The Great Escape ... Trespass special edition!

[johntea]

I was happily minding my own business on the train this morning when it came to a sudden, although not particulary sharp stop - just assumed it was held at a signal initially...I then clocked on as to the actual reason for the delay!

Watch 2yt2y4 | Streamable

Watch this video on Streamable.

streamable.com

I really don't know what entices a kid on Easter school holidays to wake up and decide 'I know what I'll do today!' (this was 9am!) but their attempt at quickly escaping the crime scene had several of us in fits of laughter despite the serious nature of the incident! I only managed to film a snippet but it took around 20 attempts to make it up in the end!

 

[ivorytoast28]

Dude scrambling away with no chance. What had even happened? He just was on the line? too many kids doing whatever they please

 

[trentside]

Is he that young? Possibly looks a bit older to me which makes me wonder if he’s scouting with criminal intent.

 

[skyhigh]

Is he that young? Possibly looks a bit older to me which makes me wonder if he’s scouting with criminal intent.

Kid in question was lying in the 4ft with others nearby lineside, just a stupid action rather than anything more planned, I'd suggest.

 

[Rail Blues]

Dude scrambling away with no chance. What had even happened? He just was on the line? too many kids doing whatever they please

It is a problem as old as the railways itself.

Trains have always held a fascination for kids, the noise and power of them. Obviously not a course of action I'd recommend, but I can see why it occurs.

 

[GodAtum]

Funnily enough a video was made recently

 

[Dr_Paul]

Kid in question was lying in the 4ft with others nearby lineside...

My granny once told me that when she was young, living in Richmond prior to the First World War and thus pre-electrification, foolhardy kids would lie down in the four-foot and trains would go over the top of them. Knowing what she was like for inadvertently relaying other people's tall stories, I had my doubts when she told me this when I was a kid, and I still find it hard to believe that there would be sufficient clearance. Would it be possible for this to have happened?

 

[D6130]

I would encourage you to send that video to the BT Police. They may be able to identify the young lad and make sure that he receives a good talking to.

 

[alxndr]

My granny once told me that when she was young, living in Richmond prior to the First World War and thus pre-electrification, foolhardy kids would lie down in the four-foot and trains would go over the top of them. Knowing what she was like for inadvertently relaying other people's tall stories, I had my doubts when she told me this when I was a kid, and I still find it hard to believe that there would be sufficient clearance. Would it be possible for this to have happened?

Most likely yes, if you're slim. Although if there's anything hanging loose from the underside you'll only be able to do it once...

 

[181]

My granny once told me that when she was young, living in Richmond prior to the First World War and thus pre-electrification, foolhardy kids would lie down in the four-foot and trains would go over the top of them. Knowing what she was like for inadvertently relaying other people's tall stories, I had my doubts when she told me this when I was a kid, and I still find it hard to believe that there would be sufficient clearance. Would it be possible for this to have happened?

Most likely yes, if you're slim. Although if there's anything hanging loose from the underside you'll only be able to do it once...

I'm no expert on under-train clearances, but might the lowest thing be the AWS magnet, which the LSWR didn't have pre-WW1?

Having said that, I seem to remember once reading a brief report (probably in the railway press; maybe late 1980s or early 90s) of the death of someone who had been boasting to his friends that he'd often lain down under passing trains and it was quite safe; but unfortunately he was used to main line trains and for his demonstration chose a tube train.

 

[Dr_Paul]

It's clear that there would be nothing descending below the height of the head of the running rail, as this would result in fouling at points. The question is the amount of clearance above the height of the rail head, how many inches there would be. An axle on a wagon with two-foot wheels would be just under a foot above the rail head height, but a bogie frame or the bottom of a loco's firebox might not have amount of clearance.

Of course, as someone wrote above, if something was dangling down, something that would clear the rail head by a couple of inches -- a coupling chain perhaps? -- then anyone daft enough to lie down in the four foot could sustain serious damage.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Pinch of salt methinks, Surely to do that on a tube line would require lying on the traction current negative rail?

