idiots on the line (photters and filmers)

[yorkie]

O L Leigh - thank you for that useful post.

Yes, I totally agree that risk and trespass are not the same thing.

And yes, the people who gave Chester025 permission to be at the sidings would not have been authorised to do so.

I'm not sure that it is fair to label Chester025 a trespasser though; the word trespasser implies that you are entering a property without permission. (I suppose we could argue all day over the definition of permission, and if someone who is not authorised to give permission gives that permission still makes the person a trespasser or not, but really there'd be no point...)

One of the early complaints put forward in this topic was about the lack of response from BTP. But, given the huge demands on police time, should the police put resources into taking action where people are breaking the law (by trespassing on railway property) but not putting themselves at significant risk, at the expense of another call out where there may be a far bigger risk? (for example on Saturday there were some quite awful scenes at Leicester. I saw loads of BTP there, possibly some brought in from other areas. They had to come from somewhere and there must have been incidents they were unable to attend).

To be honest I totally agree with Old Timer on this issue. And that is why there is a debate over safety. Just because something is illegal does not mean the police can justify attending, and just because the police don't attend doesn't mean they should be criticised for non-attendance.

Thank you O L Leigh for that post. A beacon of sanity!

I've just waded through this entire thread and have been very disappointed by some of the petty arguments about 'who said this/didn't say that', railway trespass versus crossing the road, irrelevant flights of fancy into EU legislation and so on.....

Well, the issue of safety on roads vs rails is an issue, because people are complaining the police don't deal better with trespass incidents, so the solution would therefore be, as Old Timer says, to raise fares to pay for more BTP. But is that really needed? The roads are far more dangerous, and I think it is a valid concern that rail is becoming too expensive due to the significantly higher safety standards demanded of rail. To some extent, these requirements are of course justified, but sometimes they are taken too far! If taken too far, and costs are allowed to rise, then all that will do is make rail less attractive and put people onto the roads. Ultimately, does that make us safer? No, it doesn't.

As for the EU legislation, if the DfT had it's way Grand Central, Hull Trains and WSMR probably wouldn't exist! But EU legislation meant that they had to be granted paths, against the DfT's wishes. I am not totally certain on the legislation regarding charters, but people have claimed that charters can be banned at a whim. I doubt that is the case, and have asked for this claim to be verified. I know that there is EU legislation that means NR cannot refuse open access, I imagine that applies to charters too, I can't find anything to suggest it doesn't. If you know that it doesn't apply, I'd genuinely be interested to hear more!

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm not labelling anyone. I'm simply pointing out how certain things are viewed by the railway and the authorities that operate and police it.

As to what the appropriate Police response should be to incidents of trespass, I am not going to enter into this discussion. I know from my own experience what will prompt a Police response and what won't, but I appreciate that they can't be everywhere and respond timely to every single report of law-breaking. However, I will go further than you and say that just because the Police do not attend it does not mean that the incident of law-breaking is considered to be excusable. I would also dispute your apparent claim that the level of rail safety is somehow linked to the level of rail fares. Fares go up year on year irrespective of any improvements to rail safety.

O L Leigh

 

[Old Timer]

Open Access is really a red herring.

The purpose of Open Access is to allow a new Operator to enter the market for the purpose of operating a train service, as opposed to someone who may want to operate only a small number of trains.

Currently all charters are operated by existing established Companies who do so under Contract to the person or organisation chartering the train.

Whilst there is no specific element that allows Network Rail to refuse to accept a legitimate path for a train operated by a legitimate TOC/FOC, there is clearly no benefit to either party in a train which is likely to cause disruption being operated.

Currently trespass incident costs are borne wholly by Network Rail as the legislation does not recognise trespass brought about through reason of a train being operated.

As I said some long time back, there is a large contingent within NR who would like to see all steam-hauled and probably now heritage diesel-hauled special trains being banned.

Only last week a photographer was involved in another near miss incident (Kibworth), and all these together with obvious trespass events are carefully being pulled together to support the view that enthusiast specials should be prohibited.

