alexdodds
Member
I ve had not a single problem in Birmingham New Street because i always go to the station reception and sign in then sign out when finished. infact i do that at all network rail managed stations
-
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!
Had problems taking pictures of the railways?
- Thread starter Snapper
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
The so called guidelines (note guidelines and not rules) ask you to let know staff of your presence and not sign in.
People can't be expected to sign in all the time which is why the 'rules' are so ridiculous.
I will continue not to 'sign in' cos in the past you didn't have to. As soon as people start complying then it becomes the norm......
alexdodds
Member
The so called guidelines (note guidelines and not rules) ask you to let know staff of your presence and not sign in.
People can't be expected to sign in all the time which is why the 'rules' are so ridiculous.
I will continue not to 'sign in' cos in the past you didn't have to. As soon as people start complying then it becomes the norm......
Well for me signing in at the reception desk at network rail stations is why i have not had any problems on them even though i have only been in 4 of them Glasgow Central, Edinburgh Waverley, Leeds and Birmingham New Street and i have done a few 2 or 3 hour sessions at them. i am one of those enthusiasts that prefers to do the right thing and do what it says on the guidelines issued by network rail especialy as i travel by myself a lot.
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
But is it "the right thing"? The thing is passengers don't need to sign in to be on stations and they probably take photo with their mobiles etc so why are enthusiasts singled out???
Just "going along with things" is just the thin end of the wedge.......
Hi,im new to rail photography and i really wanted to get night shots of stations,yards and sidings but i've heard about the possibility of being arrested under suspicion of TERRORISM?-is this true?
i would never trespass,i mean taking photos from adjacent streets,road bridges etc.surely taht cannot be deemed illegal in any way whatsoever?
any help/advice is appriciated.
i would never trespass,i mean taking photos from adjacent streets,road bridges etc.surely taht cannot be deemed illegal in any way whatsoever?
any help/advice is appriciated.
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
You cannot be arrested under suspicion of terrorism for taking pictures as you state above; it is NOT ILLEGAL.
alexdodds
Member
Hull August 2007: station staff said they do not allow photography in the station and said i had to write to Transpennine Express. i therefore had to film from a bridge that overlooks the station.
Dundee May 2009: i was told at the station that i could only do still shots and no moving ones ScotRail staff got it wrong that time.
Darlington June 2009: After filming for 3 hours one of the despatch staff came up to me and said next time inform us first i was annoyed because i was not bothered by anyone during the 3 hours i was there.
Dundee May 2009: i was told at the station that i could only do still shots and no moving ones ScotRail staff got it wrong that time.
Darlington June 2009: After filming for 3 hours one of the despatch staff came up to me and said next time inform us first i was annoyed because i was not bothered by anyone during the 3 hours i was there.
NSEFAN
Established Member
At Northumberland Park yesterday lunchtime (30th August), I was told to stop taking pictures by the NXEA employee in the ticket office. When I asked why, the woman said that it was company policy, because the flash distracts the drivers. I pointed out that I was not using the flash, but she insisted that it was still not permitted. I stopped taking pictures at this point, waited for my train, and carried on taking pictures at other stations for the rest of the day without hinderance.
It's quite right that we have this thread to show when staff make up their own rules and don't follow guidelines. It's also fair for us to follow the
Network Rail guidelines too, so on Darlington I'm afraid you're to blame. The station staff are quite right in saying you should have told them first. After all it wasn't a flying visit or connection between trains if you were questioned after 3 hours.
alexdodds
Member
You are right i made a mistake by not telling them first but i thought because i had been there loads of times staff would of reconised me like at Durham station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You should explain that it is not against the law or the railway bye-laws to take photos and videos on public areas of railway property and you had a right because of that.
Network Rail own all the rail stations in the UK and so it should be up to them not the TOC about what is and what is not allowed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You should explain that it is not against the law or the railway bye-laws to take photos and videos on public areas of railway property and you had a right because of that.
Network Rail own all the rail stations in the UK and so it should be up to them not the TOC about what is and what is not allowed.
Last edited:
curly42
Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2008
- Messages
- 747
You don't have to sign in,or even let anyone know why you are there.Some may say that it is courtesy to do so,whilst others will refuse,on the grounds that doing so has very little merit.
