Had problems taking pictures of the railways?

[43034 The Black Horse]

You say they're only rules but you would be the first to cry and throw your toys out of the pram if the staff didn't follow them.

Cannot see what all the fuss is about really, I take photographs all the time, respect the guidelines, ask for permission to photograph, sign in and get on with most of the staff and thoroughly enjoy my time doing my interest.

But, if you do start just wondering at stations where you require tickets to be on the platform, do not ask permission, don't stand behind the yellow line (like that idiot on youtube) then I cannot see why some of you are moaning and groaning if your not going to follow the rules.

You should see it as a privilege to photograph at stations, not a right

Will I though?

If staff disobey them for the greater good and use common sense (what's that I hear you say? Something Britain is lacking....) then why is it a bad thing.

What I have against the guidelines is, to cut it short, they're bolloxs.

What is the point of letting the staff know of my presence? Why should I have to do it? People who are travelling don't! I don't even spot on stations but may be there for 20-30mins whilst waiting for a train so I would want to get some photos.
Do Chinese tourists have to sign in when they want to photo a train? No!

How do you know I'm not following the rules? Signing in is not a rule. I don't have to follow the guidelines and I exercise my right not to!

It's all part of Britains bollox H+S anti terrorism guff. Simple and short, bollox. Trying to control the masses by a pointless little rule thought up by an arsehole in a suit.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

And the post above defines why Britain is going downhill :roll:

It's just absolute laziness and rudeness. If that view is respective of all railway enthusiasts, then ban them. Since it isn't (or I very much hope so) perhaps the more intelligent ones can work with Network Rail on this.

 

[Old Timer]

As an Infrastructure Contractor presumably you are told as part of your job that you need to report and sign in when visiting stations..

We have to sign in because the station SOM procedures require this.

The SOM is part of the TOC/Station Operators Licence conditions and thus are manadatory in Law.

..As a rail enthuiast what is there that tells me that when I enter a station I need to report to staff my presence. .

I believe some TOCs place posters on public display, however it is clear that not all stations or TOCs do this.

I would probably be more helpful if there was a standard sign.

...I only know about these guidelines as they have been mentioned on various railway forums, what if you are not on the internet or forums?.

Good point, well made.

The Guidelines are available on the Nation Rail Enquiries website, however I found some difficulty in locating them at first. That said, I believe that this whole issue is debated in the Railway press relatively regularly, and I would have thought that most people would now be aware of them, especially taking into account the number of times this subject has appeared.

I believe they may be on the Network Rail and BTP sites but I have not gone searching for them.

.......If these guidelines are to be mandatory as you are indicating then there needs to be some sort of campaign, via both railway media and station posters, to inform enthuiasts of this position so that they are aware of what to do and through official channels to brief station staff the same message..

Again a good point and well made.

I understand from comments made here as well as elsewhere that staff have (or should have been briefed). The situation probably calls for better briefing by TOCs who appear to be notoriously bad at communicating even important matters downwards to their staff in my experience.

.......Also, on the forums the discussions have mixed between your view that they are a mandatory requirement right to the other end of the spectrum that they are only a request to notify staff.

As I said in an earlier post, Network Rail Major Stations require you to sign in, some TOCs also require this, others dont.

As with all my posts I try to explain the reasoning and logic behind processes and procedures, where this is useful or educational, so I will answer this at a little more length.

The need to sign in all depends upon what the TOC/station operator's SOM Procedures require. These form part of the Licence conditions and in addition discharge certain obligations which arise from Network Rail's requirement. They will also discharge a TOC/Station Operator's legal duties and responsibilities to both staff and third parties such as users and visitors.

The term "Guidelines" has previously been defined using the Dictionary definition. That should be clear to all but the most obtuse, but some continue to argue otherwise, presumably their knowledge of lexicography being better than the various authors of the dictionaries. :roll:

BR is now long gone, as are the times and attitudes which applied then.

We live in a much more litigious world, where everyone expects "compensation" for any and every perceived slight, delay, injury, inconvenience or any other reason that an individuals feels so inclined towards. Every one of our accidents is invariably followed up by a claim from Sue, Grabbit, and Runne even when the victim has been the author of his own misadventure.

Stations are places of work as well as the point of interchange between passengers and trains. The station exists for primarily THAT purpose alone.

