More dangerous lineside behaviour around Flying Scotsman

[CAF397]

Hi i am new to all this so could someone clarify something for me.
Some people are saying there were to be no movements on this line apart from the steamer but if there was a closure on the WCML say at Euxton Balshaw Lane due to a line side fire or dare i say it tresspass would the TPE trains from to Glasgow & Edinburgh from Manchester not be diverted down this line?

Unless blocked by engineering work, the Bolton line is available for any train to use. A tamper, ballast train, norrhern ECS . Most TPE trains are electric so until then line has been officially sanctioned for electric trains then they can't use it, but TPE occasionally use diesel units on the Scottish services so there is no reason they couldn't divert.

 

[Esker-pades]

Yet every time I go to Silverdale station I have to walk ACROSS THE TRACK to get to the Lancaster-bound platform. For all the talk in this forum about the irresponsibility of venturing on the tracks, or even near the edge of a platform, and the supposed high priority given to rail safety, as long as this situation exists, and doubtless hundreds like it, I don't believe a word of it. Basically if what you all (or most of you) say is true, my safety is being imperilled because Network Rail can't be bothered paying for a footbridge. I can use my common sense and visual awareness when it suits the rail network and they are not prepared to fund safety.

There is a difference between an official crossing point and tresspassing.

 

[neilmc]

I find it feels really odd and am strongly motivated not to be standing in front of the headlights of the train[1] for any length of time. Realistically, though, a barrow crossing at a station like that[2] is much less dangerous than crossing a dual carriageway on the level.

[1] At Tywyn you'd be waiting a while if you waited for it to go.
[2] I'm less convinced about Silverdale, where there are not only all-stations passenger services but also expresses and regular freights - I definitely think someone should cough up for a bridge there and didn't even know it was a barrow crossing!

Silverdale is not electrified and has a reasonable line of sight so using the barrow crossing should be no more dangerous than crossing a road which sees the occasional car. Which is probably why Network Rail are happy to allow dozens of people to walk across the track every day. But by the same token it's not really a big deal in MOST circumstances if people are spotted using the line as a short-cut and certainly not a cause for throwing all the signals to red and starting a manhunt. It all stems from a peculiar quirk of UK law whereby trespass is it itself not a criminal offence except in very limited circumstances which includes the railway, probably dates back to when the railway was considered of vital military importance. It's the usual quirky British mentality at play here and not a proportionate and assessed response to genuine danger. They don't close the motorway when pedestrians have been spotted on the carriageway even though that's far more dangerous than almost all railway trespass incidents.

 

[DarloRich]

Silverdale is not electrified and has a reasonable line of sight so using the barrow crossing should be no more dangerous than crossing a road which sees the occasional car. Which is probably why Network Rail are happy to allow dozens of people to walk across the track every day. But by the same token it's not really a big deal in MOST circumstances if people are spotted using the line as a short-cut and certainly not a cause for throwing all the signals to red and starting a manhunt. It all stems from a peculiar quirk of UK law whereby trespass is it itself not a criminal offence except in very limited circumstances which includes the railway, probably dates back to when the railway was considered of vital military importance. It's the usual quirky British mentality at play here and not a proportionate and assessed response to genuine danger. They don't close the motorway when pedestrians have been spotted on the carriageway even though that's far more dangerous than almost all railway trespass incidents.

Dear me. A bit of trespassing is ok. No problems. People wonder why enthusiasts have such a bad name!


Btw when I called in a report of a man walking on the hard shoulder of the m1 the piece closed the motorway to collect him.

 

[The_Train]

Look guys, people can argue the toss all they like but in the cold light of day, when we look at this sensibly @DarloRich is right. If behaviour that breaks the rules and regulations of the railways continues then operators will be forced, by the likes of the Office of Road and Rail, Network Rail and the British Transport Police, to cease operating these services. If someone was to get hurt (or worse) do we think their family are going to just say 'ah well he/she was breaking the rules and put him/herself in danger' or are they more likely to go chasing someone else to blame and maybe even request compensation from?

Talk of what 'it used to be like' is irrelevant as times have moved on and Healthy and Safety is far more prominent these days and these people who live in the past need to be educated with regards to modern rules and regulations.

 

[PR1Berske]

It's been said before on this forum and has been hinted at on this thread: the working railway is not a convention centre for enthusiasts. All those platform dwellers and notepad clutchers who expect the railway to bend rules to allow their hobby to be carried out unaided are spoiling things for the majority who stay with the rules.

Trespassing onto a working railway for the sole purpose of getting a decent photograph is going to end with heritage railway tours being curtailed or axed. @DarloRich is absolutely right.

 

[Spamcan81]

It's been said before on this forum and has been hinted at on this thread: the working railway is not a convention centre for enthusiasts. All those platform dwellers and notepad clutchers who expect the railway to bend rules to allow their hobby to be carried out unaided are spoiling things for the majority who stay with the rules.

Trespassing onto a working railway for the sole purpose of getting a decent photograph is going to end with heritage railway tours being curtailed or axed. @DarloRich is absolutely right.

