end of each platform to prevent such antics.

 

[trivran]

How it used to be in the 'good old days...' (not my photo or website, just from a Google search)

http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/00001-a-trotter-UK0418.jpg

How would today's railway react to that?

Climbing the signals indeed! I'd never dream of doing something like that.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Someone on a ramp is not going to get hit by a train, unless it has derailed! Beyond it is a different matter. If the ramp is so dangerous, then surely 'the railway' should remove it?

Assuming that at the end of the platform there is a sign which says something along the lines of "do not trespass" why on earth would you then walk past that sign?

 

[Astraman]

The rate gates/barriers are being installed at stations on WCML there wont be any enthusiast/spotters on platforms unless they buy a train ticket i would think.

 

[yorkie]

...And I also don't believe for a second that the staff swore at him. No one is that stupid..

Yes they are, there was a video of an EMT Guard swearing recently. Our Northern driver swore at a passenger a few days ago. It can and does happen. I see no reason to disbelieve the forum member.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To be fair, the sign at the end of York P10 is pretty ambiguous. It says something like "do not cross the lines except by use of the footbridge" and nothing about venturing beyond that point.

That's not at all ambiguous. It means what it says, and nothing more.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No I havnt called you a liar. I have just strongly suggested that what you say is rather exaggerated or that you have missed a large chunk of the actual events out to try and strengthen your story. The evidence I have it didn't happen is a strong as yours tht it did-I base my claims on the fact that no member of staff would ever swear at a passenger and if they did it would be as a result of a big altercation in which both sides were strongly to blame.

That's not true, and is not at all 'evidence' as to what did or didn't happen on the occasion described.

Some passengers swear. Some staff swear. People are people; it happens.

 

[BestWestern]

Someone on a ramp is not going to get hit by a train, unless it has derailed! Beyond it is a different matter. If the ramp is so dangerous, then surely 'the railway' should remove it?

You are trolling, right?!

 

[bb21]

As far as swearing goes, I think it can be safety said that it does happen. I have seen it myself.

However as for obeying staff instruction, I was once informed by a BTP officer that as it is private property, even if staff were rude and/or swearing, you still obey their instructions, otherwise you can be arrested under the Byelaws. So either our BTP member was wrong or the BTP officer I encountered was wrong.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I don't know if it is still there, but there was a "Passengers must not cross the line" sign on the last lamppost on one of the platforms.

I was beyond this sign but still fully on the platform when I heard the irate bellowing of some uniformed jobsworth "can't you f*****g read!" I ignored the bellow until it was in my ear when I politely informed him I could read and asked him to read the sign.

Only the production of my warrant card (before retirement) and informing him of his imminent arrest calmed him down. He went off muttering but I can well imagine that others would have been ordered off the station under the loitering bylaw.

My wife is a Police Officer and in all honesty your behavior was nothing short of mean spirited and nasty. There was no need to flash your warrant card, indeed you only appear to have done do so for your own gratification and to try and intimidate the bloke. That "uniformed jobsworth" was simply doing his job, yes he shouldn't have used foul language but your behavior was no better.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

That "uniformed jobsworth" was simply doing his job, yes he shouldn't have used fowl language but your behavior was no better.

Fowl language...? I see no reason to bring chickens into this discussion

 

[RichmondCommu]

Fowl language...? I see no reason to bring chickens into this discussion

Ooops!

 

[the sniper]

My wife is a Police Officer and in all honesty your behavior was nothing short of mean spirited and nasty. There was no need to flash your warrant card, indeed you only appear to have done do so for your own gratification and to try and intimidate the bloke. That "uniformed jobsworth" was simply doing his job, yes he shouldn't have used foul language but your behavior was no better.

While I find it odd that I'm arguing an 'anti rail staff' argument, if we're believing the stated version of events, what would have happened if furnessvale wasn't a copper and was just a socially awkward rail enthusiast, minding their own business, stood in an area where access wasn't seemingly prohibited, who then gets some bloke swearing at them, telling them they're in the wrong? You can imagine if they argued their case like furnessvale they might be told to leave the station and wouldn't have a leg to stand on legally. As it was furnessvale nipped it in the bud by showing his warrant card and presumably shocked the guy with threat of arrest, whether serious or (I'd imagine) not. Maybe doing that would lead this bloke to be a bit less gung-ho in future, which may in turn prevent him getting sacked at some point down the road...