Under Legislation that we now have, (and which is being made more onerous through the number and nature of compensation claims, and the whole UK compensation culture) there are increasing larger and more demanding duties being placed upon premises owners. Duties of care which are legally defined and in some cases are quite far reaching.

Insurance Companies require more and more, that there are clear and well defined controls in place, as does HMRI.

A railway enthusiuast is not always a passenger, and generally will be on the station and not in the normal areas where passengers congregate. It is inevtiable, given the fact that there are suicides and interference with Railway equipment, that station staff will be interested in anyone who does not fit into the normal passenger profile.

This is one of the reasons why the Guidelines ask people to advise the station staff of their presence. Whether or not they will be required to "sign in" as a visitor will obviously be a TOC Policy.

Remember that under Legislation an enthusiast not travelling is a vistor and in certain cases the TOC will have a greater duty of care towards them than a passenger.

Ultimately there is no right of access to a station for taking photographs or collecting train numbers. Historically access has been granted by silent consent, times are changing and examples such as enthusiasts forcing passengers out of the way at Doncaster, going dowm platform ramps onto the track, placing themselves at high risk of being struck by a train, or deliberately coercing train Drivers to sound a warning horn are completely unacceptable.

Had that man been hit by the train, you can be certain that SOMEONE would have instigated a claim against the Industry, because that is what we do as a Society now.

When the first fatality happens on a station to an enthusiast you can be certain that there will be a considerable amount of pressure from both within Industry and from some sections of Government for enthusiasts to be banned.

The weight of evidence that enthusiasts are not willing to co-operate and follow the guidelines will only strengthen that argument.

 

[EM2]

This is a post from another forum from our comrade Snapper. I hope he doesn't mind me posting it here, but will remove it if there is an objection.

Before people are tempted to sign something which could do more harm than good, it's worth hearing the views of one of the people who helped draft the ATOC guidelines. This reply was origianally published on uk railway by Tony Miles:

"Quote:
I'll dive in here and confess to being one of the three journos who
worked on getting the guidelines agreed.
"ill thought out" is a gross insult to the work that was required to
get over 25 organisations to agree to a common set of guidelines when
some wanted nothing, some were completely welcoming, some wanted
permission to be granted in advance and some wanted the signing in to
be mandatory. It took a huge effort and some hefty pressure on MDs to
get their "jobsworth" teams lower down to agree to the wording that
was finally agreed. You should be grateful that most MDs were far more
enthusiast friendly than the people we originally dealt with who in
some cases had to be "told" to agree to the guidelines.

Thanks also to ATOC who similarly had to put pressure on some TOCs to
fall in line with the rest.

There were some big compromises - but the alternative was different
rules at every TOC and some may have gone for the outright ban. We
were so relieved when we finally got agreement.

Quote:
> The idea of asking rail enthusiasts to report in would be unworkable if
> it was taken seriously. As it's not taken seriously by anyone, the
> whole idea should be scrapped and removed from the guidelines.

And you'd instantly get at least three TOCs banning photography on
stations - just leave it be, offer to sign in if you get the chance
and STOP rocking a very rocky boat....

As another poster has pointed out - there is no right of access to
stations for purposes other than to catch trains - generally there is
support for enthusiasts and even BTP accept their value - and are
annoyed that the Government has ordered them to "stop & search"
obviously innocent enthusiasts. So, we have a set of guidelines that
were the best we could get - and if you knew how much effort it took
to get them agreed......

If anyone fancies writing a different set and getting every TOC, ATOC,
BTP etc. to agree to them then be our guest. Meanwhile just remember -
in Australia you need a permit that has a finite time limit and has to
be purchased. Even then it has far more rules and restrictions than we
have in the UK. Push the TOCs hard enough and someone will find that
out and they'll all decide to accept that idea.

====

Finally - plenty of posters here have gone down the "it's all just
crazy" line. To a great extent I agree - but the railways aren't run
by former enthusiasts in the way they were many years ago and a lot of
the "business people" now near the top (MDs usually excepted) don't
understand the "hobby" and so take a different line. (Our business is
carrying passengers, not providing material for a hobby etc. etc.) So
we have to work round this and make sure we are still welcomed. As I
said before the original discussions threw up people who wanted total
bans, a hostile approach and plenty of confrontation. Let's just be
sure that we don't give them cause to break away and declare their own
rules on their part of the network. With a paranoid government in
power any TOC saying "we're doing this for security reasons" will
probably get DfT support. How about making sure that this never
happens?

