Trainspotting rules at some stations

[Ferret]

Exactly. Which is easier for the the PCSO to have a go at the hapless trainspotter or the drunk?

Therein lies a problem! It seems to be the nature of Police these days to go for the easy target.

 

[Zoe]

The railways have always been private property, but yet we haven't needed Guidelines until recent times...

Network Rail has only existed in recent times. They are a private company and as the owner of the infrastructure have the right to decide if you can take photos there. They have issues guidelines and they should be followed. Note that they could have decided to ban photography but they have not. They allow photography at their stations, all they ask is that you inform the staff, it's really not that much to ask is it?

 

[nedchester]

Network Rail has only existed in recent times. They are a private company and as the owner of the infrastructure have the right to decide if you can take photos there. They have issues guidelines and they should be followed. Note that they could have decided to ban photography but they have not. They allow photography at their stations, all they ask is that you inform the staff, it's really not that much to ask is it?

Yes it is. Are all people with camera (mobiles, point and shoots, SLRs) required to inform the staff? Or is it just the enthusiast being singled out here? Why?

Yes they can ban photography should they wish but it would be an impossible rule to enforce. Also what is the motivation of banning photography? What is the 'big issue' with photography in this country?

If I was reading this forum 25 years ago (yes I know the internet didn't exist then!) I would think I was reading about events in a country East of the Iron Curtain not the country of my birth.

 

[jon0844]

I thought it was a request for rail enthusiasts to sign in (well, let staff know) on account of them standing around for some time - perhaps in areas where most passengers wouldn't go or loiter. I don't see a problem with doing this, out of courtesy. So when did we suddenly turn this into needing to sign in to take a photo? Or even that if someone doesn't sign in before taking a photo then it must be commercial photography?

I enter King's Cross at the front entrance, walk in - on my way, I pause a take a photo of the new gateline and a crowd of people to post on here, get approached by a PCSO and thrown out - with people on here saying I should have signed in. All I was doing was taking a picture or two on my way to the train to get home.

Can we please establish whether it's a railway enthusiast that is asked to sign in (not forced to) or now we have anyone with a camera being forced to. I have at least two (maybe more) phones with cameras in them on me at any one time.. for a while, Home Office posters suggested I should be anonymously reported as a potential terrorist (the wording was along the lines of 'why would someone have two phones?') so I guess I should be arrested and made to explain why I choose to carry THREE phones with me.

The thread title is "trainspotting rules.." yet it always seems to end up with trainspotters only given bother when they take a picture of something!! I am not sure that many get told off for simply sitting down with a notepad, well that is unless they cross the invisible lines when staff misread the 'do not cross the line' signs!

 

[Ferret]

Network Rail has only existed in recent times. They are a private company and as the owner of the infrastructure have the right to decide if you can take photos there. They have issues guidelines and they should be followed. Note that they could have decided to ban photography but they have not. They allow photography at their stations, all they ask is that you inform the staff, it's really not that much to ask is it?

Do you seriously think they could ban photography? Even if there was such a will to do that (I don't know how many times I've got to say this on here - there are a hell of a lot of enthusiasts in very senior positions on the railway), how on earth would it be enforced?! Sorry, staff are paid to deal with such things as dispatching trains, helping with luggage and customer queries, not to spend their entire lives hunting down photographers.

Here's a couple of questions for you which may help you to understand why Nedchester and myself are taking the stance that we have:

1. A couple of months ago, I took a photo of a train from an overbridge south of Shrewsbury. That photo subsequently appeared in a magazine. Silly me forgot to ask permission of Arriva to take a photo of their train - have I committed some heinous crime in your book?!

2. A couple of years ago, I was on a railtour to Penzance hauled by 55022. There was a 20 minute fester at Plymouth, during which many of us had the temerity to photograph the loco. One of the people who had the temerity to photograph that locomotive was a chap called Chris Gibb (yes, the very nice bloke from Virgin Trains). None of us went to sign in with the station manager. Did we all commit a heinous crime by not signing in?!

 

[jon0844]

Did you sell the photo that was used in the magazine? If not, there's no problem at all.

If you took a photo in a public place, there's no problem at all.

If you were invited in to a depot and saw something not normally seen by the public, then sold it, there might be a problem (IF the TOC took exception). In reality, it's only likely to be an issue if you used a photo in a negative light, or took photos of something confidential.

As I said about commercial photography before, it's more for filming for movies or TV - and in many cases the permits (and the associated charges) are to pay for staff to manage the crews effectively, without causing disruption. So, a film crew may want to set up at 3am to film - and so there's the need to pay for staffing, security etc.

Of course you're going to get permission IN ADVANCE for that sort of thing, which is a world apart from someone taking a few pictures for their own use - or to post in the public domain as part of a hobby etc.

