Does CIE actually sue for trespassing?

me_right_one

Hi. A friend of mine was caught trespassing on the Dub - Sligo railway line by an inspector. He recently bought a piece of land that used to have a level crossing as the main entrance / exit to it. The level crossing is long since disused with the right-of-way expired, and there's another way in, but my friend has been using it on the quiet as a shortcut for a while and was caught the other day. The inspector asked for his name, and told him that under section blah blah blah he would be prosecuted for trespassing. Friend told him to fukoff, continued onto his own piece of land, and went about his business. So....

1) Do CIE actually follow up on these things? I'm sure people trespass all the time. Would they bother?

2) How often would inspectors walk the line? Maybe a driver tipped him off or something?

3) Seeing as there was already an old LC there, might he have some claim to it? Like squatters rights if he continues using it for example?


All info appreciated:)

DWCommuter

me_right_one wrote: »

Hi. A friend of mine was caught trespassing on the Dub - Sligo railway line by an inspector. He recently bought a piece of land that used to have a level crossing as the main entrance / exit to it. The level crossing is long since disused with the right-of-way expired, and there's another way in, but my friend has been using it on the quiet as a shortcut for a while and was caught the other day. The inspector asked for his name, and told him that under section blah blah blah he would be prosecuted for trespassing. Friend told him to fukoff, continued onto his own piece of land, and went about his business. So....

1) Do CIE actually follow up on these things? I'm sure people trespass all the time. Would they bother?

2) How often would inspectors walk the line? Maybe a driver tipped him off or something?

3) Seeing as there was already an old LC there, might he have some claim to it? Like squatters rights if he continues using it for example?


All info appreciated:)

If your friend is using a LC that has been officially closed by CIE/IE, for access with a vehicle etc, then this is a huge safety issue. But if the LC has been closed, then how is access still available?

Im assuming its an old accomodation LC.

me_right_one

Its physically still there. This is about halfway down a long lane which the track runs parallel to, and my mates land is the far side of the track. There are gates opening onto the track on the lane side, and gates opening into the field on the track side. So all my mate has to do is go down the lane, hop the gate onto the track, cross if its safe, and hop the opposite gate into his field. I'm not sure if he used it for vehicles, it could be used easily enough as the surface level is equal to the top of the track, just like a LC crossing a public road. Otherwise my mate has to make a 3 mile round trip to the proper entrance to his land.

Victor

me_right_one wrote: »

1) Do CIE actually follow up on these things? I'm sure people trespass all the time. Would they bother?

They won't sue, they will likely prosecute.

2) How often would inspectors walk the line?

Anything from daily to weekly.

3) Seeing as there was already an old LC there, might he have some claim to it?

Rights of way are normally required to be in regular use to remain valid - minimum once a year. In any case, he's a fool for endangering himself and others - the main group killed on the railways is trespassers. If he wants a crossing, he needs to talk to Irish Rail and the appropriate precautions can be put in place.

Like squatters rights if he continues using it for example?

"Squatters rights" depend on overtly using something. But how do you think he has squatters rights to something (a) he doesn't own or occupy (b) something that has trains going by regularly enough.

me_right_one wrote: »

He recently bought a piece of land

me_right_one wrote: »

Otherwise my mate has to make a 3 mile round trip to the proper entrance to his land.

:rolleyes:

me_right_one

Victor wrote: »

They won't sue, they will likely prosecute.

Whats the difference?

Victor wrote: »

"Squatters rights" depend on overtly using something. But how do you think he has squatters rights to something (a) he doesn't own or occupy (b) something that has trains going by regularly enough.

Well I dont think he should have squatters rights. I'm just saying, the LC is physically still there, but the right-of-way is no more. Since he does use it overtly, could the right-of-way be eventually reinstated, in a similar way to how squatters rights are given to people who use a property eventhough they dont own it?

Victor

me_right_one wrote: »

Whats the difference?

In the extreme, prison time.

Well I dont think he should have squatters rights. I'm just saying, the LC is physically still there, but the right-of-way is no more. Since he does use it overtly, could the right-of-way be eventually reinstated, in a similar way to how squatters rights are given to people who use a property eventhough they dont own it?