 

[theblackwatch]

And the post above defines why Britain is going downhill :roll:

It's just absolute laziness and rudeness. If that view is respective of all railway enthusiasts, then ban them. Since it isn't (or I very much hope so) perhaps the more intelligent ones can work with Network Rail on this.

Indeed Britain is going downhill. Years back you wouldn't get some chap coming up to you ranting that you'd disturbed his tea break and he'd had to come out because one leg of your tripod was over an invisible line - when asked where this line was, he said it was an imaginary one between 2 posts!

 

[GearJammer]

Had that man been hit by the train, you can be certain that SOMEONE would have instigated a claim against the Industry, because that is what we do as a Society now.

I asssume you mean the fella filming the steam tour OldTimer? But what i don't get is how he or someone could claim if he had been hit, theres signs at the end of platforms that state donot pass this point, if hes ignored that then surely he forfits any right to claim?

Unlike a few im not dis-agreeing with what you or GB have said recently but i think others have a point aswell, like ive (and few others) have said, surely these rules need to be simplified a bit?

 

[455driver]

Indeed Britain is going downhill. Years back you wouldn't get some chap coming up to you ranting that you'd disturbed his tea break and he'd had to come out because one leg of your tripod was over an invisible line - when asked where this line was, he said it was an imaginary one between 2 posts!

Or the tripod was on the platform edge causing trains to be cautioned into the station because some numpty wants "that" video :roll:

 

[GB]

but i think others have a point aswell, like ive (and few others) have said, surely these rules need to be simplified a bit?

I do actually agree that certain parts could do with being simplified or altered, however untill that is actually done, surely we have a duty of care to ourselfs as enthusiasts and a duty of care to the hobby as a whole to follow the guidelines that we have got?

Judging by the post EM2 posted, its looks very lucky we have what we have?!

 

[lm321412]

Will I though?

If staff disobey them for the greater good and use common sense (what's that I hear you say? Something Britain is lacking....) then why is it a bad thing.

What I have against the guidelines is, to cut it short, they're bolloxs.

What is the point of letting the staff know of my presence? Why should I have to do it? People who are travelling don't! I don't even spot on stations but may be there for 20-30mins whilst waiting for a train so I would want to get some photos.
Do Chinese tourists have to sign in when they want to photo a train? No!

How do you know I'm not following the rules? Signing in is not a rule. I don't have to follow the guidelines and I exercise my right not to!

It's all part of Britains bollox H+S anti terrorism guff. Simple and short, bollox. Trying to control the masses by a pointless little rule thought up by an arsehole in a suit.

Well if you are not going to follow the guidelines, you won't mind when you get asked to stop taking photos. Simple.

 

[theblackwatch]

Or the tripod was on the platform edge causing trains to be cautioned into the station because some numpty wants "that" video :roll:

If about 15 ft is too close.... Said imaginary line is between two posts located about 10-20 ft from the station ramp and no a platform facing one.

 

[Old Timer]

I asssume you mean the fella filming the steam tour OldTimer? But what i don't get is how he or someone could claim if he had been hit, theres signs at the end of platforms that state donot pass this point, if hes ignored that then surely he forfits any right to claim?.......

Unfortunately, Old Chap if it were on as simple as that.

Lets take the case of a manned station.

Firstly by letting him on the station, the TOC immediately accepts liability for anything that may befall him. If he had been hit at the bottom of the ramp then HIS lawyers would go for a claim based upon inadequate "supervision", was the risk brought to his attention, etc. Then there would be the arguments about having seen him there they should have stopped the train, no doubt this would then develop into a need to put on a speed restriction, etc, etc.

The invertebrates who occupy the sewers and come out to console and claim on behalf of these people will use any and every justification, they will use any error or mistake. They will use a claim of his not being fully warned, made aware of the dangers, would probably say that he should have been accompanied because his attention would wander. They might even lay liability BECAUSE he was given access.

The law is an ass and gets worse each day.

A couple of examples from my experience.

