Flying Scotsman @ KGX?

[tbtc]

It just takes one or two to be seen trespassing and other non-regulars out with their gear will start to copy - either out of ignorance or the attitude that if others are doing it well ? why shouldn't they ? Human nature :roll:

The old "it's not my fault, I was following someone else that was trespassing" argument?

I'm not blaming the media. I'm saying that they could try and help the situation., which is different. The people to blame are those who trespassing, pure and simple. What I'm saying is that perhaps if the dangers were more frequently and widely publicised, there may be fewer people who see this happening and think it's OK.

<snip> </snip>

I would simply like to see all sections of the media act a little more responsibly when covering the stories.

People shouldn't need special announcements not to stand on railway lines, I don't think that the media are responsible for being the Nanny State.

Imagine if every traffic report on the radio had a disclaimer that the tailback at Spaghetti Junction wasn’t an excuse to walk down the M6?

And she wasn't being towed as some people on here were predicting. :roll:

It's a shame we aren't focussing more on that aspect - the idiots on the tracks have taken attention away from the mechanical side of things.

All well and good restoring a locomotive but you can't predict how it'll do with 200 mile of the ECML - it passed with flying colours.

I'm informed all lines were blocked after people were seen running off the end of the platform at St Neots. Given that St Neots station comprises 2 island platforms between the slow and fast lines in each direction with the normal speed of passing trains on the fast lines of 125 mph, this does seem to be taking stupidity to a whole new level.

I was on a FHT going southbound and passed it between Stoke Jn and Peterborough. Have to say, the number of people on the 'wrong' side of the barrier were unbelievable. Quite a lot were in touching distance of the track.

That's worrying.

Banning steam would cure the problem though wouldnt it!

I like to see a big steamer working hard at speed as much as the next enthusiast but these idiots will cause a steam ban, NR simply wont stand for the amount of problems, delays, costs involved with allowing these things on the mainline.

Abuse NRs hospitality and it will end badly for us enthusiasts!

I can't argue - I wonder if we'll ever find out what yesterday's Delay Minutes cost Network Rail (aka the Taxpayer)?

If this trespass business is going to become more common on Flying Scotsman-hauled tours, perhaps there should be paint ball guns available in the support coach for the crew to fire at (and subsequently help identify) the offenders.

Furthermore, if a bright green paint was used, this would differentiate between "proper enthusiasts" and the more general public.
How?

The General public would be moaning about their human rights, and having sad-face photos published in the Daily Mail.

The "proper enthusiast" would go on internet forums moaning about it being the wrong shade of green.

Whilst I do not want it to happen, I believe that if this level of trespass occurs, then railtours should be stopped. At the end of the day, someone is going to get killed, let alone the delay to the rest of the network.

The railway isn't a museum, its a modern transport network

True.

If idiots feel the need to compete with each other for the "best" (i.e. closest) shot then I don't think anyone will be surprised when we hear of a serious injury (or even application for a Darwin Award).

On a more positive note, good to see that VTEC had managed to get the Flying Scotsman liveried 91 adjacent for the KGX departure

Virgin have handled this really well - which is positive - though it's unsurprising that they're attracting a lot of criticism from enthusiasts for daring to milk the story about their 225 photobombing one bloke's pictures - they can't do right in the eyes of some enthusiasts

Thanks for the welcome - long time lurker here background, Broadcast Engineer, PPL pilot pleasure flying & licensed commercial drone operator.

At the risk of thread drift, NOTAMS are an interesting beast - it isn't compulsory to file them, but it's considered good airmanship to do so if you're doing anything odd - they take time to be communicated. The overriding principal of flying for light aircraft, drones & helis is VFR - the Mk1 eyeball, the pilot is responsible for lookout. Despite this I would certainly have at least expected a NOTAM to be in for Arenas antics today & had I been operating in the area with a UAV I would've had a 'brown trouser' moment had nothing been NOTAM'd & had to get the UAV out of the way pretty damn quick. There is a concept of equivalence in aviation - manned & unmanned aviation work to the same rules (give or take a few bits)

For comparison - similar permissions are issued for air shows & those are NOTAM'd, but they are likely planned months in advance, most broadcast planners don't look beyond their horn rimmed glasses, I know that one from bitter experience.

Personal opinion - G-TAKE didn't NEED to be where she was. The lens on the camera on that aircraft is sufficient for close fine detail at a greater distance. The risks were not commensurate with the likely reward. Was it safe? In the event yes, was it wise? Probably not, but that's a subjective point.

That's a really interesting post (about a subject I'll admit I knew nothing about).

it would not have taken much initiative to send out a few NR pickups with the orange squad or BTP police to known hot spots to keep the initiative.

