The normalisation of trespass?

whisky_galore

Following the recent mass trespass incidents across the pond with Flying Scotman's relaunch I see this...I know it's closed due to flooding but it's still trespass by public representatives who should know better.

http://www.clarecourier.ie/article.asp?id=5148

Jem72

Which is more outrageous - Local representative standing on a railway line that's been closed for six months or the fact that an operational railway line closes for six months after being closed for months every winter for the last few years?

The guy does raise a good point - Irish Rail / the government need to either close this down or invest in a permanent solution. It is a complete waste of money to leave it as it is.

whisky_galore

He can make his point just as well without the photo shoot.

sporty56

Well done to newspaper and councillor on highlighting the ongoing reality of no service and no solution coming down the tracks. Old saying of picture worth a thousand words comes to mind.

Losty Dublin

Jem72 wrote: »

Which is more outrageous - Local representative standing on a railway line that's been closed for six months or the fact that an operational railway line closes for six months after being closed for months every winter for the last few years?

The guy does raise a good point - Irish Rail / the government need to either close this down or invest in a permanent solution. It is a complete waste of money to leave it as it is.

The issue that's causing the constant flooding of recent years isn't on railway property. CIE say it's OPW's problem to sort out as it's a river and lake that flood so they won't address it. OPW say it's CIE's problem to sort out as it affects the line most of all so they won't address it. Until one or other body address it then it will never get sorted out.

Del.Monte

Will they sort it out before the WRC is converted into a Greenway?

Banjoxed

Del.Monte wrote: »

Will they sort it out before the WRC is converted into a Greenway?

There's a vewy speshal place for that sort of thing!

Cookie_Monster

Who is to say he doesn't have permission to be there?

Losty Dublin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Who is to say he doesn't have permission to be there?

If he had permission then he'd be wearing appropriate safety clothing to be on or near the track

Cookie_Monster

Losty Dublin wrote: »

If he had permission then he'd be wearing appropriate safety clothing to be on or near the track

what, a canoe in this case

whisky_galore

You wouldn't traipse through someone's private yard or a factory premises without having any business to conduct and permission to go there, what makes the railway any different?

end of the road

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

what, a canoe in this case

a high vis jacket and other safety equipment. it's his duty to wear such if he is there on the permission of irish rail, regardless of whether the railway is open or closed, running or not running.

savagethegoat

yes , it is sending out the wrong message.

Someone watching this may feel it's OK to be on a railway line when there are no trains running, the problem being, they have no way of knowing if indeed there are no trains running.

Lack of a hi viz etc makes me believe that this guy was not there with IEs knowledge. It's entirely possible that an engineers inspection train may have approached at any time even though the line is flooded.

sporty56

Pity CIE sold off Naomh Eanna

Losty Dublin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

what, a canoe in this case

And a life jacket

whisky_galore

Drivers are getting increasingly jumpy when they see non-hi vis clad people getting too near the rail line, with the number of personal tragedies these days.

Some photographers think they're entitled to come out onto the running lines in instances. Steam railtours tend to attract this activity.

savagethegoat

if you are anywhere near the line, drivers tend to touch the horn and I imagine it's a bit of a relief to them when you acknowledge. I always do

monument

whisky_galore wrote: »

He can make his point just as well without the photo shoot.

I don't think he can -- A picture is worth a thousand words.

whisky_galore wrote: »

You wouldn't traipse through someone's private yard or a factory premises without having any business to conduct and permission to go there, what makes the railway any different?

Public ownership and making a political point.

The law isn't black and white. For example, people accused of attacking aircraft in Shannon we not convicted because they successively argued that they were coming to the defence of others.

Pro Hoc Vice

Losty Dublin wrote: »

If he had permission then he'd be wearing appropriate safety clothing to be on or near the track

Why the track is closed!

end of the road

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Why the track is closed!

that doesn't matter.

Pro Hoc Vice

end of the road wrote: »

that doesn't matter.

There is still no evidence he is trespassing. From the look behind and the dept of that water don't think even if a train was in that line it could approach that spot at any kind of speed.