No, it doesn't work like that.

monument

You should advise your friend not to use the crossing, there have been a number of deaths at active level crossing in recent years, the chances of danger rises if the crossing is supposed to be disused.

And the deaths and a good deal of near misses is why they are likely prosecute. Cars do not come out well when hit by trains:



The Gardai, DPP, Revenue, Irish Rail and a limited few can prosecute, while individual persons (people or general companies) can only sue.

Pineapple stu

They will prosecute if he keeps using it as that gate would be a per/way access point and it would be unsafe for non Irish Rail staff to use.

Was it the track walker or a per way inspector that caught him?

The gate could be in use anytime day or night so its very likely that he will be caught again.

Whereabouts is it? what section? clonsilla-maynooth,enfield-killucan etc

SeanW

me_right_one wrote: »

Whats the difference?

Sue = they want money
Prosecute = criminal sanction

Cookie_Monster

Victor wrote: »

In any case, he's a fool for endangering himself and others - the main group killed on the railways is trespassers. If he wants a crossing, he needs to talk to Irish Rail and the appropriate precautions can be put in place.

Jeez, over react much? How does it endanger anyone? Listen for train, look for train, job done as it only on foot.

Long term a proper crossing is required, short term there is in reality no danger if you look and listen, just like crossing a very quiet road.

Also re the main group killed being trespassers, any proof of that (in Ireland). I'd say its far more likely to be people who commit suicide by jumping in front of trains, not people trespassing. considering you hear of at least one or two a year and I can't even remember the last report about someone accidently being hit by a train while trespassing.


Advice for your friend: pickup a timetable so he at least has an idea of due trains if he is going to continue to use it.

paddyland

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Jeez, over react much? How does it endanger anyone? Listen for train, look for train, job done as it only on foot.

Long term a proper crossing is required, short term there is in reality no danger if you look and listen, just like crossing a very quiet road.

No it bloody isn't. I remember this poster a year or so ago grandly announcing to everyone how if you stood beside a railway track you would hear a train coming. You do not hear a train coming. It approaches in silence, until the last second or two. At 90mph, that would not be long enough to even think about jumping out of the way.

Well and good if you can see the headlights in the distance, but either way, the rules of trespass are there for a very good reason. OP might be a clever and resourceful guy, but Irish Rail don't know that, and IF he manages to get himself hit by a train, he creates one hell of a nightmare for the company, insurance, etc. They are not taking that chance. An example will most likely be made of it, regardless how unfair it is to the OPs individual circumstances.

Who are you to come on and tell the nation it's perfectly ok to trespass on railway lines, in direct contravention of every order of the company itself? I really wish you would stop these contributions to subjects you know nothing about.

Cookie_Monster

paddyland wrote: »

Who are you to come on and tell the nation it's perfectly ok to trespass on railway lines, in direct contravention of every order of the company itself? I really wish you would stop these contributions to subjects you know nothing about.

Did you even read the post, I never said it was ok to trespass. :rolleyes:

No it bloody isn't. I remember this poster a year or so ago grandly announcing to everyone how if you stood beside a railway track you would hear a train coming. You do not hear a train coming. It approaches in silence, until the last second or two..

thats just moronic, of course you can hear it coming. Sound travels a lot faster than 90 mph you know. FFS. at the very least you will hear the vibration of the rails

paddyland

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

thats just moronic, of course you can hear it coming. Sound travels a lot faster than 90 mph you know. FFS. at the very least you will hear the vibration of the rails

Moronic, eh? Since you're a bit of an internet bunny, the internet is FULL of videos of idiots who didn't hear the train coming. Any railway workers here?

A320

''You do not hear a train coming. It approaches in silence, until the last second or two''
Thats if it was going faster than the speed of sound!!!!

Cookie_Monster

paddyland wrote: »

Moronic, eh? Since you're a bit of an internet bunny, the internet is FULL of videos of idiots who didn't hear the train coming. Any railway workers here?

there's no accounting for idiots.

larryone

In the case of roads, if you have road frontage then you own the subsoil up to midline of the road, and the state own the topsoil and road surface. Therefore if you have land either side of a road, you own the subsoil all the way through and can tunnel it. This has been done many times.
Given that CIE are semi-state, would the same apply? If so then a tunnel could be installed for pedestrian and/or vehicular access...