The railway is owned and operated by NR and its security is their responsibility, not the public's so when they are part of the conduct of an event like this folding arms and tutting is not a tenable answer

Yes, yes, it's always someone else's fault - how dare Network Rail not fully secure two hundred miles of ECML from London to York - can't blame these poor enthusiasts who fell through gaps in fences etc etc

Wasn't my fault I found myself in the fourfoot, Officer...

Yes and this seems to have been missed...
Yesterday was a normal operational day on the East Coast main line... you cannot just divert all your resources to baby sit one loco on one journey.

I'd love to know where some people think the BTP etc have sufficient spare resources to police with a couple of hundred miles of ECML, given all of the potential access points etc.

And, if they had, the same people would be moaning about "overkill" :roll:

 

[TBirdFrank]

All of which misses the central point.

The lineside fencing and its upkeep and enforcement has nothing to do with anyone but NR.

They are the custodians of the obligation under the various railway acts and they have no way out. The TOCs are not responsible for public stupidity so have no place in any equation.

As Lord Denning once did - you have to separate the law from justice, and that's how it is.

 

[sprinterguy]

It's a shame we aren't focussing more on that aspect - the idiots on the tracks have taken attention away from the mechanical side of things.

All well and good restoring a locomotive but you can't predict how it'll do with 200 mile of the ECML - it passed with flying colours.

Agreed. This discussion is representative of the effect that the actions of those trespassing has had, which has been to mar the otherwise successful return to the main line of something of a national icon, after a difficult and protracted rebuild.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

It's a shame we aren't focussing more on that aspect - the idiots on the tracks have taken attention away from the mechanical side of things.

All well and good restoring a locomotive but you can't predict how it'll do with 200 mile of the ECML - it passed with flying colours.

Surely it passed it the day before when it went down to London

 

[sprinterguy]

Surely it passed it the day before when it went down to London

Though it's a little bit different with load eleven behind the tender, compared to a single support coach.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Though it's a little bit different with load eleven behind the tender, compared to a single support coach.

Yes... But it got down there - by my standards, it passed

 

[sprinterguy]

Yes... But it got down there - by my standards, it passed

Ah, the "it goes, so it's fine" approach. You haven't recently been employed by West Coast Railway Co. by any chance?

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Ah, the "it goes, so it's fine" approach. You haven't recently been employed by West Coast Railway Co. by any chance?

I can neither confirm nor deny that

 

[DaleCooper]

All of which misses the central point.

The lineside fencing and its upkeep and enforcement has nothing to do with anyone but NR.

They are the custodians of the obligation under the various railway acts and they have no way out. The TOCs are not responsible for public stupidity so have no place in any equation.

As Lord Denning once did - you have to separate the law from justice, and that's how it is.

If NR are going to get the blame then their obvious response will be not to allow such high profile events.

 

[CosherB]

Surely it passed it the day before when it went down to London

I think it passed when it successfully completed it's trials in the East Lancs Railway. Which, interestingly, WCRC are now spinning as being an integral part of on their Facebook page! :roll:

 

[jon0844]

I know we could never do it as it would be 'unfair' but the most effective thing NR could do would be to get all the photos it can and publish them along with a very clear and strongly worded text to shame all concerned.

There's no way you could ever expect hundreds of prosecutions, and from what I've read on some other forums, there's the belief that it was no big deal and a few minutes delay did nobody any harm.

So, the legal route is probably not going to work as it would be a PR nightmare. But actually shaming people, well, that's easy. And nobody pictured railside can have an excuse, thus they have nothing to moan about.

The lack of action from the authorities is precisely the reason you now have so many websites exposing bad drivers, from illegal and insensitive parking, to driving badly and caught on dashcams.

We might as well give up on anything else being done, as so many people just don't want the backlash when do-gooders start coming out saying that all the trespassers were perfectly safe and did no harm because nobody died.

 

[Darandio]

The lineside fencing and its upkeep and enforcement has nothing to do with anyone but NR.

Indeed, but trespass has nothing to do with anyone but those who do it. You choose to trespass, it isn't forced upon you.

Many locations have fencing that is no more than 3 1/2 - 4 feet tall, people can simply cock their leg over. Should all of this be replaced with 10 foot high fencing, shrouded in barbed wire?

Or we could be even more radical. People could take responsibility for their own actions and choose not to trespass on private property?

 

[bnm]

All of which misses the central point.

The lineside fencing and its upkeep and enforcement has nothing to do with anyone but NR.

They are the custodians of the obligation under the various railway acts and they have no way out. The TOCs are not responsible for public stupidity so have no place in any equation.

