Yes, but is that inherent to the concept of photo charters?
I suppose it’s because “normal” charters are inherently less risky with people confined to the train or to stations rather then wandering about on the track bed.
Yes, but is that inherent to the concept of photo charters?
Then add in that there are plenty (a minority, but still plenty) of enthusiasts who are unable to behave sensibly when on or around the railway and the risk is all too understandable. You only have to look at the antics of photographers that have been highlighted before to see the problem.Yea, and that's the issue. How do you get the passengers off, ladders I.e. standard built in steps on ends of coaches or lean too on rough ground, H&S nightmare. Also when the first group request wheelchair access to a charter how do you explain in this modern world that you can't; PR nightmare waiting to happen.
I guess the point of a photo charter is also to get multiple shots that you can’t normally get from the lineside, so by its nature it requires access unusual locations within the boundary fence (and therefore inherently less safe.) The concept of a spectacular run past also isn’t great for the loco, as it usually results in demands for thick black smoke and a lot of regulator, which doesn’t do the boiler any favours, or the coal budget for that matter either!
So in theory a photo charter could be run without the photographers having track access?The advantage of a photo charter is that you can plan / choose timing at various locations. The timing can be setup to start earlier / end later than normal operations on the line. You can also make several passes if the light is changing (clouds).
I asked that on a different forum and a well know organiser said it would be of no interest to the participants.So in theory a photo charter could be run without the photographers having track access?
So in theory a photo charter could be run without the photographers having track access?
In theory yes, but the locations would be limited to station platforms or other places accessible to the public, such as overbridges or foot crossings. Reaching these could be time-consuming if away from a station, thus reducing the opportunities for photography. A large group walking along a narrow country road brings its own dangers, almost certainly greater than walking alongside the track!So in theory a photo charter could be run without the photographers having track access?
Photographers' buses have sometimes been used. These are only of use if the roads closely follow the railway. There has to be co-operation between the railway and bus driver to enable everyone to reach the desired location and get off the bus before the train passes. The RPSI tours in Ireland used to have these and you had to book on one in advance. The one I tried wasn't very good but the chasing bus I was on in Italy a few years ago was quite successful. Perhaps there's some mileage in this idea (ha ha) on UK heritage lines.
One of the points of having PTS is that it is about allowing you to access the lineside only if it is required in the course of your duties. Clearly that does not cover photographers on day trip.Surely in this day and age there would be some sort of course or certification for people to obtain to take trackside photos? I’m sure given the (obvious from this thread) popularity of the hobby it would be welcomed. Something akin to a drone operator’s licence springs to mind. Combine basic PTS, H&S etc and bundle it all in to one qualification. If you have the card you can go trackside (on permitted events, not just choose to wander to your local line and jump the fence).
Or am I being a bit too H&S mafia here??
Oh of course, please don’t misunderstand my use of PTS, I was just generalising. Naturally only authorised people SHOULD be allowed on the line. However on the opposing side of heritage lines have allowed this to happen previously there could be an argument for some sort of scheme as per my previous post (please note I’m neither a photographer nor a heritage member, just trying to look objectively and get some opinions for my own curiosity)One of the points of having PTS is that it is about allowing you to access the lineside only if it is required in the course of your duties. Clearly that does not cover photographers on day trip.
I'm afraid people who are arguing for these trips to still have lineside access really aren't understanding the current regulatory and legal framework and the concept of reducing risk to levels that are ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable). Pretty clearly, allowing photographers lineside access is not ALARP.
I refer you to my previous comments about ALARP. Having a bunch if photographers on the lineside doesn't fit with that, and managing that risk isn't worth it for the financial reward on offer.Oh of course, please don’t misunderstand my use of PTS, I was just generalising. Naturally only authorised people SHOULD be allowed on the line. However on the opposing side of heritage lines have allowed this to happen previously there could be an argument for some sort of scheme as per my previous post (please note I’m neither a photographer nor a heritage member, just trying to look objectively and get some opinions for my own curiosity)
I'm afraid people who are arguing for these trips to still have lineside access really aren't understanding the current regulatory and legal framework and the concept of reducing risk to levels that are ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable). Pretty clearly, allowing photographers lineside access is not ALARP.
Oh of course, please don’t misunderstand my use of PTS, I was just generalising. Naturally only authorised people SHOULD be allowed on the line. However on the opposing side of heritage lines have allowed this to happen previously there could be an argument for some sort of scheme as per my previous post (please note I’m neither a photographer nor a heritage
I’m afraid as per usual I have failed to get my point across...not to worry (and no offence to you sir, I totally get your point) I shall refrain from future suggestionsI refer you to my previous comments about ALARP. Having a bunch if photographers on the lineside doesn't fit with that, and managing that risk isn't worth it for the financial reward on offer.
Pretty clearly, allowing photographers lineside access is not ALARP.
So where does this stop or self limit?
Banning shed and facilities visits?Controlling numbers on platforms to a much lower level during busy periods?Replacing all pedestrian line crossings with pedestrian bridges?Deciding every slam door has to be supervised?Safety briefings to all passengers before departure?
Eventually you *logically* reach the point where somebody will argue that an operating heritage railway is in itself is not 'ALARP'.
Well some of those things have been happening for some time now.So where does this stop or self limit?
Banning shed and facilities visits?Controlling numbers on platforms to a much lower level during busy periods?Replacing all pedestrian line crossings with pedestrian bridges?Deciding every slam door has to be supervised?Safety briefings to all passengers before departure?
Eventually you *logically* reach the point where somebody will argue that an operating heritage railway is in itself is not 'ALARP'.
Considering the thread, access to Bridgnorth works and yard has been restricted for a number of years, same for the yards at Bewdley and Kidderminster. Only (some) special events where there were taped off areas, guides and reduced work going on.Well some of those things have been happening for some time now.
"Proper" shed visits are now very rare.
Bluebell stopped yard access many years ago ( I heard after a woman in high heels(?) slipped over.
Now longer able to access the shed at Loughborough unless on a tour for some time now. I am sure there are others, even Ropley Yard was closed for a while a few years ago.
Platform control for events such as a Flying Scotsman visit or Santa trains have existed for years.
I am sure the ORR would like all crossings on the level replaced everywhere, but that may be a thing to look forward to in the future.
Slam doors are probably OK until someone falls out of one.
So where does this stop or self limit?
Banning shed and facilities visits?Controlling numbers on platforms to a much lower level during busy periods?Replacing all pedestrian line crossings with pedestrian bridges?Deciding every slam door has to be supervised?Safety briefings to all passengers before departure?
Eventually you *logically* reach the point where somebody will argue that an operating heritage railway is in itself is not 'ALARP'.
Sending a reminder to check the expiry date on a railcard which has sat in a wallet for more than a year is totally different to mitigating a valid safety risk for those not trained/briefed/able to guard against it prior to encountering said risk.If I may can I bring to this threads attention another thread from Disputes and Prosecutions.
On that thread it is being argued that railcard holders should receive a reminder from the railcard seller / issuer that the card will expire in xx weeks time thus avoiding the situation where expired cards are accidentally used resulting in penalties being applied after a ticket check.
One could argue that on the basis that if people need this sort of reminder, then it is hardly surprising that some facilities (ie shed visits, photo charters) and other features of a heritage railway (ie passenger operated doors) are being called into question on the grounds of safety.