 

[Ferret]

Did you sell the photo that was used in the magazine? If not, there's no problem at all.

If you took a photo in a public place, there's no problem at all.

If you were invited in to a depot and saw something not normally seen by the public, then sold it, there might be a problem (IF the TOC took exception). In reality, it's only likely to be an issue if you used a photo in a negative light, or took photos of something confidential.

As I said about commercial photography before, it's more for filming for movies or TV - and in many cases the permits (and the associated charges) are to pay for staff to manage the crews effectively, without causing disruption. So, a film crew may want to set up at 3am to film - and so there's the need to pay for staffing, security etc.

Of course you're going to get permission IN ADVANCE for that sort of thing, which is a world apart from someone taking a few pictures for their own use - or to post in the public domain as part of a hobby etc.

The photo was taken from a public place, and I received the princely sum of £20 pounds for taking it.

 

[Darandio]

You are really pushing the boat out to drive home a pretty pointless argument now Ferret. Although I do agree in principle that photography is what it is, has been around for a long time and for that time never had issue, one point stands out.....

What harm is it causing you to spend 30 seconds of your time to inform platform staff of your presence? Whether you feel it is right or wrong, it's a small measure I am happy to take to keep good relations and has enabled me to gain easy access to many platforms due to the staff now being familiar with me. Wheres the harm?

Of course, the cynic could say I am planning an attack several years down the line and just grooming the staff.

 

[jon0844]

That's fine then. If a TOC doesn't want you taking a picture of its trains - they better pay Network Rail to put screens around all of the lines!!

Now imagine you were on that bridge and a PCSO just came by and stopped you?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course, the cynic could say I am planning an attack several years down the line and just grooming the staff.

But that could be true (okay, not in your case) which actually shows what a nonsense it is. If someone is going to ultimately plan to blow themselves up, it won't matter that they were willing and open to talk to and communicate with staff beforehand.

I agree that if you're going to be loitering anywhere for a length of time it's common courtesy to tell those in charge.

But, if you're passing through and just stop to take some pictures then it should not be necessary at all. Any more than a tourist taking pictures in front of a train (or indeed platform 9 3/4 at King's Cross).

Even if you've signed in, I'm pretty sure that some people have still been harassed as soon as they've taken out a camera. It's the picture taking that seems to cause the problems NOT just being on a platform.

 

[Darandio]

Even if you've signed in, I'm pretty sure that some people have still been harassed as soon as they've taken out a camera. It's the picture taking that seems to cause the problems NOT just being on a platform.

Well yes, but equally, any member of staff that you ask beforehand should be wearing some form of identity badge. Simply take note or memorise, then if approached you can guide them to the member in question.

Not all cut and dried of course, the member could go off duty, especially in respect of the amount of times people spend on the platform end and although unlikely, the said member of staff could deny you even spoke to them!

I still don't see how any of this detracts from the whole situation of doing it in the first place though. Considering the time it takes, as you say it's just common courtesy and that is something I strongly feel is being lost these days.

 

[jon0844]

At what point do you think someone should sign in? I am only at a station because I'm going somewhere, but I may take photos (such as the ones I took at Finsbury Park recently showing the work on platform 1/2 and the new gates going in).

If I was going to spot trains and be there for a while, I'd expect that would then mean I should.

But if I take photos between getting there and taking the next train, should I still let someone know?

 

[Ferret]

You are really pushing the boat out to drive home a pretty pointless argument now Ferret. Although I do agree in principle that photography is what it is, has been around for a long time and for that time never had issue, one point stands out.....

Nope, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous certain members are being on this thread. There are times when it's practical to speak to staff, there are times when it just plainly isn't. GB made a wonderful point about give and take from both sides - if somebody hasn't signed in, it really isn't the end of the world, get over it.

 

[Darandio]

At what point do you think someone should sign in? I am only at a station because I'm going somewhere, but I may take photos (such as the ones I took at Finsbury Park recently showing the work on platform 1/2 and the new gates going in).

If I was going to spot trains and be there for a while, I'd expect that would then mean I should.

But if I take photos between getting there and taking the next train, should I still let someone know?

Thats why we are at the point we are at in this discussion but it's going to depend on location of course.

Taking the example of the work at Finsbury Park, maybe it isn't reasonable for you take the pictures without informing staff due to the whole "private property" argument. However, I am on your side and I don't deem it unreasonable.

Other side of the coin, if you have a 30-40 minute wait for your connecting train, is that an unacceptable time that should require you to inform a member of staff. Thats where the argument lies, what is acceptable and what isn't.

For the record though, there is mention of "signing in" and that is not what I am talking about. Often, at locations I use, even new ones, nobody is readily available on entrance to the station, they can generally be out dispatching so I generally make my way up and once they have completed that duty, inform the nearest one of my intentions and presence and then given the go ahead. No signing involved.