Pineapple stu

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Jeez, over react much? How does it endanger anyone? Listen for train, look for train, job done as it only on foot.

Long term a proper crossing is required, short term there is in reality no danger if you look and listen, just like crossing a very quiet road.

Also re the main group killed being trespassers, any proof of that (in Ireland). I'd say its far more likely to be people who commit suicide by jumping in front of trains, not people trespassing. considering you hear of at least one or two a year and I can't even remember the last report about someone accidently being hit by a train while trespassing.


Advice for your friend: pickup a timetable so he at least has an idea of due trains if he is going to continue to use it.

Its not just commuter trains that use that line.

Pineapple stu

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Did you even read the post, I never said it was ok to trespass. :rolleyes:




thats just moronic, of course you can hear it coming. Sound travels a lot faster than 90 mph you know. FFS. at the very least you will hear the vibration of the rails

Not always and not until its too late, especially if you get and idiot hooked up to an i-pod or something and the rail network isnt one big straight with good sight where you can see for miles.
A good few people have died by taking short cuts. If it isnt a proper crossing point with a line side phone where you can ring the signalman before crossing then you shouldnt be using it.

Cookie_Monster

Pineapple stu wrote: »

Its not just commuter trains that use that line.

I realise that, of course, but it can't hurt to know as much as possible about what is expected. at least he will have some idea of what is due if he's going to be using it frequently, rightly or wrongly.

nothing anyone says on here is likely to stop him from using this short cut so may as well at the very least try and make it slightly safer.

If IE do prosecute then he may stop using it, depending on the consiquences, but the likely hood of being caught doing it again is probably fairly low and I doubt he'll see it as reason to stop using it as access.

Mycroft H

paddyland wrote: »

No it bloody isn't. I remember this poster a year or so ago grandly announcing to everyone how if you stood beside a railway track you would hear a train coming. You do not hear a train coming. It approaches in silence, until the last second or two. At 90mph, that would not be long enough to even think about jumping out of the way.

Well and good if you can see the headlights in the distance, but either way, the rules of trespass are there for a very good reason. OP might be a clever and resourceful guy, but Irish Rail don't know that, and IF he manages to get himself hit by a train, he creates one hell of a nightmare for the company, insurance, etc. They are not taking that chance. An example will most likely be made of it, regardless how unfair it is to the OPs individual circumstances.

Who are you to come on and tell the nation it's perfectly ok to trespass on railway lines, in direct contravention of every order of the company itself? I really wish you would stop these contributions to subjects you know nothing about.

Most of the sligo line is limited to around 65-75mph.

Look and listen. then cross. Simple as.

The back of the garden of my uncles house is on the sligo line between mullingar and enfield and you can hear sounds of the train a full 3-4 minutes before it arrives

Generally you can hear the train from the tracks. The sound will resonate through thousands of feet of tempered steel which will produce a 'humming' harmonic effect through the track as the speed of sound is about 7-10 times faster then the speed of sound through air.

A bit ridiculous on IE part....

Lurching

Ah Jesus, its not as if hes jumping off a cliff.
If the track is anywhere near straight in either direction and it used to be a level crossing, theres no "massive safety risk" in crossing the line if you follow the common safe cross code.
Talk about people making a big deal of a small issue.

Ham'nd'egger

larryone wrote: »

In the case of roads, if you have road frontage then you own the subsoil up to midline of the road, and the state own the topsoil and road surface. Therefore if you have land either side of a road, you own the subsoil all the way through and can tunnel it. This has been done many times.

Given that CIE are semi-state, would the same apply? If so then a tunnel could be installed for pedestrian and/or vehicular access...

CIE would own whatever bit of land that is fenced/walled/hedged off around the track on a private basis as it was bought in the days when lines were private companies. Tunneling under a line is out of the question given the risk of land seeping but if access is needed then a bridge/underpass could be built if it can be justified; it has been many times in the recent pass.

Ham'nd'egger

landyman wrote: »

Most of the sligo line is limited to around 65-75mph.