A gang of trackmen are put to work changing rail pads. They are briefed on the method of work and are specifically directed NOT to place their hands under the rail but to use a special pad scraper. To save time they ignoire the instructions when the supervisor goes away for a short period. A Rail Jack fails and they get their hands trapped under the rail. Despite having complied wiht every legal requirement, having had training records and briefing records, we were sued in Court and our Insurers had to pay compensation - Reason "Inadequate supervision"

A mechanic was advised that a lorry had developed a damaged footstep, which was being returned to the garage for repairs. He was told in front of witnesses that it was unsafe to use the step and that he must not use it. He used the step, which failed and suffered bruises when he fell off. Our Insurers paid a substantial sum of money rather than go to Court, because the Court costs were llikely to exceed that amount.

A man was asked to remove rubbish and dispose of it. Unknown to anyone, he came into the depot one Saturday morning and started to burn it, contrary to instructions. He started the fire with petrol from a plastic container. The petrol caught light and he was burnt.

The petrol had been stolen from the Company, indeed he had been stealing petrol for some time. The container was inadequate and was not designed for carrying petrol. He was trespassing on the Depot because he had no right to be there. Working alone was prohibited.

The Company was found fully responsible for his injuries and paid out a substantial sum in compensation.

This is the sort of nonesense that we now have and since Bliar created a compensation culture for the sole purpose of enriching his fellow barristers, we regularly pay out compensation simply to save the larger costs of going to Court. Our Insurers are so loathe to defend anything you would not believe it, on the simple basis that the Court is now a lottery and they may end up on the losing side of a case which then sets a precedent.

Until I found a way to dismiss a man, he suffered an "accident" every March. Nothing substantial but still enough to warrant a claim which our Insurers paid out without question because they did not want to go to Court and spend more money. He meanwhile enjoyed his annual holidays and visted most Countries and continents on his compensation cheque. Naturally the Trade Union defended him to the hilt.

This is what is going on day after day.

....Unlike a few im not dis-agreeing with what you or GB have said recently but i think others have a point aswell, like ive (and few others) have said, surely these rules need to be simplified a bit?

GearJammer, I am more than happy to explain the reasoning where I know it, what I am less happy about are those who having been given substantial reasons deride the answer and continue with their insistence that it is all "bollox" to quote one.

 

[ainsworth74]

Just saw this over at railway eye and whilst not pertinent to the conversation of station access, its still relevant to railway photography in general:

Railway Eye

Have to say I echo The Fact Compilers sentiments over the future of kettles on the mainline.

 

[thefab444]

I quiet agree, but the issue is two way related. last time I went to sign in at a medium size station, the response I got from the shift manager was "Why the f*** are you asking me for? Who told you that you need to ask me? We have got better things to do that have train spotters tell us they are here? Do what ever you like" and another time at a different station "They have to make up stupid rules for everything, we don't care here, do what you like"

Agreed. Virtually all staff fall into this category (although most without the profanity!), as long as you don't act like a total idiot they don't care, and to bother them with trying to sign in would just waste both your and their time.

Well if you are not going to follow the guidelines, you won't mind when you get asked to stop taking photos. Simple.

Fine by me! Not happened once yet in 3 years.

 

[Ferret]

I quiet agree, but the issue is two way related. last time I went to sign in at a medium size station, the response I got from the shift manager was "Why the f*** are you asking me for? Who told you that you need to ask me? We have got better things to do that have train spotters tell us they are here? Do what ever you like" and another time at a different station "They have to make up stupid rules for everything, we don't care here, do what you like"

Pretty much what I said about three pages ago then!

For those who think a ban is likely - tell me, who is going to enforce that ban? Could you really just ban trainspotters with cameras, or would you have to ban others from taking photos too - the friends and family snaps? Sure, there'll be the odd egotist who'll revel in being able to tell somebody what to do, but the vast majority of staff won't want the extra conflict.

 

[Dreadnought]

We have to sign in because the station SOM procedures require this.

The SOM is part of the TOC/Station Operators Licence conditions and thus are manadatory in Law.

Which because they are actually working on the station seems perfectly reasonable, especially as they should be wearing hi-vis clothing as well.

As I'm an enthuiast I'm not working at the station, shouldn't be wearing hi-vis and have absolutely no knowledge of the SOM procedure. There is no requirement for me as a visitor to public places which are deemed as private property to sign in, but contractors would have to, so I cannot see why a station would be different.