There has been a lot of discussion on this subject,and judging by the comments on this thread there will be a lot more.
What becomes accepted practice now will become compulsory in the future ??
There has been a lot of discussion on this subject,and judging by the comments on this thread there will be a lot more.
What becomes accepted practice now will become compulsory in the future ??
But as its the TOCs that manage and run the stations should they not have any input?
Sadly you can be stopped or arrested for pretty much anything these days if it means easy targets or meeting targets...whether you would get charged is another matter.
Old Timer
Established Member
That is NOT wholy true.
Whilst there is no law preventing photographs being taken on PUBLIC property, Railway Property is legally classed as Private Property into which the public are allowed for the purposes of travelling by train.
The Law is quite clear that a Private landowner can refuse permision for photographs to be taken on their property and can require you to leave if you do not comply. In this situation NR and the TOC are considered to be Private landowners.
Custom and practice over the years under BR did not prevent the taking of photographs however under existing Legislation in various Acts NR and TOCs can stop you entering a station if you are not travelling, remove you and indeed implement a no photography rule if they so wish.
What no-one can do without a Court Order is to seize your camera or require you to destroy any pictures (except under Terrorism laws). Pictures in all cases can only be destroyed under a Court Order signed by a Judge.
Please do not shoot the messenger if you do not like the message.
alexdodds
Member
Oh dear i ve done it again said something before thinking about it i certantly havent made a good start to my time on the forums.
Old Timer
Established Member
Oh I shouldn't worry about it.
I am sure there are a number of pillocks here who are far worse than you think you are !
Just be yourself............unless you suffer from a Multiple Personality Disorder, in which case just be your various selves !
I am sure there are a number of pillocks here who are far worse than you think you are !
Just be yourself............unless you suffer from a Multiple Personality Disorder, in which case just be your various selves !
Oh I shouldn't worry about it.
I am sure there are a number of pillocks here who are far worse than you think you are !
There certainly are:
Haha.. you know I'm just joking with you.
I wouldn't really worry about what you say Alex - people don't mind. It should be good fun to have a debate. No one takes it too seriously on here
.alexdodds
Member
One incident i did have at Edinburgh Waverley on Thursday 28th May this year was when i was filming the 2032 NXEC to Aberdeen now i had already been on the station since half 6 that evening and had already got permission at the reception. I was also in Scotland that day by myself.
As my camera was pointing at the train standing in the station a staff worker came over to me in a angry and nasty voice said to me "dont you dare film me take pictures of the train but not me" this woman was the train guard on that service and she is called Helen Gray.
I wasnt even filming i had the shot ready for when the train departed. i was so upset and annoyed that i spoke to a depatch person and said she was based in Aberdeen. I was going to complain to the company but my mam told me to let it go. How disgraceful of NXEC staff to behave like this.
As my camera was pointing at the train standing in the station a staff worker came over to me in a angry and nasty voice said to me "dont you dare film me take pictures of the train but not me" this woman was the train guard on that service and she is called Helen Gray.
I wasnt even filming i had the shot ready for when the train departed. i was so upset and annoyed that i spoke to a depatch person and said she was based in Aberdeen. I was going to complain to the company but my mam told me to let it go. How disgraceful of NXEC staff to behave like this.
Old Timer
Established Member
Nice one, old boy !There certainly are:
Haha.. you know I'm just joking with you.
I wouldn't really worry about what you say Alex - people don't mind. It should be good fun to have a debate. No one takes it too seriously on here
Very interesting!
Old Timer
Established Member
The really sad thing about all this is that if someone really put their mind to it, allowing for annual leave, shifts, etc, EVERY member of staff could be given a proper briefing face to face by a Manager/Supervisor in about six weeks allowing for a pyramid cascade.
It amazes me that such a simple issue just cannot be sorted out.
On the other side of the coin, starting the conversation by immediately launching into a recital of the various sections of the law is hardly conducive to resolving the issue quickly and probably puts the man on the defensive straight away. Never a good thing because then matters escalate as we have seen.
Who DID one of them work for ? There appeared to be conflicts between NR and Virgin.
It amazes me that such a simple issue just cannot be sorted out.
On the other side of the coin, starting the conversation by immediately launching into a recital of the various sections of the law is hardly conducive to resolving the issue quickly and probably puts the man on the defensive straight away. Never a good thing because then matters escalate as we have seen.