So will service trains be axed too when people trespass to get a shot of those?

 

[Bertie the bus]

Look guys, people can argue the toss all they like but in the cold light of day, when we look at this sensibly @DarloRich is right. If behaviour that breaks the rules and regulations of the railways continues then operators will be forced, by the likes of the Office of Road and Rail, Network Rail and the British Transport Police, to cease operating these services. If someone was to get hurt (or worse) do we think their family are going to just say 'ah well he/she was breaking the rules and put him/herself in danger' or are they more likely to go chasing someone else to blame and maybe even request compensation from?

That is almost entirely nonsense. If you think the BTP have the authority to ban railtours you are living in a fantasy world and somebody seeking compensation doesn’t mean they will get it.

The facts are: the people on the ballast are in the wrong but anybody getting overexcited about a couple of people a few inches over the yellow line needs to get a grip – or apply for a job as a dispatcher because having a white baton in your hand somehow seems to give you the authority to shout aggressively at people these days.

 

[DarloRich]

That is almost entirely nonsense. If you think the BTP have the authority to ban railtours you are living in a fantasy world and somebody seeking compensation doesn’t mean they will get it.

The facts are: the people on the ballast are in the wrong but anybody getting overexcited about a couple of people a few inches over the yellow line needs to get a grip – or apply for a job as a dispatcher because having a white baton in your hand somehow seems to give you the authority to shout aggressively at people these days.

Sigh. Yet another point missing post but I do like the sindy little dig at people with a differing view to yours.

Whilst you are right the btp alone do not have the authority to ban kettles they are one of the stakeholders who would be involved. Thier voice carries weight. More than yours.

 

[Llanigraham]

Silverdale is not electrified and has a reasonable line of sight so using the barrow crossing should be no more dangerous than crossing a road which sees the occasional car. Which is probably why Network Rail are happy to allow dozens of people to walk across the track every day. But by the same token it's not really a big deal in MOST circumstances if people are spotted using the line as a short-cut and certainly not a cause for throwing all the signals to red and starting a manhunt. It all stems from a peculiar quirk of UK law whereby trespass is it itself not a criminal offence except in very limited circumstances which includes the railway, probably dates back to when the railway was considered of vital military importance. It's the usual quirky British mentality at play here and not a proportionate and assessed response to genuine danger. They don't close the motorway when pedestrians have been spotted on the carriageway even though that's far more dangerous than almost all railway trespass incidents.

Sorry, but as an (ex) signaller that is exactly what would be done, as that is what the Rule Book syas has to be done if there are reports of trespassers. That Book overules anything said on an internet forum!

And funnily enough they do and have closed motorways when pedestrians have been spotted, and they also impose rolling road blocks to sort the problem out.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Sooner they stop these railtours the better, it's a working railway not an enthusiasts playground.

What do you know? Rail tour operators such as Pathfinder tours use DBC's operators license who pays a fortune to use the track. They do pay their way.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Are you sure they pay thier way? Do they pay the extra policing costs associated with sorting out bad behaviour or the costs to the tocs ot trains having to run at caution because of reports of people on the line?

They shouldn't have to pay the extra policing costs. Do football teams Such as Exeter City pay for the 300 police they have when its Exeter vs Plymouth? No, so why should rail tour operators?

 

[DarloRich]

They shouldn't have to pay the extra policing costs. Do football teams Such as Exeter City pay for the 300 police they have when its Exeter vs Plymouth? No, so why should rail tour operators?

That isnt really a very good example. If any of those police are on duty inside the ground ( which they will be for such a derby game) the home team pays. I also suspect the scale of trouble puffer buffers might cause would hardly constitute the serious public order problems football idiots can create. That is unless there is a hard core firm of stone island wearing kettle fans looking for a ruck with the class 37 crew.......

However you miss the point. Do the charter operators cover the full cost to the railway of the impact of thier tours?

 

[DarloRich]

What do you know? Rail tour operators such as Pathfinder tours use DBC's operators license who pays a fortune to use the track. They do pay their way.

So clearly you answered my question in the negative!

 

[221129]

They shouldn't have to pay the extra policing costs. Do football teams Such as Exeter City pay for the 300 police they have when its Exeter vs Plymouth? No, so why should rail tour operators?

Actually yes they do.

 

[xotGD]

That isnt really a very good example. If any of those police are on duty inside the ground ( which they will be for such a derby game) the home team pays. I also suspect the scale of trouble puffer buffers might cause would hardly constitute the serious public order problems football idiots can create. That is unless there is a hard core firm of stone island wearing kettle fans looking for a ruck with the class 37 crew.......

However you miss the point. Do the charter operators cover the full cost to the railway of the impact of thier tours?

I reckon we could take the kettle krew no problem!

 

[The_Train]

That is almost entirely nonsense. If you think the BTP have the authority to ban railtours you are living in a fantasy world and somebody seeking compensation doesn’t mean they will get it.

The facts are: the people on the ballast are in the wrong but anybody getting overexcited about a couple of people a few inches over the yellow line needs to get a grip – or apply for a job as a dispatcher because having a white baton in your hand somehow seems to give you the authority to shout aggressively at people these days.