I believe some TOCs place posters on public display, however it is clear that not all stations or TOCs do this.

I would probably be more helpful if there was a standard sign.

As I mentioned earlier, Virgin is a TOC that has put up posters which indicate that enthuiasts only need to let staff know of their presence in certain situations (bulky camera kit is one I believe). Now since I see this poster everytime I visit my local station and as I see the railways as a whole entity due to the way franchising is carried out, logically I could expect this to be the standard practice across the whole network.

Remember that under Legislation an enthusiast not travelling is a vistor and in certain cases the TOC will have a greater duty of care towards them than a passenger.

What legislation is this as I have never heard of this one before, does this apply to all places where people can be classed as visitors?

times are changing and examples such as enthusiasts forcing passengers out of the way at Doncaster, going dowm platform ramps onto the track, placing themselves at high risk of being struck by a train, or deliberately coercing train Drivers to sound a warning horn are completely unacceptable.

I totally agree that this behaviour by a small minority of entuiasts is unacceptable, however, this is not just limited to enthuiasts but can be seen throughout society these days. As was pointed out on another thread people will barge on to trains even though some passengers are still trying to disembark, and tresspassing on the railways has been an ongoing problem for many years.

When the first fatality happens on a station to an enthusiast you can be certain that there will be a considerable amount of pressure from both within Industry and from some sections of Government for enthusiasts to be banned.

What about the 'normal' public who can be seen everyday walking up and down platform edges on mobile phones with the backpack overhanging at times, cycling on platforms, running alongside trains waving to friends, all of these breaking the railway by-laws, some of which have led to serious injury and death. Why has there never been any attempts to prevent this behaviour happening with more vigour as these are much more common and widespread than incidents with enthuiasts.

The weight of evidence that enthusiasts are not willing to co-operate and follow the guidelines will only strengthen that argument.

As already indicated this happens because these guidelines are not used in a clear, concise or standard way across the railways and there has never been an attempt to actually educate enthuiasts and staff properly on why these guidelines have been introduced and what the benefits of them will be.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just saw this over at railway eye and whilst not pertinent to the conversation of station access, its still relevant to railway photography in general:

Railway Eye

Have to say I echo The Fact Compilers sentiments over the future of kettles on the mainline.

From my point of view, as it happened on a foot crossing it is more likely to be an incident of crossing misuse rather than actually having set up next to the railway line to take a photo.

 

[Swiss Toni]

Someone enters, refuses to report to staff and goes onto platform. Train comes through and disturbs some track clips which are thrown up. Person is seriously injured. Liability - None if person not spotted. Legal status - Not travelling, no authority to be on station - trespasser kiss goodbye to a large sum of money

Unless this has been tested in a court of law you cannot make this claim, although I note you contradict yourself later.

A man was asked to remove rubbish and dispose of it. Unknown to anyone, he came into the depot one Saturday morning and started to burn it, contrary to instructions. He started the fire with petrol from a plastic container. The petrol caught light and he was burnt.

The petrol had been stolen from the Company, indeed he had been stealing petrol for some time. The container was inadequate and was not designed for carrying petrol. He was trespassing on the Depot because he had no right to be there. Working alone was prohibited.

The Company was found fully responsible for his injuries and paid out a substantial sum in compensation.

 

[Old Timer]

Unless this has been tested in a court of law you cannot make this claim, although I note you contradict yourself later.

Before you try to teach me my job, learn the difference between Criminal and Civil Trespass first.

There are sufficient Court records available to back up my comments, again a little research would have revealed this. As a hint try "Contributory Negligence"

There is an old adage about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

 

[Chester025]

Will I though?

If staff disobey them for the greater good and use common sense (what's that I hear you say? Something Britain is lacking....) then why is it a bad thing.

What I have against the guidelines is, to cut it short, they're bolloxs.

What is the point of letting the staff know of my presence? Why should I have to do it? People who are travelling don't! I don't even spot on stations but may be there for 20-30mins whilst waiting for a train so I would want to get some photos.
Do Chinese tourists have to sign in when they want to photo a train? No!

How do you know I'm not following the rules? Signing in is not a rule. I don't have to follow the guidelines and I exercise my right not to!