 

[Ferret]

That's fine then. If a TOC doesn't want you taking a picture of its trains - they better pay Network Rail to put screens around all of the lines!!

Ah, so what's the difference between taking a photo of a train there or on Shrewsbury station?

Now imagine you were on that bridge and a PCSO just came by and stopped you?

Stopped me from taking pictures?! Said PCSO may find himself with a bit of an issue!

 

[Darandio]

Nope, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous certain members are being on this thread. There are times when it's practical to speak to staff, there are times when it just plainly isn't. GB made a wonderful point about give and take from both sides - if somebody hasn't signed in, it really isn't the end of the world, get over it.

Get over what? I have no gripe with the argument you make, I probably support elements and understand how it was before the rules appeared but you also conveniently missed out the question I asked.

Take away the whole signing in phase, informing someone you plan to spend time on the platform isn't unreasonable is it?

 

[Ferret]

Get over what? I have no gripe with the argument you make, I probably support elements and understand how it was before the rules appeared but you also conveniently missed out the question I asked.

Take away the whole signing in phase, informing someone you plan to spend time on the platform isn't unreasonable is it?

It makes no odds either way! Do passengers making a connection or waving off relatives inform staff that they'll be there for a while? Is it unreasonable if they don't?

 

[Darandio]

It makes no odds either way! Do passengers making a connection or waving off relatives inform staff that they'll be there for a while? Is it unreasonable if they don't?

In a way it does explain the problem!

With many stations being barriered, would it be reasonable for the relatives to not ask if they could enter the platform, or just jump the barrier! However, noting the point of "private property", why should relatives be on there in the first place, they certainly wouldn't be allowed at the door of an aeroplane to knock on the window, shout "I Love You" and wave goodbye. Thats why the whole relatives v enthusiasts argument is nonsense.

Thats the crux of the argument really, the whole prospect of "asking" seems such a hard thing to do and I don't know why.

Although it matters not a jot, my stance is enthusiast friendly as I am one myself and do this very thing myself. If it needs to be stripped down right to the bare bones of the argument, stations are private property so where is the right in the first place? The right that you are given to be on the platform is to travel is it not?

 

[yorkie]

I enter King's Cross at the front entrance, walk in - on my way, I pause a take a photo of the new gateline and a crowd of people to post on here, get approached by a PCSO and thrown out - with people on here saying I should have signed in. All I was doing was taking a picture or two on my way to the train to get home.

There is no requirement to sign in to take photos. They ask for enthusiasts (regardless of whether they are taking photos or not) to inform staff of their presence (which may or may not involve signing in). Non-enthusiasts (again whether taking photos or not) have no such request made of them. Also you are not permitted to stand near departure screens if you are an enthusiast. If you are not an enthusiast, then it's okay.

Basically the guidelines are really aimed at people loitering for the purpose of spotting and/or photographing. In effect they're an easement to the 'no loitering' rules as they don't generally allow that.

 

[curly42]

Simple answer to all this Big Brother "signing in " business. If approached and asked why I haven't signed in,it's because I'm a photographer,not a railway enthusiast. I no longer have any interest in railways other than taking photographs. I'm not "enthusiastic" about the railways any more.
It also helps that I have free travel,so if on a station I'm a passenger (or in todays parlance,a "customer").
It's sad to see so many people being sucked into the "1984" scenario that involves signing in and all the related nonsense.
I'm coming to the opinion that it's a very generational thing - probably a by-product of this bloody awful nanny-state that seems to be developing.

 

[nedchester]

Simple answer to all this Big Brother "signing in " business. If approached and asked why I haven't signed in,it's because I'm a photographer,not a railway enthusiast. I no longer have any interest in railways other than taking photographs. I'm not "enthusiastic" about the railways any more.
It also helps that I have free travel,so if on a station I'm a passenger (or in todays parlance,a "customer").
It's sad to see so many people being sucked into the "1984" scenario that involves signing in and all the related nonsense.
I'm coming to the opinion that it's a very generational thing - probably a by-product of this bloody awful nanny-state that seems to be developing.

Good comment.

I agree it seems to be a generational thing. Some of us 'of a certain age' have lived in a time when there was no such paranoia over people taking photos on railway stations. There are now many of people of the younger generation who have been brought up by being indoctrinated into this nonsense and that includes those who now are PCSOs and people working on stations.

We are slowly sleepwalking into a society where everything is controlled and restricted, everything has to have a policy. Part of the blame is to do with compensation culture which pervades the UK these days.

If people submit to this signing in nonsense then the railways will try and push it a little further. The thin end of the wedge.............

 

[IanPooleTrains]

What about Shenfield? Anyone been there recently? If so, will I be harassed by the station staff there?