Again, this is only going on the scenario as presented, which for the benefit of discussion can be treated as a hypothetical one. We have no way of knowing what went on, or even whether it happened at all! The same applies to most stories we read on internet forums.

 

[anme]

As I say, it's simple enough. If someone goes to part of a station they should not be on(eg the ramps) and gets injured the railway risks legal action for failing to properly protect them.

Please provide an example where this has happened.
Thanks.

 

[ComUtoR]

Please provide an example where this has happened.
Thanks.

Why ?

Are people that stupid that unless someone has been injured previously it becomes acceptable. No one has died previously so yeah, crack on.

It's worth the risk; honest.

 

[A-driver]

Please provide an example where this has happened.

Thanks.

It dosnt have to have happened to be the way it works. All businesses make policies to protect themselves against possible legal action weather in response to a real or theoretical incident. A "caution wet floor sign" isn't placed there purely because someone has slipped, broken their leg and sued but because there is a chance they will and so placing the sign there is cheaper than the possible court case.

Its a fact that they would be opening themselves up to legal issues if they didn't place signs around stations and an incident happened.

So no example is needed. Although, and this will open a can of worms, but network rail were taken to court over the very sad death of 2 girls on a crossing on the west Anglia line. The legal challenge seemed (as far as I can remember) to Center around the visibility of warning signs and warning lights/alarms.

 

[Stigy]

I fail to see what offence the staff member could have been arrested under? Especially given this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ing-at-police-is-not-a-crime-judge-rules.html

It's nothing new that swearing at Police isn't an offence as such, as they can't be alarmed, harassed or distressed (as per the wording of s5 of the Public Order Act). If however there were other people present and in ear-shot, the s.5 offence would still be applicable. Having said that, I find it hard to believe that rail staff would use such language.

Regarding the signage, the more modern signs usually read "Passengers must not pass this point, or cross the line" or words to that effect.

 

[ComUtoR]

Regarding the signage, the more modern signs usually read "Passengers must not pass this point, or cross the line" or words to that effect.

Which is good because as an amateur photographer I am not a passenger and therefore allowed to pass that point.

 

[A-driver]

Yes they are, there was a video of an EMT Guard swearing recently. Our Northern driver swore at a passenger a few days ago. It can and does happen. I see no reason to disbelieve the forum member.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's not at all ambiguous. It means what it says, and nothing more.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's not true, and is not at all 'evidence' as to what did or didn't happen on the occasion described.

Some passengers swear. Some staff swear. People are people; it happens.

In the videos you describe of the guards I think it's clear that there was more of an altercation going on than just an employee swearing at passengers for no reason.

I See great reason to disbelieve the forum member as the swearing allegation strengthens his point that he was in the right and the "uniformed jobsworth" was in the wrong. I don't see how it's in any way acceptable for someone to be able to post such serious allegations against a member of staff on this forum with no evidence and not have their claims challenged. If he was sworn at I would seriously suggest it followed a much bigger augment between the poster and staff member than the poster makes out. And I say that with experience, not just a guess. Of course none of us know as we were not there but it suggest a great deal of caution blindly believing the posters claim. There are always 2 people involved in an altercation. You can never believe one of them to be 100% accurate in their version of events without speaking to the other one first.

As I say, I have very strong suspicions that the claim is either greatly exaggerated or we are only being told half the story.

 

[bb21]

Of course it is possible the OP was lying, but I see no reason to doubt what he said. What is he going to gain by lying? A bit of support and sympathy for something that did not happen? Even if he did get them so what? If it never actually happened, then no one is going to get the sack or otherwise disciplined. Even if it were a hypothetical scenario a discussion can still take place. Those who have been around long enough and are sensible/reasonable all appreciate that the majority of staff are friendly with a few rotten apples here and there but very much in the minority, and they definitely exist. That is not going to change because of a few isolated stories. As for those who hold extreme views, well who cares what they think?

Question the OP, yes, by all means, if you wish to, as long as it is done amicably, but in the absence of anything to suggest the contrary, I see no real point to disbelieve what he said.

 

[A-driver]

Of course it is possible the OP was lying, but I see no reason to doubt what he said. What is he going to gain by lying? A bit of support and sympathy for something that did not happen? Even if he did get them so what? If it never actually happened, then no one is going to get the sack or otherwise disciplined. Even if it were a hypothetical scenario a discussion can still take place. Those who have been around long enough and are sensible/reasonable all appreciate that the majority of staff are friendly with a few rotten apples here and there but very much in the minority, and they definitely exist. That is not going to change because of a few isolated stories. As for those who hold extreme views, well who cares what they think?