It's all part of Britains bollox H+S anti terrorism guff. Simple and short, bollox. Trying to control the masses by a pointless little rule thought up by an arsehole in a suit.

+1

And the post above defines why Britain is going downhill :roll:

It's just absolute laziness and rudeness. If that view is respective of all railway enthusiasts, then ban them. Since it isn't (or I very much hope so) perhaps the more intelligent ones can work with Network Rail on this.

Yes, Britain is going downhill because of this H&S nonsense!

 

[Swiss Toni]

Before you try to teach me my job

You're a barrister or a solicitor then?

 

[thefab444]

Old Timer is many things to many people!

 

[Old Timer]

...As I'm an enthuiast I'm not working at the station, shouldn't be wearing hi-vis and have absolutely no knowledge of the SOM procedure. There is no requirement for me as a visitor to public places which are deemed as private property to sign in, but contractors would have to, so I cannot see why a station would be different..

As I have said several times now, the requirement to sign in is one that each TOC/Station Operator will have made their own judgement on.

Continuing to hark on about other places and what you think is right and wrong is completely irrelevant in this instance.

..As I mentioned earlier, Virgin is a TOC that has put up posters which indicate that enthuiasts only need to let staff know of their presence in certain situations (bulky camera kit is one I believe). Now since I see this poster everytime I visit my local station and as I see the railways as a whole entity due to the way franchising is carried out, logically I could expect this to be the standard practice across the whole network..

I anticipate that this is for the reasons contained in the post by EM2 earlier.

What legislation is this as I have never heard of this one before, does this apply to all places where people can be classed as visitors?.

Your point being ? The fact that you may not have heard of it should tell you that you are on unfamiliar territory. A little research should help you find the relevant bits.

..What about the 'normal' public who can be seen everyday walking up and down platform edges on mobile phones with the backpack overhanging at times, cycling on platforms, running alongside trains waving to friends, all of these breaking the railway by-laws, some of which have led to serious injury and death. Why has there never been any attempts to prevent this behaviour happening with more vigour as these are much more common and widespread than incidents with enthuiasts..

And how would you enforce these ?

If you want station staff on every platform permanently then fine, but I know you wont want to pay the costs of that. The Railway Byelaws set out how people shoiuld behave and the legal system has an age old adage "ignorance is no defence".

That said it is clear that some "enthusiasts" place themselves in far more dangerous situations that do the travelling public, the great majority of whom do not do any of the things you mention.

The various YouTube features simply confirm that to be the case

As already indicated this happens because these guidelines are not used in a clear, concise or standard way across the railways and there has never been an attempt to actually educate enthuiasts and staff properly on why these guidelines have been introduced and what the benefits of them will be..

There has been considerable debate both in the railway press and on forums such as this. I doubt that there are many enthusiasts who are not aware of the Guidelines.

.....From my point of view, as it happened on a foot crossing it is more likely to be an incident of crossing misuse rather than actually having set up next to the railway line to take a photo.

With respect where it happened will be irrelevant.

The underlying cause was that someone appeared to have set up a pair of steps to photograph a (steam?) train from. It is simply one more instance of an incident when steam trains are running, and may yet be used on that basis to support a ban on them.

The other issue is that such incidents and stupidity may well have an impact on others who use the location quite properly.


Swiss Toni
The mild sarcasm of your retort is noted, and not only by me.

Do you really think that everyone who visits here and who works in Infrastructure spends their time shovelling ballast ?

For your information I studied business and transport law at University. I have also worked with legal teams in preparing cases, and I have also given evidence and acted as an expert witness. I think that gives me just a little bit more knowledge on this particular subject than you.

As you seem to be either unaware or unable to understand, managers do receive legal training in many areas these days. Its called Continuing Professional Development.

thefab444
I am told you are one thing to many, - according to those who have PMd me about you. You do so seem to have attracted such negative views it seems.

 

[40fan]

You're seriously comparing an exhibition to a working railway station? Talk about clutching at straws!

In post #370 you said that people needed to sign in if they were taking photos at a shopping centre. At least pretend to show me some respect.

