Wedding photos on Yorkshire railway track!

[Deepgreen]

BBC News has a story about a couple getting married on a railway line near Whitby (in July). I wonder, with all the evidence to hand, will they be/have they been prosecuted? I think it throws into relief the fact that the general public simply don't get how stupid railway trespass is - it is on a par with, say, parking illegally - try to get away with it and then plead ignorance/short duration ("I/we didn't do any harm") if caught, with the perception that the law is a nuisance to be challenged. In rural areas in particular the infrequent trains and the fact that the line offers a direct route for walking probably increases the incidence.

Bridal couple posed on rail line for wedding shoot

Network Rail says taking photos on a stretch of track was "plain stupidity".

www.bbc.co.uk

A couple who posed for wedding photographs on railway tracks in North Yorkshire have been condemned by Network Rail
They were caught on CCTV standing on a line near Whitby in July.
Supt Alison Evans, of British Transport Police, said: "The railway is not an appropriate or safe setting for a photographic backdrop, no matter how scenic the setting.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'd give them five years...

(Until they divorce- Punishment wise I'd give them a fine)

 

[PeterC]

I thought that there had been a thread about this at the time or was that a different suicidal photographer?

 

[Tom Quinne]

It is possible they asked for permission to cross the crossing, took their pictures then informed the signaller they where clear.

So, in this case no risk to themselves as the line would be blocked to traffic.

However, the user is to cross and quickly as safely possible that doesn’t including a full on photo shoot.

 

[Deepgreen]

It is possible they asked for permission to cross the crossing, took their pictures then informed the signaller they where clear.

So, in this case no risk to themselves as the line would be blocked to traffic.

However, the user is to cross and quickly as safely possible that doesn’t including a full on photo shoot.

The picture shows the photographer on the sleepers away from the crossing. I also doubt if permission was given, given the tone of the story (including NR condemning the actions).

 

[BayPaul]

It is possible they asked for permission to cross the crossing, took their pictures then informed the signaller they where clear.

So, in this case no risk to themselves as the line would be blocked to traffic.

However, the user is to cross and quickly as safely possible that doesn’t including a full on photo shoot.

Since Network Rail described their actions as 'plain stupidity' on the BBC link it doesn't seem likely that they got permission. Unless they had full written permission and a proper risk assessment which clearly they didn't there is no way this could be described as 'no risk to themselves' surely.

 

[Crossover]

Possibly a bit of a slow news day - I remember the photo being all over Facebook in summer when it happened. There was suggestion it was done behind a train that had crossed over the crossing already, but I can't verify such

 

[ainsworth74]

Possibly a bit of a slow news day - I remember the photo being all over Facebook in summer when it happened. There was suggestion it was done behind a train that had crossed over the crossing already, but I can't verify such

I seem to recall it came from a Facebook post made by a guard on the Whitby branch to one of the various Facebook groups that cover the area. But I certainly can't lay me hands on the original source now to verify my memory!

 

[2392]

And no doubt if a train had turned up. It would have been Network Rail/Northern/NYMRs [if taken 'tween Grosmont and Whitby] fault........ Case for compulsory sterilisation to preserve the species.

 

[Deepgreen]

So - it was either done behind a train (which couldn't possibly reverse or roll back, of course) without permission, or with no train, again without permission, unless NR did approve it (VERY unlikely) and NR's left hand (PR dept) doesn't know what its right hand (local signallers) is doing. In any case, it and the other incidents shown, set extremely poor examples.

I simply don't think the average member of the public thinks going on the railway (especially from a 'legal' access point such as a crossing) is dangerous 'because nothing's likely to happen to me' and, for the huge majority of the time, they will escape unscathed. The hidden dangers/bad example to others just do not occur to them.

 

[221101 Voyager]

People seem to get a little more incompetent every single day! This story just highlights how stupid people really are!

People who do things like this need their head testing, it quite frankly is absolutely crazy!

 

[Tom Quinne]

Since Network Rail described their actions as 'plain stupidity' on the BBC link it doesn't seem likely that they got permission. Unless they had full written permission and a proper risk assessment which clearly they didn't there is no way this could be described as 'no risk to themselves' surely.

When a MOP calls the signaller for permission to cross a UWC, we ask which crossing their at, how long they’ll require and how long they’ll require.

Any longer than 3 minutes the crossing is to be treated as a low/long or slow load so signal collar protection is to be placed.

What they do on the crossing once they have that permission is unknown.

So it is possible they had “permission” as in to cross the line.

Of course NWR aren’t going to say this, as it would open up a can of worms, far easier and safer to condone the actions.

Im saying we shouldn’t throw boiling water over them, as they may well of had permission...to cross at least.

On a relate note I reported to BTP a crossing used as access for a photo shoot, I have the mileage, crossing name and even the name of the shop who carried out the photo shot with the linked Facebook post from them.

Action taken by BTP ? Nothing at all, to busy poltical policing mask wearing to attend to actual safety and crime matters on the railway.

 

[800001]

I seem to recall it came from a Facebook post made by a guard on the Whitby branch to one of the various Facebook groups that cover the area. But I certainly can't lay me hands on the original source now to verify my memory!

Yes, it was a Whitby - Middlesbrough service, it was stationary on platform and was heading away from the people on the crossing, it was a northern guard who took picture, who said there was no point phoning btp as by the time they got there the wedding party would be gone.

I recall various people tweeted it to Network Rail at the time.