From the locations I visited and the generally nice people I spoke with on Saturday, there was not really an issue of trespass. Yes some people were on footpaths and in the close vicinity of them. Only someone very petty would make a major issue of that, unless these people were placing themselves in danger.

Obviously this gets somewhat greyed at a level crossing/footpath crossing but to my mind there is a difference between being around the crossing perimeter and going into the cess or on the ballast or track.

I personally would not and indeed did not say anything on Saturday although within the strict letter of the Railway Byelaws there was a degree of trespass. However in fairness to those I saw, they never came within any area where their personal safety was at risk, nor was there ever likely to be any concern to a Driver.

As with all things in life, nothing is entirely black and white. Railway staff and Drivers in particular make these sorts of judgements daily.

I think the problem comes when there is a failure of the individual(s) to behave in what Railway Staff would consider a reasonable manner by placing themselves in a position where they are in the cess or actually on the ballast. This is where things start to move away from being reasonably allowed to have a blind eye turned.

Sadly this is an area which many people seem unable to judge, and worse still will bring children into those environments when the children do not have sufficient life experience to enable them to understand the risks involved.

 

[yorkie]

I'm not labelling anyone. I'm simply pointing out how certain things are viewed by the railway and the authorities that operate and police it.

OK fair enough, but others were.

As to what the appropriate Police response should be to incidents of trespass, I am not going to enter into this discussion. I know from my own experience what will prompt a Police response and what won't, but I appreciate that they can't be everywhere and respond timely to every single report of law-breaking.

Indeed.

However, I will go further than you and say that just because the Police do not attend it does not mean that the incident of law-breaking is considered to be excusable.

It's a debatable area; people may feel that if something is considered lawful in a nearby country but not this country, that our law is unfair in that respect. Many laws are broken and nothing is done about it, particularly where roads are concerned. I can understand why some people will ask to take a photo from a disused siding that does no-one any harm, but if permission isn't given I won't be joining them. I won't be placing staff in difficult positions by asking, either.

I would also dispute your apparent claim that the level of rail safety is somehow linked to the level of rail fares. Fares go up year on year irrespective of any improvements to rail safety.

O L Leigh

Well, in relation specifically to the BTP, the TOCs would need to put more money in to fund an increase in officers. If it is identified that more BTP officers need to be recruited to deal with such problems then the TOCs are unlikely to put more money in from their profits, and the money has to come from somewhere. (See post by Old Timer earlier in the thread)

The general issue of rail safety is not directly linked to fares, of course, but fares have increased massively, as have costs, in recent years. At the same time ever-increasing demands on safety have increased costs. Some branch lines are becoming increasingly uneconomical due to increased costs, due to safety requirements that are excessive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I said some long time back, there is a large contingent within NR who would like to see all steam-hauled and probably now heritage diesel-hauled special trains being banned.

Thanks for a useful post. Regarding NR wanting to see steam (or any other traction type) banned, are they actually able to do this? Or is it a case of there's nothing to say either way, but they know that the bad publicity they would get by doing this would make their position untenable?

In relation to the original quoted 'incident' regarding a Class 67 hauling an East Coast service, would the large contingent within NR who want steam banned, be unhappy at 'drags' by diesel locomotives, or would they not see this as an issue?

In any other industry, they would go after the perpetrators of dangerous acts (eg people involved in 'near miss' incidents), rather than go after the innocent parties (eg the railtour operators), it seems odd that NR is different in that respect, and I do have to question whether their threats could be acted upon, I strongly suspect (and certainly hope!) not.

 

[E&W Lucas]

Thanks for a useful post. Regarding NR wanting to see steam (or any other traction type) banned, are they actually able to do this?

Of course they are!

 

[GB]

What are these safety requirements that are so excessive?

 

[E&W Lucas]

None whatsoever.

It's so simple. Keep on the right side of the fence. I can't see the point of most of the above discussion. It's non - negotiable, and total common sense.

 

[cuccir]

Of course, Britain has some of the lowest rates of accidental death in Europe, the lowest number of accidental level-crossing deaths (ssee stats for this one), the lowest deaths at work, and 4th lowest death rates on road (if Wikipedia is to be believed) in the world.