 

[181]

Pinch of salt methinks, Surely to do that on a tube line would require lying on the traction current negative rail?

That had crossed my mind (now, not back when I originally read about it). Am I right in thinking that on a shared stretch of line such as Queen's Park to Harrow, the middle conductor rail can be touched without danger of electrocution in the same way as the running rails can? (don't worry, I'm not going to try it). But many people wouldn't know that.

 

[MotCO]

It's clear that there would be nothing descending below the height of the head of the running rail, as this would result in fouling at points. The question is the amount of clearance above the height of the rail head, how many inches there would be. An axle on a wagon with two-foot wheels would be just under a foot above the rail head height, but a bogie frame or the bottom of a loco's firebox might not have amount of clearance.

Of course, as someone wrote above, if something was dangling down, something that would clear the rail head by a couple of inches -- a coupling chain perhaps? -- then anyone daft enough to lie down in the four foot could sustain serious damage.

Perhaps they should never have introduced retention tanks

 

[40129]

I recall a story told to me by a former colleague at LT from the days when subway trains had guards.

A Piccadilly line driver saw a drunk guy roll off the platform at Turnham Green and land in the 4-foot immediately in front of his train. He immediately "dropped the handle" but knowing he wouldn't stop in time - Piccadilly line runs express through Turnham Green - got on the intercom and warned his guard not to look as "there's going to be a bloody big mess". As it happened, the drunk had managed to land in the only spot where none of the underfloor equipment would hit him and although he was right next to the 4th rail, the quantity of alcohol in his system was sufficient to insulate him from the current, and he survived unscathed.

NB: I was also told that were someone to do that now, they would not be so lucky, as the '73 stock now has more underfloor equipment

 

[John Griffiths]

Is "the 4 foot" the space between the rails?

 

[ilkestonian]

Is "the 4 foot" the space between the rails?

Yes. Strictly the four foot eight and a half, or metric equivalent, I guess

And the space between two running lines is 'the six foot'. Then you have the space to the side of the four foot, away from any other running line, known as the cess.

 

[ABB125]

Yes. Strictly the four foot eight and a half, or metric equivalent, I guess

And the space between two running lines is 'the six foot'. Then you have the space to the side of the four foot, away from any other running line, known as the cess.

And the if there are two pairs of tracks, the bit between them is the 10-foot (I think this is the case even if it's no different in width to the individual six-foots). So you could end up with cess|four-foot|six-foot|four-foot|ten-foot|four-foot|six-foot|four-foot|cess.

 

[WirralWanderer]

Not sure about other traction but a class 66 has a radar (for the speedometer) which sits about the height of the rail head. So no clearance there.

 

[Hooligan]

A colleague of mine once went over someone in the four foot on a 150, slammed on brake thinking he was going to hit them, when he came to a stand, looked back out window to see person running away!

 

[181]

I recall a story told to me by a former colleague at LT from the days when subway trains had guards.

A Piccadilly line driver saw a drunk guy roll off the platform at Turnham Green and land in the 4-foot immediately in front of his train. He immediately "dropped the handle" but knowing he wouldn't stop in time - Piccadilly line runs express through Turnham Green - got on the intercom and warned his guard not to look as "there's going to be a bloody big mess". As it happened, the drunk had managed to land in the only spot where none of the underfloor equipment would hit him and although he was right next to the 4th rail, the quantity of alcohol in his system was sufficient to insulate him from the current, and he survived unscathed.

NB: I was also told that were someone to do that now, they would not be so lucky, as the '73 stock now has more underfloor equipment

Alcohol wouldn't have that effect. However, it occurs to me that if the centre rail is 'only' 220V different from earth, then dry clothing might be enough to insulate someone from it.

Not sure about other traction but a class 66 has a radar (for the speedometer) which sits about the height of the rail head. So no clearance there.