Look and listen. then cross. Simple as.

The back of the garden of my uncles house is on the sligo line between mullingar and enfield and you can hear sounds of the train a full 3-4 minutes before it arrives

Generally you can hear the train from the tracks. The sound will resonate through thousands of feet of tempered steel which will produce a 'humming' harmonic effect through the track as the speed of sound is about 7-10 times faster then the speed of sound through air.

A bit ridiculous on IE part....

Generally is a big no no in a safety critical situation. What if there is a road nearby with traffic going by? A tractor in a field? An iPod in ones ears? Late at night? A wet day? At a curve or a point of poor vision? Yes there is a noise but it's no thunderous racket like you make out. The engines in the 22000 class railcars are very quiet compared to other trains and can creep up and pass in seconds with little in the way of noise so any factor can deaden their sound.

There is also the factor of braking distances of the train to consider here in case of any stupid moves; this can be anything from 100 yards to as much as a mile. A driver isn't to know why anybody is on the line unless it's an arranged work party so the assumption here is that the train has to stop for the safety of the person on the track at the detriment of up to 400 people on board. There has been several cases both here and in the North where people have taken chances and lost and these at legit crossings; there just isn't any reason here to let this one person off.

Victor

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

thats just moronic, of course you can hear it coming. Sound travels a lot faster than 90 mph you know. FFS. at the very least you will hear the vibration of the rails

Most of the noise from a train goes out the sides, not the front.

landyman wrote: »

Generally you can hear the train from the tracks. The sound will resonate through thousands of feet of tempered steel which will produce a 'humming' harmonic effect through the track as the speed of sound is about 7-10 times faster then the speed of sound through air.

And if there is a break in the track? Points? The person is industrially deaf?

Cookie_Monster

Victor wrote: »

Most of the noise from a train goes out the sides, not the front.

but not all and more than enough travels forward to hear it, especially the vibrations

And if there is a break in the track? Points? The person is industrially deaf?

remote. the op describes a straight lenght of track running along side fields. doubtfull there'd be any points or railbreaks. No indication he is deaf was given either

highlydebased

You'd hear a locomotive engine miles away- 071's in particular. But railcars certainly not. I live right next to the Ennis line, don't hear the 2700's until they pass right alongside.

paddyland

There are posters coming on here blatantly advocating the breaking of the law and endangerment of life. Just because I or another might look left and right and see no train coming, and skip merrily across a train track, does not mean that people should take it into their heads to herd across train tracks at will, in contravention of the law. As soon as right of way over train tracks is taken for granted, and people become immune to the dangers, the risk of injury or death, not just to the individual, but to other people, becomes greatly increased.

It is not overstating it, the law is there because too many human beings are flawed and cannot be trusted on their own judgement. Everyone else ends up paying the price.

While this is a public discussion board, where does Boards stand on allowing people to come on under anonymous pseudonyms and advocate that people ignore the law and do as they please, because they know no better? It is grossly irresponsible, and while the calibre of some posters is to be expected, I would imagine there should be some kind of benchmark of what can and cannot be said on such matters.

DWCommuter

A railway line is a railway line and there is absolutely no credence in advocating any form of trespass over it. I would remind any posters here who are enthusiasts and have some safety conscious understanding of rail lines, to think before you express an opinion as it can and will be misinterpreted by people who think its okay to simply skip across the track.

Modern day trains are a lot quieter and can be on top of you before you realise it.

Pineapple stu

I bet that those on here who says there is nothing wrong with what the OP does are the ones who find nothing wrong with breaking a red light just because it only just changed.
Can i cut through his back garden to my house if i lived near him ?

me_right_one

Hi all. Thanks for all your replies. As someone pointed out, humans are flawed. They will make assumptions and take things for granted if you let them. With that in mind, I wish to state as I did in my OP that it is a friend, not me, who is doing this. It is an elderly relation, who has no intention of changing his mind or listening to safety advice. That is why I'm asking for advice, on his behalf, about actually acquiring a right of way. At least then it would be A) legal, and more likely CIE would re-open the LC. I asked them before about this, they said no way. Seemingly it costs too much, with barriers, flashing lights etc. Hence why I'm asking for alternative views on rights-of-way, and what the law is re trespassing. I agree my friend is doing a selfish and foolish thing, and he is putting his own life and others' in danger, but I state again that it is not me thats doing it.