But apparently our H&S legislation is 'mad' and people don't use common sense like elsewhere. These laws and regulations exist for a reason, and they work. They should, therefore, be followed.

 

[Mr Spock]

I agree that trespass is wrong but whilst there are insufficient people to police it then it will continue to happen like lots of other things that go on that are wrong e.g. speeding.

As for stopping specials I am with Yorkie on this as if trespass does cause this to happen then any diverts like those on the East Coast on Saturday (which, as stated by him, was the reason for this thread) would surely have to be banned as well.

Old Timer is once again banging on about NR keeping a record of all these trespass incidents but no-one I know who works for NR are aware of this list. From many of his posts I just get the impression that he is anti rail enthusiasts.

 

[GB]

Each tresspass incident that gets reported is most certainly logged on the national control center incident database. Whether these reports get disseminated into tresspass specific databases I do not know.

 

[Geezertronic]

I think trespassers are idiots to be honest. I used to be one of these idiots in my early/mid-teenage years frequently "playing" on the line north of Birmingham International but now I am older and wiser I realise what a stupid thing it was and is to do. I might as well have gone running down BHX runway or down the M6

 

[eos]

Trespass is not a criminal offence in UK law...

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/How-it-Works/Question159667.html

 

[Tomnick]

Trespass on the Railway is though.

 

[Mr Spock]

Each tresspass incident that gets reported is most certainly logged on the national control center incident database.

I understand this it is just the list of trespass incidents in relation to specials that I am querying. Would any incident on Saturday be included on this "list" as it appears it might have been by enthusiasts even though no special was involved? Even when specials are about there is nothing to say that all incidents are always to do with the specials

Other incidents might be deemed to be trespass (the one mentioned in Scotland) when for all we know a member of staff might have agreed to people going in a safe place rather than just wandering everywhere. This has happened to me when staff at a station agreed to people going to a specific place to take pictures under their supervision even though it was normally "out of bounds".

 

[GB]

I understand this it is just the list of trespass incidents in relation to specials that I am querying.

It that case, I do not know if there is a specific list for specials tresspass. However, given there seems to be a large spike when it comes to specials/charters, it wouldn't suprise me in the least if these were all collated somewhere.

 

[Old Timer]

Thanks for a useful post. Regarding NR wanting to see steam (or any other traction type) banned, are they actually able to do this? Or is it a case of there's nothing to say either way, but they know that the bad publicity they would get by doing this would make their position untenable?

In relation to the original quoted 'incident' regarding a Class 67 hauling an East Coast service, would the large contingent within NR who want steam banned, be unhappy at 'drags' by diesel locomotives, or would they not see this as an issue?

In any other industry, they would go after the perpetrators of dangerous acts (eg people involved in 'near miss' incidents), rather than go after the innocent parties (eg the railtour operators), it seems odd that NR is different in that respect, and I do have to question whether their threats could be acted upon, I strongly suspect (and certainly hope!) not.

Yorkie
I cannot answer definitively that point.

A TOC / FOC has the right to operate trains and Network Rail has the responsibility to facilitate the access.

The issue is more one where steam specials always result in large amounts of trespass incidents and recorded issues of people placing themselves in danger from moving trains.

All incidents of trespass are recorded on a special database and this produces statistical information enabling trespass "hot spots" to be identified. Trespass comes under the "route crime" heading, and all reported incidents are logged by the regional Controls and subsequently input into the system.

With the correct access code even I could access this system and pull of any statistical information that I wanted.

Network Rail's safety management system yearly plan specifies that Network Rail will take action to reduce trespass, and is built up from this database in conjunction with the BT Police.

Basic safety management dictates that the first action is to remove a hazard at source. Running steam trains is already considered to be a hazard for a number of reasons, and whilst so far there has NOT been a fatality, from a safety point of view all the precursors of this are there and it is inevitable that one will happen at some point in the future.

Now when that does inevitably occur, you can be certain that there will be Lawyers, maybe Coroners, bereaved family members, etc who will be asking why NR are running special trains that cause trespass and why they are not enforcing action against those who do trespass.