 

[Ferret]

OT - many of your posts in this thread have been about what I'd call worst case scenarios - the 1 in 100000 type of incidents. It's a sad indictment of the World in which we live if those rare occurences dictate how we all go about our daily lives. Where do you draw the line? Nobody has yet managed to come up with a convincing argument as to why enthusiasts should be a special case. After all, many people come to a station who aren't actually travelling.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, I'd like to point out that there are substantial numbers of people, both staff and enthusiasts who see them as a waste of time. Is that a system that's broken and not fit for purpose? If we did a quick straw poll, how many enthusiasts reported to the DSM/signed in last time they were at a station?

 

[GB]

In post #370 you said that people needed to sign in if they were taking photos at a shopping centre. At least pretend to show me some respect.

No he didn't.

It was asked if he expected people to have to sign in, there is a difference.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

In post #370 you said that people needed to sign in if they were taking photos at a shopping centre. At least pretend to show me some respect.

As GB said, that is not what I said. I was asked in my opinion, whether I expected people to have to sign in and I said yes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

OT - many of your posts in this thread have been about what I'd call worst case scenarios - the 1 in 100000 type of incidents. It's a sad indictment of the World in which we live if those rare occurences dictate how we all go about our daily lives

And how do you think the railways ended up with the rule book of today? Yep, mostly from the 1 in 100000 type incidents.

I'd like to point out that there are substantial numbers of people, both staff and enthusiasts who see them as a waste of time.

Do you have proof for that statement?

If we did a quick straw poll, how many enthusiasts reported to the DSM/signed in last time they were at a station?

That wouldn't prove anything for this debate anyway. We are debating on whether enthusiasts should or should not have to sign in. The numbers are immaterial.

 

[Ferret]

As GB said, that is not what I said. I was asked in my opinion, whether I expected people to have to sign in and I said yes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And how do you think the railways ended up with the rule book of today? Yep, mostly from the 1 in 100000 type incidents.

Do you have proof for that statement?

That wouldn't prove anything for this debate anyway. We are debating on whether enthusiasts should or should not have to sign in. The numbers are immaterial.

Good point about the rulebook, but then, it's not comparing like with like.

As for my proof of the statement I made - I think you probably need to just read back through the thread!!!!

And Ralph, the question of how many people do offer to sign in is entirely relevant. Why are you so keen to dismiss it? Surely it's not because you think that most people didn't?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Good point about the rulebook, but then, it's not comparing like with like.

It's not comparing like with like no, but I was just pointing out how 1 in 100000 accidents are important and are worth considering.

As for my proof of the statement I made - I think you probably need to just read back through the thread!!!!

We've had about 5 enthusiats who have said that they will not sign in, and that simply cannot be considered as respective of the community because it is such a low figure compared to such a high figure.

And Ralph, the question of how many people do offer to sign in is entirely relevant. Why are you so keen to dismiss it? Surely it's not because you think that most people didn't?

It is immaterial because we are discussing whether or not enthusiasts sign in. To this discussion it matters not how many do or how many don't - just that some do and some don't.
Please illustrate as to how you feel it relevant?

 

[Old Timer]

OT - many of your posts in this thread have been about what I'd call worst case scenarios....

Would you like to say which ones then ?

As far as I can see I have mentioned three.

One which is based upon experience, and two that I was personally involved in.

If you really want to look at worst case scenarios then take a look at your own TOCs risk assessments.

If you want examples of worst case that statistically will not happen again, take Southall, Clapham, and Ladbroke Grove, yet the whole of the Railway was turned upside down for something which statisically will happen once in a million years.

I have had one simple stance since getiing involved in this thread and that has been to TRY to explain WHY people should follow the Guidelines, and to TRY to give people a rationale as best as I can as to why they may be there.

I did say at an early stage that there are a number of people within Government and within the Railway Industry who would like to ban enthusiasts from stations full stop. I was pooh poohed for that.

Then along came EM2 and lo and behold he has found a post to substantiate what I was saying.

.....Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, I'd like to point out that there are substantial numbers of people, both staff and enthusiasts who see them as a waste of time. Is that a system that's broken and not fit for purpose? If we did a quick straw poll, how many enthusiasts reported to the DSM/signed in last time they were at a station?...........

I dont think I have commented on my personal views, simply I have pointed out that if the Guidelines require people to make themselves known, then people should do so. There is NO right to be on a railway station if you are not travelling or working and a TOC/Station Operator has the right to refuse access to non passengers at any time it wishes. That is has been a privilege in BR days and previously does not confer it as of right today.