Who DID one of them work for ? There appeared to be conflicts between NR and Virgin.
Old Timer, I disagree tbh! How would you suggest he handle it? The lad pointed out he was doing nothing wrong and backed his position up with LULs own CoC. The key part for me is when the Instructor driver gets out to fot Sarah Siddons, he tells the security guard that photography is allowed. At that point, the security guard *has* to go away and discuss with that driver and then come back and apologise. But no, he escalated it into an argument. As a member of staff yourself, I'm sure you'll agree that's a classic example of what not to do.
As an aside, if you read the comments on youtube, looks like the driver may be needing Union representation urgently and even that may not save him. What a berk.
Old Timer
Established Member
I am a believer in engaging in conversation first rather than launching into a diatribe what the laws state. I have never had a problem when I have done this, in fact quite the reverse, one guy even asking if I could let him have a copy of the picture for the booking office !.
Now if I have misunderstood this then please say.
As I hear it the security man asked what they were doing on the station in a polite manner, using the word "please". The immediate response was "Look at clause 4.5 of the Conditions of Carriage". Hardly conducive to winning friends now is it ?
Now by this approach, in my opinion they may have inflamed the situation when there was no need.
What would have been the response if they had just explained that they were passing between trains and had stopped to take a photograph of the locomotive ?
If the man had then persisted by saying that they could not or they needed permission they could have said that this was not their understanding of LULs policy, and ask him to check with the Supervisor.
Now that does not lead to a confrontation.
Now obviously like most people the security man will not know exactly what this Clause is, frankly I didn't so I had to google a copy so quoting the rules straight out like that is going to put him onto the defensive straight away.
Security staff are trained to take the upper hand in any situation exactly the same way that Police are, and that is what the security man now tries to do, and of course from that point matters escalate.
It strikes me having listened a couple of times now, that maybe these guys had come "prepared to do battle" ?
The Clause quoted by the way (4.5) according to the Conditions of Carriage I have found is completely irrelevant anyway, and in any case the Conditions of Carriage have sweet FA to do with giving permission for photography, they only prohibit flash and tripods, and that was not the issue in dispute.
If someone is going to start a legal fight at least get the relevant clauses and Acts correct :roll:
Here is the link.
TfL Conditions of Carriage
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Until the various organisations take action to train their staff properly such issues will persist.
Now if I have misunderstood this then please say.
As I hear it the security man asked what they were doing on the station in a polite manner, using the word "please". The immediate response was "Look at clause 4.5 of the Conditions of Carriage". Hardly conducive to winning friends now is it ?
Now by this approach, in my opinion they may have inflamed the situation when there was no need.
What would have been the response if they had just explained that they were passing between trains and had stopped to take a photograph of the locomotive ?
If the man had then persisted by saying that they could not or they needed permission they could have said that this was not their understanding of LULs policy, and ask him to check with the Supervisor.
Now that does not lead to a confrontation.
Now obviously like most people the security man will not know exactly what this Clause is, frankly I didn't so I had to google a copy so quoting the rules straight out like that is going to put him onto the defensive straight away.
Security staff are trained to take the upper hand in any situation exactly the same way that Police are, and that is what the security man now tries to do, and of course from that point matters escalate.
It strikes me having listened a couple of times now, that maybe these guys had come "prepared to do battle" ?
The Clause quoted by the way (4.5) according to the Conditions of Carriage I have found is completely irrelevant anyway, and in any case the Conditions of Carriage have sweet FA to do with giving permission for photography, they only prohibit flash and tripods, and that was not the issue in dispute.
If someone is going to start a legal fight at least get the relevant clauses and Acts correct :roll:
Here is the link.
TfL Conditions of Carriage
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yes, I have now read some of the comments, quite illuminating with people equating with Nazis and demanding sackings ! Clearly some do not see the contradictions !
Until the various organisations take action to train their staff properly such issues will persist.
Last edited:
One of the first things I did was google the CoC!!! All that clause 4.5 says is that flash photography and tripods are not permitted. I'd say that the lads in the video have inferred that if normal photography was prohibited then it would say so. I guess that's a reasonable inference but you may have a different opinion!