 

[Deepgreen]

When a MOP calls the signaller for permission to cross a UWC, we ask which crossing their at, how long they’ll require and how long they’ll require.

Any longer than 3 minutes the crossing is to be treated as a low/long or slow load so signal collar protection is to be placed.

What they do on the crossing once they have that permission is unknown.

So it is possible they had “permission” as in to cross the line.

Of course NWR aren’t going to say this, as it would open up a can of worms, far easier and safer to condone the actions.

Im saying we shouldn’t throw boiling water over them, as they may well of had permission...to cross at least.

On a relate note I reported to BTP a crossing used as access for a photo shoot, I have the mileage, crossing name and even the name of the shop who carried out the photo shot with the linked Facebook post from them.

Action taken by BTP ? Nothing at all, to busy poltical policing mask wearing to attend to actual safety and crime matters on the railway.

As it is a public crossing they wouldn't need permission to cross. When you say "condone it", did you mean 'condemn it'?

 

[Tom Quinne]

As it is a public crossing they wouldn't need permission to cross. When you say "condone it", did you mean 'condemn it'?

It depends whether there is a phone to seek permission or not.

 

[d9009alycidon]

Trespass aside, The professional photographer is breaking the Network Rail rule "For any commercial photography, prior permission must be sought." and "using bulky equipment" .

 

[Dr_Paul]

Seeing how few services there are on this line, and noting the circumstances, the chances that this particular couple would come to grief were very small. However, such behaviour sets a precedent, and encourages people to go on the track in places where services can be a lot more frequent. And even on lightly-used lines there is always a danger of something turning up.

 

[Tom Quinne]

Trespass aside, The professional photographer is breaking the Network Rail rule "For any commercial photography, prior permission must be sought." and "using bulky equipment" .

That’s a commercial policy, the act of being on the actual track is obviously a railway offence.

 

[341o2]

I thought that there had been a thread about this at the time or was that a different suicidal photographer?

Yes, I can't find the one, but the happy couple were posed in the six foot.
I was taught that the four foot is the most dangerous place to be, if you have to cross the tracks, don't linger in either.
Darwin Award

 

[TheSel]

Between the rails seems a perfectly reasonable place for a bride to find her train, surely!


(No - not really condoning her actions, or those of the associated party of course)

 

[seagull]

One of the most sobering videos I've ever seen showing just how dangerous being on the track can be, and how quickly a peaceful quiet "disused" railway line can become the scene of near-tragedy, is this one captured by the Virtual Railfan camera at Greencastle, Pennsylvania USA.

(Family on tracks barely escapes fast moving train)

 

[alxndr]

As it is a public crossing they wouldn't need permission to cross.

There are some public crossings where it is necessary to contact the signaller to ascertain whether or not it is safe to cross.

 

[GB]

Looks like the article has two different incidents on two different crossings. The first looks like a regular foot crossing with the other a user worked crossing.

 

[Deepgreen]

There are some public crossings where it is necessary to contact the signaller to ascertain whether or not it is safe to cross.

Indeed, but not at this one at Sleights. I would also venture that even if permission had been given locally by the signaller, it should not have been because of the message it sends when the photos are circulated.

Seeing how few services there are on this line, and noting the circumstances, the chances that this particular couple would come to grief were very small. However, such behaviour sets a precedent, and encourages people to go on the track in places where services can be a lot more frequent. And even on lightly-used lines there is always a danger of something turning up.

Exactly - it's not about the perceived or actual risk at any specific location, it's about a consistent and unwavering rule everywhere - 'no (written) permission, no go'! Even though a train may just have passed on a single track line (or be standing at the adjacent platform) there is nothing to say it cannot reverse or roll back, so as far as a layman is concerned, anything can happen.

One of the most sobering videos I've ever seen showing just how dangerous being on the track can be, and how quickly a peaceful quiet "disused" railway line can become the scene of near-tragedy, is this one captured by the Virtual Railfan camera at Greencastle, Pennsylvania USA.

(Family on tracks barely escapes fast moving train)

Not that it makes the slightest difference, but was this an Amish family? The females all look to be wearing plain long dresses in the Amish style.

 

[Llanigraham]

It is possible they asked for permission to cross the crossing, took their pictures then informed the signaller they where clear.

So, in this case no risk to themselves as the line would be blocked to traffic.

However, the user is to cross and quickly as safely possible that doesn’t including a full on photo shoot.

No signaller that I know of would EVER grant a Line Blockage to a member of the public!

 

[Llanigraham]

Seeing how few services there are on this line, and noting the circumstances, the chances that this particular couple would come to grief were very small. However, such behaviour sets a precedent, and encourages people to go on the track in places where services can be a lot more frequent. And even on lightly-used lines there is always a danger of something turning up.

And has been seen in the past, there may be other trains running that aren't in the timetable, like tampers, etc.

 

[seagull]

Not that it makes the slightest difference, but was this an Amish family? The females all look to be wearing plain long dresses in the Amish style.

Mennonite, I believe. They dress similarly but are less technology and transport averse.

 

[Deepgreen]

Mennonite, I believe. They dress similarly but are less technology and transport averse.

Thanks for that. Ironically, they needed to be a little more transport averse here!

 

[whitby66078]

What no articles seem to mention is that their was a train in the platform and that photo was taken by the guard of said train!

 

[800001]

What no articles seem to mention is that their was a train in the platform and that photo was taken by the guard of said train!

Who also didn't report it but just posted onto Facebook