The Bristol Railway Archive

Excellent reply Jules and I heartily endorse your comments. BTW is that the longest reply ever posted?

I can think of a scenario where I as a member of the public would be justified in walking along the track, albeit in the cess rather than the four foot. Suppose I am near a railway line and spot either an obstruction on or near the line or on the lineside (body/animal/vehicle/landslide) or damage to the track (broken rail/damaged sleepers). My priority is to stop train movements before a collision or derailment occurs. If there is a bridge nearby, there will be a plate with an emergency phone number on it. Assumes I have access to a phone of course. Or there may be a signal close at hand with a signal post telephone attached for direct communication with the line's signaller.

Failing any of this, the only course of action open to me is to walk the line towards any oncoming train to flag it down and give the driver sufficient time to pull up. If I am on my own, I have to use my intuition as to which direction to go as I will have a choice of at least two or maybe more if the location is near a junction. I also have to know how to flag down an approaching train, just as that young lady did in the film 'The Railway Children'. My intuition as to which way to go may not be foolproof even if I know what trains are timetabled because non diagrammed workings are possible. If we think about the WSR, just imagine that a steam loco has failed during the day and has been replaced by a diesel. At the end of the diagram, the diesel loco will probably run light engine out of course back to Williton which is not a timetabled move and may be slotted in between other timetabled moves.

I wouldn't expect just any member of Joe Public to fathom this out as I am obviously referring to my first hand knowledge of railway operations to work out what to do but I would be morally justified in 'trespassing' in order to prevent an accident from happening.

I think its very reassuring that we can disagree so fundamentally on here but seem to get on quite well when we meet up. That's one of the things that makes these sorts of debate so enjoyable

Having said that, I'm going to keep this response short (well, short for me anyway ) because I think we might be running the risk of boring the backsides off everybody else by keeping it going!

I do in fact agree with almost everything you and Roy say, but what really got me going on this was this sentence:

jules wrote: But it is the remaining 1% that accidents arise from and that is what we have to protect against to stop people getting killed or injured.

Relating this back to the WSR incident, we have a nit/ fool/ idiot - call him what you will. I have already agreed that Plod ought to have a word with him. But we have to take into account the fact that they "got away" with it, and all the arguments about what might have happened are beside the point. They didn't happen.

If Plod manage to identify him, and if they interview him, and if at the end of that they (and the CPS) think they've got a case worth pursuing, he'll get his half a day out with the magistrates. I dom't have a problem with that either.

But here is the fundamental point where I take issue with your statement. If somebody has a mind to, they will trespass on railway land. If steps are taken to try to stop them, they will find perhaps new and inventive ways to do it. I somehow doubt that the WSR, or any other railway come to that, is plagued by people riding bikes along the four foot, and this is very much a one-off.

So what can the WSR reasonably do to stop idiots like this bloke doing what he did? They could try to turn the whole place into a fortress, perhaps, but even if they did that the public still has access to stations, level crossings, footpaths over the railway etc. And one of them. at some time and in some way, will merrily go a-trespassing. That's the way of the world. It is a problem that the WSR, and indeed any railway, cannot solve 100%. So, in this case, I don't believe the WSR should do anything to try to stop one-offs such as these, because it might not happen again for half a century. And there will be another one-off along in a minute that might need a whole raft of different measures to stop. And so on. And on.

jules wrote:So, having established there is no need to trespass on a railway and unless you are a criminal, no reasonable person will derive any benefit from doing so, it should be easy to mitigate the considerable risks involved. You just stop people from doing it!

See above. You are trying to stop the unstoppable. But that said, I agree with your general point that people have no need to be there - but that won't stop all of them doing it ever again, no matter how much money you spend.

jules wrote: We are taught, no matter what line is chosen to take a morning wander along, to STAY OUT OF THE FOUR FOOT. There is simply no reason to put yourself in a place of danger when you do not need to be there. Let me put it another way: would I be happy to work on the track between Iron Acton and Tytherington without protection, just because it is not a very busy line? No, I would very definitely not!

I didn't make myself plain enough in my last post. When I spoke about taking a morning wander, I was not talking about walking down the middle of the four foot itself. Apologies for wasting so much of your typing time

jules wrote:Add to that the legal situation where you might feel you are safe, but you are still trespassing on private property. Would it be OK for me to wander around in your garden uninvited? You may well say that's a ridiculous comparison Jules, but legally it is just the same. And you would be responsible for my safety as a trespasser, just the same as the railways are

Sorry to be pedantic, but no its not the same. Trespass on the railway is criminal trespass dealt with by the criminal court, trespass in my garden would be a civil matter, and I would have to show that your trespass had caused me loss or damage. I'm quite happy to discuss this further, but we'd better do it off group because its got nothing to do with railways

And if somebody was trespassing on my property and injured themselves, I'd like to see them try to bring an action.... Likewise in the WSR case - if a train did happen along and they got killed or injured, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on with a compensation claim (I'm not sure that's the best choice of words given the circumstances ..... )

jules wrote: But I am going to take very serious issue with a further point you made:

He might even know the current timetable, and had calculated that he had plenty of time to complete the manouvre before the next train was scheduled.

Never, ever rely on a timetable.