It's a good point about Security staff being trained to take the upper hand, but you also have to listen. He failed to do so, both to the member of LU staff and the customers.
The other bit that concerns me is asking for his NR identification. He had no reason to ask for that at all. The *customer* just said he worked for NR and was in a position to know the rules, not that he was on duty. He was asking for that ID to try and get the NR employee into trouble, which isn't in the remit of his job description and totally out of order.
All that clause 4.5 says is that flash photography and tripods are not permitted. I'd say that the lads in the video have inferred that if normal photography was prohibited then it would say so. I guess that's a reasonable inference but you may have a different opinion! It's a good point about Security staff being trained to take the upper hand, but you also have to listen. He failed to do so, both to the member of LU staff and the customers.
The other bit that concerns me is asking for his NR identification. He had no reason to ask for that at all. The *customer* just said he worked for NR and was in a position to know the rules, not that he was on duty. He was asking for that ID to try and get the NR employee into trouble, which isn't in the remit of his job description and totally out of order.
Old Timer
Established Member
I agree with you that things got out of hand but you have to ask yourself this.
The outcome was at least two members of LUL staff who now quite probably have a grudge against railway enthusiasts.
No-one comes out of this looking very good.
So the overall population of people who want to take photographs when those staff will be involved again may well suffer.
Net result is that no-one has won, but everyone has lost. Potentially for the sake of somebody trying to prove a point and ultimately failing when it is examined in detail.
By contrast, I was passing by one of my local stations a little while back and stopped off to take a photogragh of a freight train.
I went to the booking office to let the lady clerk know what I was doing. She was unsure and said she thought that you needed permission.
I explained that this was only for commercial photographs, and I also explained politely that the necessary guidelines were on the TOC website. She then said she never knew that and that in the future she would be happy for people to go on to take photographs, whereas previously she had gennuinely believed that permission was needed.
Result a friend made for the bigger enthusiast population.
Another instance on a different line, same conversation. Guy said did I mind waiting whilst he checked. I said fine no problem, and by the way I am a member of staff, so I am not trying to kid you.
OK says the man, you go on and I will make enquiries.
Shortly afterwrds he comes down to apologise and explain that he has checked and TOC policy is that there is no problem. He would also pass this information on to his relief as well as some of the other stations where he knew the staff. He asks if he could have a copy of a photograph, so I said yes no problem and later on I dropped a couple over.
Again right result, a friend gained for enthusiasts.
Now those are two stations where a little bit of tact and diplomacy resolved matters to the satisfaction of all. There were only winners and no losers. There was also no controversial footage to be posted on Youtube so the ill-informed could make various remarks.
I have no dispute that on many occasions the staff have been in the wrong, and I make no apologies for their behaviour, however not every enthusiast acts in an acceptable manner either. That is my point.
As an aside, I was recently in South America where on the suburban systems, there is a strict No Photography without permission rule. No one knows where it started or why but it is there in the rules. This is enforced by ARMED security staff who pounce in a matter of seconds, believe me.
I have also been surrounded by armed Railway Police (Hill Street Blues response, kneeling behind police car doors style) when I went into a marshalling yard to take some photographs.
The outcome was at least two members of LUL staff who now quite probably have a grudge against railway enthusiasts.
No-one comes out of this looking very good.
So the overall population of people who want to take photographs when those staff will be involved again may well suffer.
Net result is that no-one has won, but everyone has lost. Potentially for the sake of somebody trying to prove a point and ultimately failing when it is examined in detail.
By contrast, I was passing by one of my local stations a little while back and stopped off to take a photogragh of a freight train.
I went to the booking office to let the lady clerk know what I was doing. She was unsure and said she thought that you needed permission.
I explained that this was only for commercial photographs, and I also explained politely that the necessary guidelines were on the TOC website. She then said she never knew that and that in the future she would be happy for people to go on to take photographs, whereas previously she had gennuinely believed that permission was needed.
Result a friend made for the bigger enthusiast population.
Another instance on a different line, same conversation. Guy said did I mind waiting whilst he checked. I said fine no problem, and by the way I am a member of staff, so I am not trying to kid you.
OK says the man, you go on and I will make enquiries.
Shortly afterwrds he comes down to apologise and explain that he has checked and TOC policy is that there is no problem. He would also pass this information on to his relief as well as some of the other stations where he knew the staff. He asks if he could have a copy of a photograph, so I said yes no problem and later on I dropped a couple over.