For what it is worthpersonally I tend towards a laid back approach.......or at least I did until I realised that there is a clear minority who are refusing to co-operate with the guidelines, pointblank, and this is something I shall be giving some more thought to insofar as how it impacts upon my area of the Railway business.

Personally were I you, I would be a little loathe to state that there are "substantial numbers of people" without some evidence to back it up.

Times have changed and things are much different now. I would take no pleasure in matters developing to a point where enthusiasts are not allowed on stations but frankly some of the posts on here signpost that as an increasing probablility.

 

[Ferret]

It's not comparing like with like no, but I was just pointing out how 1 in 100000 accidents are important and are worth considering.


We've had about 5 enthusiats who have said that they will not sign in, and that simply cannot be considered as respective of the community because it is such a low figure compared to such a high figure.


It is immaterial because we are discussing whether or not enthusiasts sign in. To this discussion it matters not how many do or how many don't - just that some do and some don't.
Please illustrate as to how you feel it relevant?

I think you've probably just answered it in your first paragraph to be honest. As you correctly pointed out we have a small sample size of enthusiast on here who didn't won't sign in. I'd like to know if that's indicative of what many enthusiasts think! I can only go off what I see and my own experiences as a photographer. I used Doncaster as a previous example - I imagine the majority there did not sign in. Up at Tamworth last winter, a few of us attempted a nightshot of 1P05. None of us signed in, although I do know the station staff there so I had said 'hello' to the chap on duty as I passed. At Preston I too have had the 'why the hell are you asking me' line! Now, if staff can't be bothered with it, and enthusiasts can't be bothered with it, is there a point? Does that no answer your own question of 'should enthusiasts have to sign in'?

To me it's an issue of wording. You could easily say 'access to stations is permitted for photography. Enthusiasts should be aware that this is at their own risk'. Simple limitation of liability covers the TOCs backsides for them - if it really is that they are concerned about being sued!

 

[Dreadnought]

Your point being ? The fact that you may not have heard of it should tell you that you are on unfamiliar territory. A little research should help you find the relevant bits.

Why would I have looked for something when I didn't believe that there was anything that affected me? It would be helpful if you could point me in the right direction as a quick online check didn't help me find anything!

If you want station staff on every platform permanently then fine, but I know you wont want to pay the costs of that. The Railway Byelaws set out how people shoiuld behave and the legal system has an age old adage "ignorance is no defence".

That said it is clear that some "enthusiasts" place themselves in far more dangerous situations that do the travelling public, the great majority of whom do not do any of the things you mention.

In the cases of both enthuiasts and travelling public it is only a small minority that cause issues, yet at the moment it is only enthuiasts that are being targetted, I was just highlighting the other side. Perhaps if there was an increase in station staff presence then this small minority can be spoken to and advised to the potential issues their actions could cause.

With respect where it happened will be irrelevant.

The underlying cause was that someone appeared to have set up a pair of steps to photograph a (steam?) train from. It is simply one more instance of an incident when steam trains are running, and may yet be used on that basis to support a ban on them.

The other issue is that such incidents and stupidity may well have an impact on others who use the location quite properly.

I was under the impression he was crossing the line but if not then point taken.

There has been considerable debate both in the railway press and on forums such as this. I doubt that there are many enthusiasts who are not aware of the Guidelines.

To me this is the problem, there has been considerably debate and as yet there is no clear concise understanding of what they actually mean. You are in the camp that states everybody should at the minimum notify staff of their presence whilst others state that there is no requirement (including staff judging by some of the previous posts on here) as they are only there to give advice. It is this mixture of views and different TOC attitudes which is not helping the situation on the guidelines and causing some of the issues that arise.

The term "Guidelines" has previously been defined using the Dictionary definition. That should be clear to all but the most obtuse, but some continue to argue otherwise, presumably their knowledge of lexicography being better than the various authors of the dictionaries.

In a previous response you made the above comment, however I have had a look myself and according to Oxford Dictionaries it is "a general rule, principle, or piece of advice", whilst other online searches suggest guidelines are not mandatory.

To me this again adds to the reasons why some people do not believe that they need to "sign in" or advise station staff of their presence as they believe it is only advice and is not mandatory.