You could play out the inevitable path that this takes on here right now.

Special charters are not THAT profitable, and where they lead to problems of trespass are already causing questions to be raised at higher levels within the Network Rail hierarchy.

Like it or not, Network Rail has a duty to run an efficient and safe Railway as a business concern. There is no room for sentimentality, and many of the senior people now in Network Rail do not come from a Railway background. They are in place because they are businessmen first and foremost. If you take a business perspective and do the analysis you will almost certainly frind that the disbenefits of running special steam charters far outweigh the benefits. That could well be the case for heritage diesel traction as well.

There would be no "ban" just a simple agreement that the TOC/FOC would not submit such type trains for charter operation.

Mr Spock
I suggest you do some re-reading of my posts.

Your friends within Network Rail operate at what level in the structure please ? You also seem to be unaware that the subject of internal resistance to the running of steam charters has already been discussed in the railway enthusiast press.

Just because your Network Rail "friends" do not know of this does not make that fact untrue. I am sure there are a great deal many other issues that they are not party to.

As a Railwayman, I and my colleagues have a duty to make responses on here which reflect actuality and not what we think should be or would wish the situation to be. Some people may have a problem with that but it changes nothing. If what I write does not accord with your own views then I cannot help that. Stating what is the situation from a Railway point of view does not make me anti-enthusiast, and indeed I would be surprised if any of the regular contributors would have considered that of me.

 

[Mr Spock]

I am not going to argue with you Old Timer as I think we will nearly always have differing views on this and it would just be pointless going round in circles.

As for being anti enthusiast if I remember correctly others thought the same during discussions on the thread about trouble taking pictures,etc.

 

[the sniper]

Me a OT have crossed swords, so to speak, a couple of times. I wouldn't call him anti-enthusiast though.

I sure I remember a thread where a driver had had a go at some enthusiast because he didn't want to photographed, when they were only photographing his train. OT made the point that railwaymen, especially those working on the footplate, should accept that they going to photographed in the course of their duties. I seem to remember that he blamed this attitude on boil in the bag drivers.

 

[O L Leigh]

Well, in relation specifically to the BTP, the TOCs would need to put more money in to fund an increase in officers. If it is identified that more BTP officers need to be recruited to deal with such problems then the TOCs are unlikely to put more money in from their profits, and the money has to come from somewhere. (See post by Old Timer earlier in the thread).

Just a crazy thought from left-field, perhaps. But why do we need a separate railway police force? Couldn't the function of the BTP be absorbed into the "civil" police thereby increasing coverage, reducing response times and removing the financial burden from the railways?

O L Leigh

 

[jopsuk]

Aren't BTP PTS trained etc? Would be expensive/impractical to train all local constabulary in that way, surely? Furthermore, if you remove the finacial burden from the railways, it merely moves it elsewhere.

 

[scotsman]

It that case, I do not know if there is a specific list for specials tresspass. However, given there seems to be a large spike when it comes to specials/charters, it wouldn't suprise me in the least if these were all collated somewhere.

I was asked by the BTP if it was a special I was on

 

[Mr Spock]

Perhaps there is a spike when specials are running but I expect there is also a spike in school holidays so should we cancel them?

 

[Old Timer]

I am not going to argue with you Old Timer as I think we will nearly always have differing views on this and it would just be pointless going round in circles.

As for being anti enthusiast if I remember correctly others thought the same during discussions on the thread about trouble taking pictures,etc.

I am sorry that you have reached that view. Indeed quite to the contrary I am generally quite "enthusiast-friendly" (I think this is the latest PC form of words ?).

I certainly have no desire to enter into an argument with you, but I would just like to make the following points, as in my view you continue to do me an injustice.

In previous years I have taken photographers around marshalling yards and infrastructure depots so that they could get photographs of the old BR infrastructure fleet vehicles. Many photos that appear in books and on websites were quite probably taken as a result of my actions.