Losty Dublin

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

There is still no evidence he is trespassing. From the look behind and the dept of that water don't think even if a train was in that line it could approach that spot at any kind of speed.

Unless he has permission to be on the track then he's trespassing on a railway. The fact that he isn't wearing safety wear in shot tells us that he isn't almost certainly isn't there under the watch of Irish Rail.

Of course, the onus is on Irish Rail to follow this up legally if it's an issue with them

Pro Hoc Vice

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Unless he has permission to be on the track then he's trespassing on a railway. The fact that he isn't wearing safety wear in shot tells us that he isn't almost certainly isn't there under the watch of Irish Rail.

Of course, the onus is on Irish Rail to follow this up legally if it's an issue with them

Exactly the only people who will know if he is trespassing is him the photographer and IR.

Losty Dublin

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Exactly the only people who will know if he is trespassing is him the photographer and IR.

If he had permission then he will have had safety wear on. Even Irish Rail staff are disciplined for not wearing same when trackside.

Itssoeasy

Losty Dublin wrote: »

If he had permission then he will have had safety wear on. Even Irish Rail staff are disciplined for not wearing same when trackside.

Even on a flooded railway though losty ? I know they shouldn't do it but I would have assumed a flooded line was different.

Carawaystick

What if he swam and happened to cross the railway?

If IÉ said there's bus substitutions due to the railway being blocked by flooding, then it's hard to see how there's any safety issue.

If a train could pass, then IÉ have misled potential customers, ad would be guilty of a criminal offence.

savagethegoat

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Why the track is closed!

he has no way of knowing if it is closed or a maintenance or inspection train might be due unless he is there with official IE sanction, which he isn't as he has no safety gear on.

savagethegoat

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

There is still no evidence he is trespassing. From the look behind and the dept of that water don't think even if a train was in that line it could approach that spot at any kind of speed.

what you think doesn't enter into it.

Pro Hoc Vice

savagethegoat wrote: »

what you think doesn't enter into it.

If it is a question of trespas either civil or criminal what we all think is very much the issue, it is a forum after all. Or is only what you think of any value.

Cookie_Monster

savagethegoat wrote: »

he has no way of knowing if it is closed or a maintenance or inspection train might be due unless he is there with official IE sanction, which he isn't as he has no safety gear on.

lets be real for a second here, there is not going to be a train travelling through the water here at speed.
there is the tiniest possibility of a maint / inspection train approaching at very low speed, hardly an actual danger. I don't agree with him trespassing but the actual risk is zero.

BoatMad

Lads , I have a few pins that need the counting of angels

whisky_galore

Carawaystick wrote: »

What if he swam and happened to cross the railway?

If IÉ said there's bus substitutions due to the railway being blocked by flooding, then it's hard to see how there's any safety issue.

If a train could pass, then IÉ have misled potential customers, ad would be guilty of a criminal offence.

Oh please, what if, what if, what if he parachuted onto the line...

The problem with this is that the less educated may say to themselves "if he can do it, so can I" irrespective of circumstances. Then you have vandals, sorry 'street artists' plastering retaining walls and equipment with 'art' under the impression that they can do this at night when regular passenger services have ceased. Have heard of one instance when artistic endeavours were interrupted by an unexpected train.

n97 mini

Aagh pet hate: mixing imperial and metric. 1.75 miles of track is under 1.4 metres of water. Much bigger sin than standing on a track that's not in use.

savagethegoat

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

lets be real for a second here, there is not going to be a train travelling through the water here at speed.
there is the tiniest possibility of a maint / inspection train approaching at very low speed, hardly an actual danger. I don't agree with him trespassing but the actual risk is zero.

the particular spot and the likelihood of a train coming is immaterial . It's an important tenet that everyone needs to be aware of , especially public representatives, you do not walk on a railway without the training and safety gear necessary and the permission and knowledge of the operators. Anywhere. Anytime.

whisky_galore

monument wrote: »

I don't think he can -- A picture is worth a thousand words.



Public ownership and making a political point.