I found something in a Google search to the effect that UIC rules prohibit anything within a few inches/cm (I can't remember the exact figure) of rail height. There must be some clearance to allow for suspension bounce + safety margin on points and crossings.

 

[43066]

A colleague of mine once went over someone in the four foot on a 150, slammed on brake thinking he was going to hit them, when he came to a stand, looked back out window to see person running away!

I’m aware of the same sort of thing happening with a 465. In the incident I’m thinking of a coach and a half went over a drunk lying in the four foot, and he suffered no injuries.

Needless to say it must have been a very unpleasant moment for the driver concerned, and I understand the drunk ended up being prosecuted for trespass.

 

[janahan]

Alcohol wouldn't have that effect. However, it occurs to me that if the centre rail is 'only' 220V different from earth, then dry clothing might be enough to insulate someone from it.

I believe on lines jointly operated with third rail NR/OverGround stock(Watford DC, Gunnersbury to Richmond and Puntey bridge to wimbledon for sure), the center rail is bonded to the running rails, and therefore at ground (with the outer having the full voltage) so that third rail trains are able to run on the same track.

This woudl probably make the middle rail effectively earth/0V

Not sure what its like at turnham green (or any other above ground sections) but maybe being ex LSWR, it too was bonded in the same way?

 

[colchesterken]

Many years ago when I lived in the East End ( Forest Gate ) there was a report of a lady who
was in the 4 ft ( dont know if it was an accident! ) and a 315 went over her she was uninjured
it was reported the clearance on them was more than other units 302/307 at the time,
and if it was any other unit she would not have survived

 

[Need2]

Am I imagining it or did the great John Noakes once lay in the 4 foot and a train went over him?

 

[ilkestonian]

Am I imagining it or did the great John Noakes once lay in the 4 foot and a train went over him?

Don't remember that, but he did just about everything else, so it would not surprise me.

The one thing I imagine might have been a tad uncomfortable would have been to try this back in the day under a main line steam loco, only to find the fireman hadn't wound the water scoop up properly...

 

[Lucan]

When I worked for LU, I heard informal advice that if you are caught short in a tunnel, the best thing was to lay next to the centre conductor rail (without touching it) with your head towards the train. I don't know whether it would work, probably depends how slim you are. No-one has mentioned that the head is best towards the train; this is to try to avoid the windage lifting your clothing which could then catch.

Someone mentioned stories from long ago, but modern concrete sleepers are significantly lower in the centre than timber ones.

 

[PhilipRdNGauge]

Am I imagining it or did the great John Noakes once lay in the 4 foot and a train went over him?

I thought he was in the "suicide pit" in a deep level station rather than plain line in the tunnels. I particularly remember the gadget multiple lights the gangers place on the live rails to prove the current really has been turned off.

 

[Ediswan]

I thought he was in the "suicide pit" in a deep level station rather than plain line in the tunnels. I particularly remember the gadget multiple lights the gangers place on the live rails to prove the current really has been turned off.

I remember that. Looked like a biscuit tin full of light bulbs. Some years later I concluded it was probably multiple bulbs (or series strings of lower votage bulbs) in parallel. The chances of all the parallel elements quietly failing simultaneously would be very low.

 

[Crossover]

My granny once told me that when she was young, living in Richmond prior to the First World War and thus pre-electrification, foolhardy kids would lie down in the four-foot and trains would go over the top of them. Knowing what she was like for inadvertently relaying other people's tall stories, I had my doubts when she told me this when I was a kid, and I still find it hard to believe that there would be sufficient clearance. Would it be possible for this to have happened?

Likewise, one of my late grandparents told me a story on a number of occasions how in her youth they would "get under the track" as a train passed over. She said she chickened out but had been seen by the footplate crew who threw a lump of coal in her direction, which promptly went home to be used on the fire! I would guess this would have been late 1930's/early 1940's.