In BR days, when things were somewhat more relaxed and I was on Operations, I have facilitated many visits by enthusiasts to signalboxes, and there was an understanding that signalmen were free to let enthusiasts and photographers visit as long as the working of the signalbox remained safe. Certainly no signalman ever had any trouble with me if I arrived to find a photographer in the box.

In respect of photographers at foot crossings and level crossings I took a relatively relaxed view as long as they were not going onto the ballast or the track itself. I viewed this then, and still do as a pragmatic approach. I see little point in trying to prevent photographers from taking photographs or filming as long as they are neither a danger to themselves or are causing a concern to train crews.

Now it is true to say that in many cases, technically they ARE trespassing, however what is achieved by talking to task someone who is acting in a reasonable manner and not causing any harm or distress ?. Personally I would rather we concentrated on those with malice intended than someone standing on the bank just inside the fence at a foot crossing.

The purists are of course right in that the issue is technically black and white, however I tend to favour a little bit of grey here and there. The problem with greying the boundaries however is that at some point the boundary is no longer grey but very black. For example when does standing inside the fence at a foot crossing become more serious ? 20 feet away, 60 feet away ?

That is the nub of the problem. I am sure that the great majority of photographers and the posters on here would probably agree with what I felt was reasonable. Unfortunately we do suffer from those who do not seem to be able to differentiate in a sensible and pragmatic way, and it is those few who cause the problems for the great majority.

With the greater imposition of the HASAW Act 1974 in recent years matters have changed and indeed infrastructure renewal methods for example have changed and now in many cases actually represent more obvious risks to vistors and the general public.

In the case of Infrastructure work, there are times and types of work which require that we cannot allow people to be within the area of the operation, OHL work is a good example - and that includes staff as well.

It is more noticable these days that some enthusiasts/photographers assume that the Railway and its stations are public property, and that they may enter and wander around at will. This is not correct.

Whilst generally I and my staff are quite happy for photographers to come along and photograph us and our activities, there are occasions when for safety reasons we can not allow this to happen. On occasions when we have placed areas out of bounds for such reasons we have had cases where people have entered and we have requested them to move away during the operation. If the said person became belligerent or argumentative (as one or two have done) then we have had them removed from the area (normally a station).

Those who approached us about taking photographs were, to the best of my knowledge afforded that privilege by the staff. In one or two cases that I was involved in, we actually gave them a visitor brief and took them to a place of safety where they were able to get their photos.

As with many true professionals of long standing, I like to look at railway photographs, especially good ones. I have much respect for those enthusiasts who in general can take much better photos than I do. They are recording the changing scene.

I have no time for those who act arrogantly and thoughtlessly or who trespass into places where they obviously should not. Neither do I have time for those who refuse to comply with the guidelines that have been set down. Common courtesy costs nothing and achieves much. "Demands" and deliberate flaunting of requests and directions by station staff when reasonably given, do much greater harm and it should be clear to anyone with a brain that this attitude will serve only to antagonise and annoy staff.

I hope that clarifies the views of someone with a considerable length of service in the Railway. Some colleagues will share similar views and some will not. Those are mine and are based on my experiences in life.

 

[yorkie]

What are these safety requirements that are so excessive?

We are, in this country, a lot more obsessed with rail safety compared to other modes of transport or compared to rail in other countries. Hence terms like 'Safety fascists' and 'boiling frog syndrome' (excessive safety is partly to blame for the latter) and videos like Safetynut.

This has happened to me when staff at a station agreed to people going to a specific place to take pictures under their supervision even though it was normally "out of bounds".

That's exactly what I'm talking about, it is what happened with Chester025, which he has been totally unfairly blasted for.

I am not going to argue with you Old Timer as I think we will nearly always have differing views on this and it would just be pointless going round in circles.

I'm not so sure. OT's post early on was very helpful I thought. OT isn't anti-enthusiast, and I don't think he has said anything anti-enthusiast in this topic. He has said what some people in NR think but I don't think he even hinted he shared those views. Admittedly OT's experience in ticketing is from when the rules were quite different so I may disagree on those sort of issues, but he is quite right on most issues IMO, and I have a lot of respect for what he says. I genuinely think you've misunderstood him.