The law isn't black and white. For example, people accused of attacking aircraft in Shannon we not convicted because they successively argued that they were coming to the defence of others.

Just because the railway is owned by the State and 'public' does not give a member of the public carte blanche to do whatever he or she likes on that property.
If he got onto the track through a per way access gate, he could not have failed to notice signs warning him not to trespass there, whether there are services running or not. There are very good reasons as to why the public should be discouraged to use the railway as a footpath or a playground or whatever.

Perhaps the Shannon people had a good legal team and a sympathetic jury, I don't know.

BoatMad

savagethegoat wrote: »

the particular spot and the likelihood of a train coming is immaterial . It's an important tenet that everyone needs to be aware of , especially public representatives, you do not walk on a railway without the training and safety gear necessary and the permission and knowledge of the operators. Anywhere. Anytime.

The operators have been walking railways lines with little safety training for 100 years without too much trouble

Do not mix up a safety culture with safety

savagethegoat

BoatMad wrote: »

The operators have been walking railways lines with little safety training for 100 years without too much trouble

Do not mix up a safety culture with safety

What nonsense. Just because something was done in an alleged dangerous way 100 years ago does not mean that this guy or anyone else can walk on a railway without obeying todays rules.

Hundreds of railway employees have died on the tracks over the years, todays "safety culture" is there to try and make the track a safer place than it was. How is that a bad thing as you imply?

BoatMad

savagethegoat wrote: »

What nonsense. Just because something was done in an alleged dangerous way 100 years ago does not mean that this guy or anyone else can walk on a railway without obeying todays rules.

Hundreds of railway employees have died on the tracks over the years, todays "safety culture" is there to try and make the track a safer place than it was. How is that a bad thing as you imply?

Simply because an " untrained " person is standing on a flodded track , safe in the knowledge that no train can traverse it ( which is a true and undeniable fact ) does not make it unsafe. It's certainly flouts a safety culture that replaces common sense with sometimes irrational directives many of which are a function of the prevention of lawsuits then the application of safety.

whisky_galore

BoatMad wrote: »

Simply because an " untrained " person is standing on a flodded track , safe in the knowledge that no train can traverse it ( which is a true and undeniable fact ) does not make it unsafe. It's certainly flouts a safety culture that replaces common sense with sometimes irrational directives many of which are a function of the prevention of lawsuits then the application of safety.

How does he know? Did he contact IE to find out beforehand?

That no train can traverse it does not necessarily mean that nothing at all can travel over all of it or a part of it.

savagethegoat

exactly. Believing that one knows something and actually knowing it are two different things.

What if a pw wagon in a siding along the line had it's handbrake tampered with by vandals? it isn't a true and undeniable fact!
That's just one train that could appear unexpectedly and it's just one reason why ie would have had a lookout stationed if this guy was there with permission.

You aren't there safe in the knowledge of anything unless you have followed the rules as standardised. To state otherwise is totally bogus.

BoatMad

whisky_galore wrote: »

How does he know? Did he contact IE to find out beforehand?

That no train can traverse it does not necessarily mean that nothing at all can travel over all of it or a part of it.

maybe he did contact IE ( or a friendly signalman , thats all you need to talk to to know what will or will not run on a line )

in effect nothing can travel over it , the diesel electrics cant wade water once above the height of the rail head

a stream engine could attempt it, with potential damage to its firebox, so I suppose you are right , a steam engine could run him down

BoatMad

savagethegoat wrote: »

exactly. Believing that one knows something and actually knowing it are two different things.

What if a pw wagon in a siding along the line had it's handbrake tampered with by vandals? it isn't a true and undeniable fact!
That's just one train that could appear unexpectedly and it's just one reason why ie would have had a lookout stationed if this guy was there with permission.