I am pretty sure BTP will hold some sway in these matters and I am sure Network Rail would take any advice from them very seriously.

As for your point about the yellow line, where do we draw the line (no pun intended of course)? Should we not get 'overexcited' until commuters are being showered with body parts or witnessing someone being dragged under a train by turbulence? At the end of the day, if the railway thought it was safe to be a 'a few inches' closer to the platform edge then they would have painted the yellow line a few inches closer.

 

[Mag_seven]

The fact there is never any freight through Horwich Parkway perhaps?

One of the rules in the track safety handbook for working safely on track is never to rely on any knowledge you may have of the timetable. But hey ho, trainspotters/enthusiasts seem to know better than railway safety professionals.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

That isnt really a very good example. If any of those police are on duty inside the ground ( which they will be for such a derby game) the home team pays. I also suspect the scale of trouble puffer buffers might cause would hardly constitute the serious public order problems football idiots can create. That is unless there is a hard core firm of stone island wearing kettle fans looking for a ruck with the class 37 crew.......

However you miss the point. Do the charter operators cover the full cost to the railway of the impact of thier tours?

No they dont cover the full cost. And they shouldn't have to.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Actually yes they do.

So you are saying they pay 300 police for what is basically a full days work as they are there form early morning to late afternoon? They pay for the helicopter? Horses? tens on vans and cars? No they don't. They may pay for 10 to 20 to stand in the grandstand however the other 280 strategically placed at all the train stations, pubs and large shops in the city are not payed for by the football teams.

 

[221129]

So you are saying they pay 300 police for what is basically a full days work as they are there form early morning to late afternoon? They pay for the helicopter? Horses? tens on vans and cars? No they don't. They may pay for 10 to 20 to stand in the grandstand however the other 280 strategically placed at all the train stations, pubs and large shops in the city are not payed for by the football teams.

You'd be surprised at how much they do pay for. It'll be more than the 20 or so officers in the ground.

 

[Darandio]

No they dont cover the full cost. And they shouldn't have to.

Why not?

 

[Charlie Smythe]

That isnt really a very good example. If any of those police are on duty inside the ground ( which they will be for such a derby game) the home team pays. I also suspect the scale of trouble puffer buffers might cause would hardly constitute the serious public order problems football idiots can create. That is unless there is a hard core firm of stone island wearing kettle fans looking for a ruck with the class 37 crew.......

However you miss the point. Do the charter operators cover the full cost to the railway of the impact of thier tours?

Doesn't matter how many police are needed whether it be 5 BTP officers on a station of 300 across a city. Rail tour operators should NOT have to contribute. Football fans are paying guests to the club and thy are directly involved. Enthusiasts at a station are nothing to do with rail tour operators they are just there and are completely separate from the tour.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

You'd be surprised at how much they do pay for. It'll be more than the 20 or so officers in the ground.

Have to been to the Devon Derby? I have and i can tell you that it is around 20 as most security inside the gates of the ground are done by private security companies.

 

[221129]

Doesn't matter how many police are needed whether it be 5 BTP officers on a station of 300 across a city. Rail tour operators should NOT have to contribute. Football fans are paying guests to the club and thy are directly involved. Enthusiasts at a station are nothing to do with rail tour operators they are just there and are completely separate from the tour.

If their poor behaviour is requiring additional police resources then absolutely they should be required to contribute.

 

[221129]

Have to been to the Devon Derby? I have and i can tell you that it is around 20 as most security inside the gates of the ground are done by private security companies.

Yes I have. As part of the police response as well, so I am pretty clued up about what happens.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Why not?

Because the enthusiasts on the line and people standing in front of the white line are not the fault of the Rail tour operators. They are only responsible for paying guests and enthusiasts at a station are, as i have said in a previous post, not paying guests and tour operators are not accountable for their actions.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Yes I have. As part of the police response as well, so I am pretty clued up about what happens.

Well i appreciate your inside knowledge. If this is the case then where are you all in the ground as even when there is violence you seem to be very thin on the ground.

 

[221129]

Because the enthusiasts on the line and people standing in front of the white line are not the fault of the Rail tour operators. They are only responsible for paying guests and enthusiasts at a station are, as i have said in a previous post, not paying guests and tour operators are not accountable for their actions.

They are though albeit indirectly. The way Network Rail, the ORR and the BTP will look at it is that if those tours were not running then these problems wouldn't occur as frequently. Ergo ban these tours.

 

[Darandio]

Because the enthusiasts on the line and people standing in front of the white line are not the fault of the Rail tour operators. They are only responsible for paying guests and enthusiasts at a station are, as i have said in a previous post, not paying guests and tour operators are not accountable for their actions.

I think the original question has been skewed too far towards policing. The question asked was:

However you miss the point. Do the charter operators cover the full cost to the railway of the impact of thier tours?

It goes far beyond policing. When tours inevitably fall over on the mainline and cause huge disruption to passengers and thousands of delay minutes would you still have the same answer to the question? You said they shouldn't have to, is that still the case?