Just a crazy thought from left-field, perhaps. But why do we need a separate railway police force? Couldn't the function of the BTP be absorbed into the "civil" police thereby increasing coverage, reducing response times and removing the financial burden from the railways?

O L Leigh

Yes, this is a sensible proposal and one that I am sure many of us have wondered. I guess the answer is a combination of PTS requirements and the rather specific (and ancient!) railway byelaws, some of which are completely ignored (ever seen anyone charged for the offence of getting on a train while others are still getting off, for example?) but some of which are highly relevant. I would have a lot more respect for them if they didn't break the law by searching photographers under the excuse of terrorism (when no reasonable grounds exist) and order people to delete photos though. As it is, I am suspicious of BTP, as I cannot trust them to adhere to the law. That said, I would give any individual officer the benefit of the doubt unless they do something to suggest otherwise.

Perhaps there is a spike when specials are running but I expect there is also a spike in school holidays so should we cancel them?

NR probably would if they could!

I am sure that the great majority of photographers and the posters on here would probably agree with what I felt was reasonable. .

I agree.

 

[Mr Spock]

I hear what you say Old Timer and I am prepared to accept that you are not anti rail enthusiasts.

I did say originally that "from many of his posts I just get the impression that he is anti rail enthusiasts", perhaps it is the way that you have come across sometimes.

 

[Old Timer]

I hear what you say Old Timer and I am prepared to accept that you are not anti rail enthusiasts.

I did say originally that "from many of his posts I just get the impression that he is anti rail enthusiasts", perhaps it is the way that you have come across sometimes.

Thank you for reading.

 

[Old Timer]

...I'm not so sure. OT's post early on was very helpful I thought. OT isn't anti-enthusiast, and I don't think he has said anything anti-enthusiast in this topic. He has said what some people in NR think but I don't think he even hinted he shared those views. Admittedly OT's experience in ticketing is from when the rules were quite different so I may disagree on those sort of issues, but he is quite right on most issues IMO, and I have a lot of respect for what he says. I genuinely think you've misunderstood him..

Thank you for your kind words. I am humbled.

 

[O L Leigh]

Aren't BTP PTS trained etc? Would be expensive/impractical to train all local constabulary in that way, surely?

Do you know, I'm not sure that they are.

We had an incident requiring Police attendance on an inbound StanEx at Liv St. The train itself was stranded in the station throat just as it was pulling clear of Bishopsgate Tunnel but could not be moved any further. Police were hanging around for about 20 minutes on the end of the platform waiting for a Nitwit Rail MOM to come and walk them out to the train. These were definately BTP as they have a presence just over the road in Bishopsgate and share the City of London Police station there.

Likewise, we had a potential suicide threat near the Northumberland Park OHNS. A lady had walked on at the crossing and then turned to walk along the line before taking a seat next to the running line. Fortunately she was in view of the CCTV cameras on the crossing so the signaller saw her first and could stop trains and get her seen to. On this occasion again it was the MOM who came out to move her on. But when I have called in similarly disturbed persons at a station (for some reason it's always Enfield Lock) you will get the Police.

And this seems to be the pattern. If the Police can get to them they will, otherwise they have to get the MOM to do it.

Furthermore, if you remove the finacial burden from the railways, it merely moves it elsewhere.

Onto the taxpayer I suppose. Mind you, these officers could at least be efficiently used on other duties as well as specific railway duties. Economies of scale alone should make it a more cost-effective solution.

O L Leigh

 

[Old Timer]

Personally I would prefer that the BT Police were left as a separate force and not amalgamated into a County force.

Although I appreciate that on many occasions it is the Civil Police who respond, in terms of their knowledge about Railway legislation, which can be quite different to general Law, they are ill-equipped to deal with certain aspects.

The tendency of many Police forces now is to go for the easy option and just send people on their way, something that may not be appropriate in Railway situations.

Whilst I am sure that they could be trained, there is nothing to better a specially trained Force that specialises in Railways, and it must be remembered that many joined because they were able to combine both railways and policing.