Victor

Your friend might ask about an underpass. It would cost, but its an option.

foggy_lad

would/could irish rail not put in a type of pedestrian/barrow crossing there for locals? i mean like a farm crossing with the emergency phone and a small locked gate which only locals that applied would have keys for?

antoinolachtnai

Are you certain there was a right of way? Why does he think there was a right of way? If there was, how was it abolished? Was your friend or his predecessor compensated?

I would say a trip to the solicitors is going to be in order to sort this out. My suggestion would be to get a letter on record asking to clarify the situation in relation to the disused level crossing.

Obviously if the CIE inspector finds out that someone is regularly crossing the track at a place where they shouldn't, he has to take action. It is a safety issue, he has to do everything he can to keep that stretch of track as safe as possible.

Cookie_Monster

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

he has to do everything he can to keep that stretch of track as safe as possible.

ah, so thats why the closed the Rosslare branch :pac::pac::pac:

Bluetonic

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/courts/sacked-chef-made-drunken-dash-over-rail-line-to-light-cig-2202432.html

Cookie_Monster

Bluetonic wrote: »

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/courts/sacked-chef-made-drunken-dash-over-rail-line-to-light-cig-2202432.html

what a tool. But the difference between this and what being discussed is much much much busier line and he was pissed.

There was an express train coming shortly after,

We have express trains

thomasj

and its on the increase, i can name a number of occasions i have witnessed people do it:

- clonsilla station, level crossing gates closed a couple decided they had enough waiting casually walked across the tracks with an inbound sligo train in sight only because someone screamed at them the train was coming they hurried up. Driver was furious and rightly so.

- howth junction only a couple of days ago i witnessed a guy on the malahide stretch crossing the track getting to his home

- kilbarrack saw a woman casually cross the track to board a dart on the other side didnt even look to see was it safe to cross

- lets not forget the muppet on the motorbike driving along the tracks at broombridge!

- back when ireland were playing at lansdowne road, i remember one night when there was a match on and everyone was waiting on platform 5 an announcement was made of the next train at platform 6 as the train approached a lot of kids and teenagers start crossing the track, i remember the response of the announcer "get the f**k off the tracks" it was priceless but stupid and endangered lives

Seriously though unless this is combatted there is going to be a serious accident something needs to be done!

Judgement Day

thomasj - one thing you can put your mind at rest about is that nothing will be done about trespass, just as nothing been done about stone throwing and many other things regarding passenger safety on CIE.

shoelaceface

Pineapple stu wrote: »

Not always and not until its too late, especially if you get and idiot hooked up to an i-pod or something and the rail network isnt one big straight with good sight where you can see for miles.

you'd want to be fairly stupid to cross a track with tunes banging into your ears!

at the end of the day, its like crossing a road. you use your common sense to find a safe place, look both ways and listen! tracks are mostly straight, if you cross there at least you can see!!

its common sense! we all take short cuts in all aspects of life at some stage! you just have to be cautious!

i know people that have been killed in their own garden through accidents! it can happen anywhere! you have to live life and be as careful as you can! otherwise wrap yourself up in bubble wrap and hide in the corner!

Pineapple stu

thomasj wrote: »

and its on the increase, i can name a number of occasions i have witnessed people do it:

- clonsilla station, level crossing gates closed a couple decided they had enough waiting casually walked across the tracks with an inbound sligo train in sight only because someone screamed at them the train was coming they hurried up. Driver was furious and rightly so.

- howth junction only a couple of days ago i witnessed a guy on the malahide stretch crossing the track getting to his home

- kilbarrack saw a woman casually cross the track to board a dart on the other side didnt even look to see was it safe to cross

- lets not forget the muppet on the motorbike driving along the tracks at broombridge!

- back when ireland were playing at lansdowne road, i remember one night when there was a match on and everyone was waiting on platform 5 an announcement was made of the next train at platform 6 as the train approached a lot of kids and teenagers start crossing the track, i remember the response of the announcer "get the f**k off the tracks" it was priceless but stupid and endangered lives

Seriously though unless this is combatted there is going to be a serious accident something needs to be done!