Again right result, a friend gained for enthusiasts.
Now those are two stations where a little bit of tact and diplomacy resolved matters to the satisfaction of all. There were only winners and no losers. There was also no controversial footage to be posted on Youtube so the ill-informed could make various remarks.
I have no dispute that on many occasions the staff have been in the wrong, and I make no apologies for their behaviour, however not every enthusiast acts in an acceptable manner either. That is my point.
As an aside, I was recently in South America where on the suburban systems, there is a strict No Photography without permission rule. No one knows where it started or why but it is there in the rules. This is enforced by ARMED security staff who pounce in a matter of seconds, believe me.
I have also been surrounded by armed Railway Police (Hill Street Blues response, kneeling behind police car doors style) when I went into a marshalling yard to take some photographs.
Well, I fear that driver's employment may well be terminated (certainly my employers would dismiss a driver who took an unauthorised person into the cab) so that's possibly just one anti-enthusiast LUL employee. He too could face a disciplinary over his conduct. Still, as you say, this isn't what you'd call a positive outcome at all!
More importantly, I take your point arising from those examples you've gone through but on both occasions you weren't being confronted by a security guard with no intention of using his ears properly. Also, playing devil's advocate slightly, what if those members of staff had been 'the one' - you know, the awkward b*****d/a******e we all encounter from time to time? No matter how polite you were, he wouldn't accept your point and you were prevented from doing as you wished and indeed as you were entitled by the guidelines we talked about yesterday? Would you seek redress of some kind?
I do take your point about the uninformed on Youtube but posting it there also serves a purpose - it brings to a wider audience exactly what nonsense enthusiasts have to put up with. That may ultimately do us some good.
More importantly, I take your point arising from those examples you've gone through but on both occasions you weren't being confronted by a security guard with no intention of using his ears properly. Also, playing devil's advocate slightly, what if those members of staff had been 'the one' - you know, the awkward b*****d/a******e we all encounter from time to time? No matter how polite you were, he wouldn't accept your point and you were prevented from doing as you wished and indeed as you were entitled by the guidelines we talked about yesterday? Would you seek redress of some kind?
I do take your point about the uninformed on Youtube but posting it there also serves a purpose - it brings to a wider audience exactly what nonsense enthusiasts have to put up with. That may ultimately do us some good.
Old Timer
Established Member
Well when I DO meet the inevitable A... B... or the security staff who will not accept the situation there is little I can do other than to point out that they are wrong and that I shall report the matter.
As we both agree they have the right to ask me to leave because I am not travelling, and I have to comply with that instruction in the circumstances.
The only solution is to then follow that up with a formal complaint about the situation, not necessarily the staff, to the relevant person.
I say not necessarily the staff, because in the vast majority of cases I anticipate that they genuinely believe they are correct. This is then the result of poor and inadequate Management, rather than the staff, and it is quite wrong to seek sanction against staff in those circumstances. They are after all acting properly as they perceive it. It is the lack of Management that is to be criticised.
Rudeness or aggressiveness is of course a completely different scenario. If someone is not able to manage a situation without the need to resort to abuse or aggressiveness then that is a personality trait that should have been identified and either rectified or the person removed from those sorts of duties.
As for your last paragraph of your post, I would agree in general but taking all that is on there I cannot help feeling it is rather like the Curate's egg.
As we both agree they have the right to ask me to leave because I am not travelling, and I have to comply with that instruction in the circumstances.
The only solution is to then follow that up with a formal complaint about the situation, not necessarily the staff, to the relevant person.
I say not necessarily the staff, because in the vast majority of cases I anticipate that they genuinely believe they are correct. This is then the result of poor and inadequate Management, rather than the staff, and it is quite wrong to seek sanction against staff in those circumstances. They are after all acting properly as they perceive it. It is the lack of Management that is to be criticised.
Rudeness or aggressiveness is of course a completely different scenario. If someone is not able to manage a situation without the need to resort to abuse or aggressiveness then that is a personality trait that should have been identified and either rectified or the person removed from those sorts of duties.
As for your last paragraph of your post, I would agree in general but taking all that is on there I cannot help feeling it is rather like the Curate's egg.