As Lord Denning once did - you have to separate the law from justice, and that's how it is.

Poppycock.

The obligations rest solely with the general public to not break the law.

An open front door is not an invitation to walk into someone's house.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Until 1972, that might be true. The rule in law was set by Addie (Robert) & Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck : " No occupier is under any duty to potential trespassers, whether adults or children, to do anything to protect them from danger on his land, however likely it may be that they will come and run into danger and however lethal the danger may be".

But it was on the Railways that this position changed in 1972, in British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] UKHL 1. A 6-year old child, Herrington, the plaintiff, had gone through a fence onto the railway line at Mitcham, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser. The gap had been used frequently as a short cut to the park. The defendant was aware of the gap in the fence which had been present for several months, but had failed to do anything about it.

"It seems to me that the rule in Addie v. Dumbreck has been rendered obsolete by changes in physical and social conditions and has become an incumbrance impeding the proper development of the law. With the increase of the population and the larger proportion living in cities and towns and the extensive substitution of blocks of flats for rows of houses with gardens or back yards and quiet streets, there is less playing space for children and so a greater temptation to trespass. There is less supervision of children, so that they are more likely to trespass. Also with the progress of technology there are more and greater dangers for them to encounter by reason of the increased use of, for instance, electricity, gas, fast moving vehicles, heavy machinery and poisonous chemicals. There is considerably more need than there used to be for occupiers to take reasonable steps with a view to deterring persons, especially children, from trespassing in places that are dangerous for them.

In my opinion the Addie v. Dumbreck formulation of the duly of occupier to trespasser is plainly inadequate for modern conditions, and its rigid and restrictive character has impeded the proper development of the common law in this field. It has become an anomaly and should be discarded."

"Anyone of common sense would realise the danger that the state of the fence so close to the live rail created for little children coming to the meadow to play.

The court is entitled to infer. . . that one or more of their employees decided to allow the risk to continue of some child crossing the boundary and being injured or killed by the live rail rather than to incur the trivial trouble and expense of repairing the gap in the fence."

 

[CosherB]

Poppycock.

The obligations rest solely with the general public to not break the law.

An open front door is not an invitation to walk into someone's house.

Try telling that to an insurer.

The householder, in this case, must make reasonable steps not to leave their front door open and secure their house.

Do an internet search and find a litany of stories where burglars have entered a 'dodgy' building and then got injured during their mischief - the premises owner then gets prosecuted for an unsafe buidling. It stinks, but it's the law.

 

[TBirdFrank]

Dave

Thank you for those illustrations of how case law has expanded on the 1845 Acts et seq.

The blethering hordes can bleat all they like but NR have a proven legal duty to conduct their affairs with a high degree of forethought and assessment and it could well be said that on Thursday a bit of intelligent forethought and placing of personnel at well known hotspots could have done a lot towards preventing what happened.

Today's public has no sense and less discipline - as rather proved by some of the posts on here that do not reflect the real force of the law of the land and how it takes effect.

 

[45517]

Interesting video here from the first double-tender run (1966 ?), people close to the tracks, and on them, especially around 6:19.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiJ7XsEK0M4

Maybe their behaviour wasn't that different from last Thursday. The only real difference is they're mostly watching and waving, not many are taking photos.

 

[Paul180]

Interesting video here from the first double-tender run (1966 ?), people close to the tracks, and on them, especially around 6:19.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiJ7XsEK0M4

Maybe their behaviour wasn't that different from last Thursday. The only real difference is they're mostly watching and waving, not many are taking photos.

I think the people on the track are track gangs because I am sure I can see some sort of track trolley?

Plus on what has been said many times, you or you family were less likely to sue if you come a cropper back then and you were paying more attention on what you were doing rather than trying to get a snap on your phone with out any one in shot.

 

[TDK]

Mmm... Fair point to all above

What is the likelihood of BTP doing some prosecutions for the trespass?

I hope it is as likely as the guard who in the eyes of his company did nothing wrong is as we speak in crown court fighting for his freedom!!!!

 

[Southwest]

This slice has posted his own video of the event at St Neots, what a total wand he is.

https://twitter.com/JSimonCar/status/702782227722141696

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

This slice has posted his own video of the event at St Neots, what a total wand he is.

https://twitter.com/JSimonCar/status/702782227722141696

We know about that one

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Ahead of a BBC TV broadcast tomorrow, Mon March 7th, this interactive video of the Flying Scotsman has been produced by the team of Sue Wilkinson, Roger Keech, Andy Dobson and John Lawrence.

"Ever wondered what it's like to take a ride on the Flying Scotsman?

Jump on board for a spectacular interactive journey."

[may be sensitive to your choise of browser]