I am not sure what the current Force Policy is with regards to BT Police going on and about the line. If they are constrained to wait for Network Rail staff then I think we have reached a farcial situation.

I presume the continuing paranoia about people being on the line is possibly the driver behind any restriction but all recent incidents have been purely down to Network Rail staff deliberately flaunting the Rules or placing themselves into dangerous positions. This does not mean the system is broken. It is once again a compliance issue, and the ever increasing requirements to gain and retain PTS serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever, except to potentially give some backside protection to Network Rail.

If instead of introducing more paperwork and pointless documents procedures, Network Rail was to actually carry out the same re-training and re-certification, rather than using their power to lower the requirements for THEIR staff then maybe, just maybe trends may change.

I find it difficult to accept that no-one appears to be making the connection between increasing Network Rail staff incidents and this so called "assessment in the line" which appears to many to consist of 5 minutes and a cup of tea with their line manager.

Meanwhile Infrastructure Contractors staff are required to undergo the full re-certification course, which of course makes their training costs that much higher.

A cynic would have a view. I will not comment.

 

[the sniper]

Just a crazy thought from left-field, perhaps. But why do we need a separate railway police force? Couldn't the function of the BTP be absorbed into the "civil" police thereby increasing coverage, reducing response times and removing the financial burden from the railways?

I can think of area's of railway crime that would benefit from this, like minor acts of anti-social behaviour and such like, because it would mean that there are more PC's in the area available to deal with the incident more quickly. For any more serious crime though it probably wouldn't make much difference, because if there weren't BTP available the local force would be contacted to respond to the incident anyway.

I'd have to say though that I believe the negatives would outweigh the positives. I can't imagine that a local home office force would be particularly happy to take on the responsibility of investigating route crime or working with NR to record and combat incidents of trespass. I think the investigation and prosecution of railway graffiti 'artists' would non existent if the BTP didn't exist.

Basically, on the front line of policing there might be some benefits to having territorial forces cover the railways, even though they're already involved quite often anyway, but I don't personally believe they'd be able to do a lot of the BTP's more time consuming and complicated investigations justice (so to speak). I just think they'd wrongly consider most railway crime trivial and not worthy of their resources. You can just imagine CID's up and down the land bemoaning the idea of taking on 'trivial' railway matters like cable thefts or graffiti vandals.

That said, I would give any individual officer the benefit of the doubt unless they do something to suggest otherwise.

That attitude is good to see Yorkie, as it does seem that you've been extremely unlucky in your experiences of dealing with the BTP.

Do you know, I'm not sure that they are [PTS trained].

They are.

Force policy dictates that BTP PC's must await the arrival of a NR MOM to go onto mainline tracks. Only in an emergency can BTP PC's go onto the track without a MOM, but they must still contact the signaller of course to make their presence known to him/her. BTP officers not being issued with orange high-vis anymore (which has been the case for a good few years now) further limits them to waiting for a NR MOMs arrival.

Onto the taxpayer I suppose. Mind you, these officers could at least be efficiently used on other duties as well as specific railway duties. Economies of scale alone should make it a more cost-effective solution.

Seeing as the BTP are already overstretched, especially outside of London, I think you could argue that they're already being used efficiently.

It's important to remember that in 2006 Ken Livingstone and Sir Ian Blair (then head of the Met) wanted the BTP to be merged into the Met in London. Even though London would be one of the most logical places for the BTP to be merged into the local territorial force, a DfT report found that the BTP should remain independent, so it didn't happen.

Personally I would prefer that the BT Police were left as a separate force and not amalgamated into a County force.

Although I appreciate that on many occasions it is the Civil Police who respond, in terms of their knowledge about Railway legislation, which can be quite different to general Law, they are ill-equipped to deal with certain aspects.

The tendency of many Police forces now is to go for the easy option and just send people on their way, something that may not be appropriate in Railway situations.

Whilst I am sure that they could be trained, there is nothing to better a specially trained Force that specialises in Railways, and it must be remembered that many joined because they were able to combine both railways and policing.

Totally agree with these comments.