You aren't there safe in the knowledge of anything unless you have followed the rules as standardised. To state otherwise is totally bogus.

and a jet engine could detach and hit him on the head, a car could leap three hedges and hit him in the back

lookouts are stationed on track that has active traffic and not under engineers possession

This line has no current active traffic , it is in essence closed to traffic and standing on it is as dangerous as standing on the track at wellington bridge

whisky_galore

BoatMad wrote: »

maybe he did contact IE ( or a friendly signalman , thats all you need to talk to to know what will or will not run on a line )

in effect nothing can travel over it , the diesel electrics cant wade water once above the height of the rail head

a stream engine could attempt it, with potential damage to its firebox, so I suppose you are right , a steam engine could run him down

One of these perhaps... would be a lot likelier prospect than your 'steam engine'.

https://chasewaterstuff.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/rubber-duck.jpg

Following your logic, would it be advisable to wander into a building site, on a Sunday?

There seems to be no-one there, no machinery working. Sure what harm could it be? I've watched a few episodes of Bob the Builder and I have a fair idea of what happens in a building site.

Apart from the fact that I have absolutely no permission and no business in the wide earthly world being there.

BoatMad

whisky_galore wrote: »

One of these perhaps... would be a lot likelier prospect than your 'steam engine'.

https://chasewaterstuff.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/rubber-duck.jpg

aye run down by an excavator doing 20 mph and which i dont believe can operate in the depths of water shown in the flooding

he may have contacted IE signalling , they would be scheduling T3 engineers possessions , which is the only way the excavator would be allowed to access the line anyway

BoatMad

whisky_galore wrote: »

One of these perhaps... would be a lot likelier prospect than your 'steam engine'.

https://chasewaterstuff.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/rubber-duck.jpg

Following your logic, would it be advisable to wander into a building site, on a Sunday?

There seems to be no-one there, no machinery working. Sure what harm could it be? I've watched a few episodes of Bob the Builder and I have a fair idea of what happens in a building site.

Apart from the fact that I have absolutely no permission and no business in the wide earthly world being there.

Im not denying trespass , Im merely arguing that the trespass in the situation mentioned was not unsafe

a railway line is not a building site

Has anyone actually asked the chap?

I am a photographer (and have been in and out of factories, ports, etc. where hi-vis is essential wear). In many cases, the person being photographed will often be wearing hi-vis, but remove it briefly for the actual taking of the photograph/s.

Not saying that's the case here, of course, as I don't know, but it wouldn't be uncommon for safety gear to be put aside for presentation purposes.

savagethegoat

BoatMad wrote: »

maybe he did contact IE ( or a friendly signalman , thats all you need to talk to to know what will or will not run on a line )

in effect nothing can travel over it , the diesel electrics cant wade water once above the height of the rail head

a stream engine could attempt it, with potential damage to its firebox, so I suppose you are right , a steam engine could run him down

In no circumstances would any IE official give him permission to be on a line without personal safety gear.

nelly17

end of the road wrote: »

a high vis jacket and other safety equipment. it's his duty to wear such if he is there on the permission of irish rail, regardless of whether the railway is open or closed, running or not running.

He needs permission and valid irish Rail Personal Tracside Safety Certification, Orange High Vis vest & boots, a completed risk assessment to be on or near the railway line. Even if its closed.

BoatMad

nelly17 wrote: »

He needs permission and valid irish Rail Personal Tracside Safety Certification, Orange High Vis vest & boots, a completed risk assessment to be on or near the railway line. Even if its closed.

Thats the rules ( and you are not completely correct actually, for thats for unaccompanied access , for all we know he may have been accompanied out off shot )

thats not the same as what is "safe" in the situation and what is not

the railway run very successfully for 100 years without Hi-viz and irish Rail Personal Tracside Safety Certification

safety culture is not the same as safety

The line is in effect closed

nelly17

BoatMad wrote: »

Thats the rules ( and you are not completely correct actually, for thats for unaccompanied access , for all we know he may have been accompanied out off shot )

thats not the same as what is "safe" in the situation and what is not

the railway run very successfully for 100 years without Hi-viz and irish Rail Personal Tracside Safety Certification

safety culture is not the same as safety

The line is in effect closed

If he was accompanied by an IR representative he would have had PSE or he would not have been on the track

flyingsnail

nelly17 wrote: »

If he was accompanied by an IR representative he would have had PSE or he would not have been on the track

PSE ???