Question the OP, yes, by all means, if you wish to, as long as it is done amicably, but in the absence of anything to suggest the contrary, I see no real point to disbelieve what he said.

Well I've explained why I take what he said with a huge pinch of salt. As I say, I take serious issue with people posting their stories of rude staff in obvious altercations. You will only get half the story and a far too one sided version of events to know what actually happened.

 

[anme]

Why ?

Are people that stupid that unless someone has been injured previously it becomes acceptable. No one has died previously so yeah, crack on.

It's worth the risk; honest.

For the avoidance of doubt, I was asking for an example of an occasion when a family sued a railway company after someone was killed or injured after ignoring warning signs and while in a place they shouldn't have been.

 

[A-driver]

For the avoidance of doubt, I was asking for an example of an occasion when a family sued a railway company after someone was killed or injured after ignoring warning signs and while in a place they shouldn't have been.

Well as I say the elsenham fatalities were pretty close to being that.

 

[ComUtoR]

For the avoidance of doubt, I was asking for an example of an occasion when a family sued a railway company after someone was killed or injured after ignoring warning signs and while in a place they shouldn't have been.

Many thanks for the clarification.

I would however add that all I hear is the constant blame of someone else and that "gates" were left unlocked "lack of coherent signage" and "accessible tracks"

I heard one, and my apologies for the coldheartedness, where a mother was blaming Network Rail. Her daughter and friend took a shortcut across the track every day after school. Somehow it was NR's fault for not providing adequate fencing. What I don't hear is people accepting responsibility for their actions.

One of the less disclosed part of our job is to sit through recreations of people getting hit by trains. Watching the interviews with grieving relatives, Then discussing it in great length and being told its our fault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ILLfV3MNkk

Don't know how to embed video but that is the kind of thing we are talking about. Oh, and there is a sign there too.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

For the avoidance of doubt, I was asking for an example of an occasion when a family sued a railway company after someone was killed or injured after ignoring warning signs and while in a place they shouldn't have been.

A few years ago, this guy was drugged up and drunk as a skunk and took a car for a joyride - ending up driving off Walton Street crossing in Hull and ending up several dozen feet in the Cottingham direction of the line. He was quite badly injured and was nearly killed if it was not for the brave actions of the police helicopter physically blocking the path of an oncoming 158 heading towards Hull and flashing its spotlight for the driver to stop. Some time later, the family of the guy, he was declared insane, attempted to claim damages from Network Rail for having a crossing designed so that cars could drive onto the track... They also tried to claim damages from the police for chasing him and, I quote, "Making him more aggressive by their pursuit of him"

Judge threw the case out within a day

 

[158747]

I don't know if it is still there, but there was a "Passengers must not cross the line" sign on the last lamppost on one of the platforms.

I was beyond this sign but still fully on the platform when I heard the irate bellowing of some uniformed jobsworth "can't you f*****g read!" I ignored the bellow until it was in my ear when I politely informed him I could read and asked him to read the sign.

Only the production of my warrant card (before retirement) and informing him of his imminent arrest calmed him down. He went off muttering but I can well imagine that others would have been ordered off the station under the loitering bylaw.

Well done for confronting this jobsworth, unfortunately there are a small minority of railway staff who think it is OK to abuse their authority by harassing rail enthusiasts, I have experienced it myself a few times. Also there are some who do not know the meaning of the "passengers must not cross the line" signs, some even believing that it applies to an imaginary line across the platform near the sign.
There is also an inconsistency when the "passengers must not pass this point" signs are used. Instead of being placed on a post at the end of the platform they are just attached to the nearest lamp post to the end of the platform, one of the worst ones I have seen is platform 1 at Bristol Temple Meads, about 1 1/2 carriage lengths from the platform end. When there is a Voyager on this platform the front of the train is well beyond the sign.
There are also a number of stations where this sign is located at the bottom of the platform ramp.

 

[Mag_seven]

unfortunately there are a small minority of railway staff who think it is OK to abuse their authority by harassing rail enthusiasts

But when group of drunken youths are about the aforementioned staff seem to disappear. Enthusiasts don't help their cause however as evidenced by the OP in this thread.