Ive seen a chap carrying a pram with a child in it across the tracks from the up to the down platform with a train approaching.

Victor

shoelaceface wrote: »

i know people that have been killed in their own garden through accidents!

Sure, but I imagine some dying in their own garden doesn't give a train driver nightmares for years after. And doesn't inconvenience (potentially) thousands of people for up to two hours. And means only one body bag is used. And doesn't involve power-hosing body parts off a train.

Judgement Day

Victor wrote: »

Sure, but I imagine some dying in their own garden doesn't give a train driver nightmares for years after. And doesn't inconvenience (potentially) thousands of people for up to two hours. And means only one body bag is used. And doesn't involve power-hosing body parts off a train.

Too much information Victor - I'm glad I had my dinner a good while ago.

corktina

me_right_one wrote: »

Whats the difference?

there is no difference...imho you cannot prosecute for trespass, its a civil matter and you can only sue for loss or damage caused....

monument

corktina wrote: »

there is no difference...imho you cannot prosecute for trespass, its a civil matter and you can only sue for loss or damage caused....

For Irish Rail:

Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001

64.—(1) A person who trespasses on a railway, that has been built pursuant to a railway order, and that is not on a public road or trespasses on any land, machinery or equipment used for the purposes of the railway, is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €600 (£472.54).

(2) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section in respect of a trespass—

(a) the fact that he or she had not received a personal warning shall not be a ground of defence,

(b) he or she shall not, in any case, be convicted of the offence unless the railway undertaking proves to the satisfaction of the Court that, at the date of the trespass there was affixed at the station of the railway undertaking nearest to the place where the trespass is alleged to have been committed a prominent notice in legible characters warning persons not to trespass on the railways of the railway undertaking.

(3) A person lawfully crossing a railway of a railway undertaking by means of any accommodation works maintained in pursuance of section 68 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, does not commit an offence under this section.

For Luas:

Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Act, 1996

19.—(1) A person who trespasses on a light railway that is not on a public road or trespasses on any land, machinery or equipment used for the purposes of the light railway shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500.

(2) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section in respect of a trespass—

( a ) the fact that he or she had not received a personal warning shall not be a ground of defence,

( b ) he or she shall not, in any case, be convicted of the offence unless the Board proves to the satisfaction of the Court that, at the date of the trespass there was affixed at the station of the Board nearest to the place where the trespass is alleged to have been committed, a notice (painted on boards or printed, painted or enamelled, on iron or any other material) in legible characters warning persons not to trespass on the light railways of the Board.

(3) No person lawfully crossing a light railway of the Board by means of any accommodation works maintained in pursuance of section 68 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall be guilty of an offence under this section.

More generally:

Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994

11.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person—

( a ) to enter any building or the curtilage of any building or any part of such building or curtilage as a trespasser, or

( b ) to be within the vicinity of any such building or curtilage or part of such building or curtilage for the purpose of trespassing thereon,

in circumstances giving rise to the reasonable inference that such entry or presence was with intent to commit an offence or with intent to unlawfully interfere with any property situate therein.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

merengueca

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Advice for your friend: pickup a timetable so he at least has an idea of due trains if he is going to continue to use it.

Seriously?! I'm really sorry to sound like a condescending do gooder here, but having had to walk down the track minutes after a trespasser (or the component parts of) was carried away by an undertaker, and his bodily fluids were still evident for all to smell and see. Most memorable sight of the day, the way the guys ear lay on top of the rail clearly disected in two by the rear carraige wheels.

60mph line, straight, good sighting distance either direction, train travelling 'wrong' direction due unit failure. Line was signalled for Bi Directional working, but seldom ran that way.

Unless that timetable comes with a crystal ball stay off the line!

Cookie_Monster

merengueca wrote: »

Seriously?! I'm really sorry to sound like a condescending do gooder here, but having had to walk down the track minutes after a trespasser (or the component parts of) was carried away by an undertaker, and his bodily fluids were still evident for all to smell and see. Most memorable sight of the day, the way the guys ear lay on top of the rail clearly disected in two by the rear carraige wheels.

60mph line, straight, good sighting distance either direction, train travelling 'wrong' direction due unit failure. Line was signalled for Bi Directional working, but seldom ran that way.

Unless that timetable comes with a crystal ball stay off the line!

my point was he is going to do it anyway, the OP has said as much in a later post. He may as well have an idea when most of the trains are likely to turn up.

dowlingm

me_right_one wrote: »

The inspector asked for his name, and told him that under section blah blah blah he would be prosecuted for trespassing. Friend told him to fukoff, continued onto his own piece of land, and went about his business.

I'm wondering what answer you thought you would get when you posted this. I'm hoping it was something that you could persuade your relation that he has done wrong in doing what he did, acting as he did to a fella just doing his job and his intent to continue to do as he did.

Since he recently purchased the property, his solicitor who handled the transaction should have briefed him on the nature of owning land adjoining the railway and the status of rights of way. I reckon it will be hard to claim any residual rights when having no tie to the land when the ROW was extinguished and given that it is convenience rather than necessity (as there is another entrance), but I'm not a lawyer and this board (once again) is not the place to seek legal advice.

The right of way allowance requires inspection and additional hazard on the railway. Some of this has a monetary value so it's not a freebie that IE can just give (or not give because they are meanies).

elderly relation, who has no intention of changing his mind or listening to safety advice.

And I bet he has free travel too...

Run_to_da_hills

Two rail deathsover the weekend being investigated due to trespassing, not good at all. RIP.

http://www.midlandsradio.fm/news_detail.aspx?footer=1&news_id=11302

highlydebased

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Two rail deathsover the weekend being investigated due to trespassing, not good at all. RIP.

http://www.midlandsradio.fm/news_detail.aspx?footer=1&news_id=11302

Was just going to post about that. Could not believe it when I heard about the second one. Highly unfortunate. RIP to both of them.

paddyland

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Jeez, over react much? How does it endanger anyone? Listen for train, look for train, job done as it only on foot.

Long term a proper crossing is required, short term there is in reality no danger if you look and listen, just like crossing a very quiet road.

Also re the main group killed being trespassers, any proof of that (in Ireland). I'd say its far more likely to be people who commit suicide by jumping in front of trains, not people trespassing. considering you hear of at least one or two a year and I can't even remember the last report about someone accidently being hit by a train while trespassing.


Advice for your friend: pickup a timetable so he at least has an idea of due trains if he is going to continue to use it.

Perhaps it is worth bumping this example of the kind of attitude some people have to rules and safety. You can try to educate up to a point, but if people refuse to be educated, what can you do then? That is why we have laws, for people who cannot or will not be educated.

There is a huge sense of entitlement in this country, without any regard for the responsibilities that come with entitlement.

me_right_one

dowlingm wrote: »

I'm wondering what answer you thought you would get when you posted this. I'm hoping it was something that you could persuade your relation that he has done wrong in doing what he did, acting as he did to a fella just doing his job and his intent to continue to do as he did.

Of course!

But the sad fact is he just wont listen. I dont want him to end up like the 2 lads who were killed this week, God have mercy on them. So, in desperation, I'm wondering if there's any possibility at all, any glimmer of hope that either A) CIE will prosecute, and frighten the shyte outa him, or somehow a ROW can be reinstated, or the LC reopened, or anything to provide some measure of protection.

I have spoken to CIE about all this. I've never had any dealings with them before, and to be fair, maybe it was just the lad I was dealing with, but they seemed like they couldn't give a toss. It was their land, and it looks like they bought it specifically to legally strip it of the LC, and let it off again. Maybe I'll chat them again this week. AFAIK a ROW wouldnt cost them a penny, as its not physical, its only a legal instrument. My friend would have to pay any legal bills attached with it I assume. I suggested this to them, but they completely brickwalled me. Hence why I'm on here looking for ideas. Given the fact that the LC is still physically in existance, and that my friend uses that site regularly as a crossing point, surely there is some way he can adversely secure the legal right to cross it?

dowlingm wrote: »

And I bet he has free travel too...

He does indeed!