I accept that that was a bad suggestion to make. Timetables are an aspiration, not a tablet of stone

Just to add a little something extra to the mix...
Robin says quite correctly that what the picture shows may not tell the full story. I bring to view that the WSR had a charity walk from wiliton to bishops lyd, anyone not in the know would have thought there was a mass tresspas on the running line. Contrary to pre walk brief people young and old were walking in cess and in 4ft. In reality this walk ( and very enjoyable it was too) was well organised and under strictly controlled conditions.
Jules says, When was it *EVER* necessary for a member of public to walk along a railway line? Or ride a bike along a railway line? the answer is above, except cycling for which there is no excuse. As I pointed out, this was fully organised and controlled conditions.
In reality it is never necessary for joe public to be on or about the railway line other than in a train.
As an asside Jules, is there another walk planned sometime.

How about the Bristol Harbour Railway? I think you'll find walkers, cyclists and even cars in the 4ft along there.

Contrary to pre walk brief people young and old were walking in cess and in 4ft.

I'm puzzled - on a single-track line such as the WSR, where else would you expect to be able to walk other than in the cess of 4-foot on such an occasion?

It is a problem that the WSR, and indeed any railway, cannot solve 100%. So, in this case, I don't believe the WSR should do anything to try to stop one-offs such as these, because it might not happen again for half a century. And there will be another one-off along in a minute that might need a whole raft of different measures to stop. And so on. And on.

I agree it'll never be possible to stop it completely, but there are two routes by which it can hopefully be reduced. The first are the physical barriers, warning signs etc. and as you rightly point out, what with crossings and platform ends, making physical access at all places impossible is - impossible.

So accepting that there will always be some level of trespass, the second defence is education, be that teaching kids in schools, advertising (which Network Rail do a lot of both) or if need be, educating by firmer means, such as a prosecution for trespass in particularly bad cases. I disagree with "It was a one-off, so let's let it go" as that has no "educational" value for the trespasser

Returning to our now infamous 4-foot Minehead cyclist, what he was doing and the fact he was with a child, appears to me to make him one of the worst type of offenders - i.e. an utter idiot. For his own good (and that of the poor child) I would have informed Minehead's finest and I am sure they would have taken the relevant action, given a valid complaint. I believe it's called using "the law as a deterrent"

And as to the Bath Road Bridge cyclist, I'd prosecute him too. It might be seen that he was only endangering himself, but he wasn't. These might seem highly unlikely, but they are within the realms of possibility: what if he'd come off and he and his bike crashed on the sloping front windscreen of a passing HST? Endagering the driver ... What if his bike had caused a derailment? Endangering the public and staff ... What if he and his bike had fallen directly on an unfortunate track worker?

Highly, highly unlikely I know, but it is the unlikely combination of circumstances (more often than not involving at least one idiot) that combine to cause accidents.

The cyclist also obviously had no second thought for those who would have to clear up the mess he would make had he fallen, worse still if a train had subsequently passed over him as the fall would most likely incapacitate him. That's why he should also be prosecuted in my mind.

I bring to view that the WSR had a charity walk from wiliton to bishops lyd, anyone not in the know would have thought there was a mass tresspas on the running line. Contrary to pre walk brief people young and old were walking in cess and in 4ft. In reality this walk ( and very enjoyable it was too) was well organised and under strictly controlled conditions.

You raise an interesting point there Obviously, the charity walk was held under strictly controlled conditions, the line was shut at the time (not that that should mean you don't expect an out of course train movement at anytime!) and I'll bet the sections concerned were under possession, meaning that a signaller couldn't (or should know better) than to dispatch a train into the section even if he had a train to dispatch ...

Contrary to pre walk brief people young and old were walking in cess and in 4ft.

I'm puzzled - on a single-track line such as the WSR, where else would you expect to be able to walk other than in the cess of 4-foot on such an occasion?

Can I also just ask to clarify something about that statement? If they were told not to walk in the four foot and not to walk in the cess, where were they expected to walk? I am guessing you mean they were told not to walk in the four foot, but to walk in the cess if no other safer walking route was available to them? This is the correct procedure. The fact you say that on a supervised walk people were then permitted to disregard what they had just been briefed is rather disappointing.

I know the walk was very popular, but I'm not sure if there are any plans to have another. If there are, the closed season is coming up so that'll be the time for it. I'll post here if I hear of any plans ...

How about the Bristol Harbour Railway? I think you'll find walkers, cyclists and even cars in the 4ft along there.

True. Harbourside and street railways have different rules, obviously. That's why the bits of it shared with the public are restricted to "walking pace". They might even have a person or two with some flags - I don't know

jules wrote: I disagree with "It was a one-off, so let's let it go" as that has no "educational" value for the trespasser .....

For his own good (and that of the poor child) I would have informed Minehead's finest and I am sure they would have taken the relevant action, given a valid complaint. I believe it's called using "the law as a deterrent"

Just a point of clarification. I have already said that if Plod think they can make a case against him, they should go for it. My point was that there is precious little point in the WSR spending large sums of money to stop something that probably won't happen again in the foreseeable future.

jules wrote:And as to the Bath Road Bridge cyclist, I'd prosecute him too.

To my mind this was by far the more serious of the two cases for many of the reasons stated in your post (edited out to save space). If something had gone wrong, then the WSR fool had at least left himself some escape options. If the slightest thing had gone wrong in the Bath Road case, the cyclist had no escape routes at all and the consequences would have been serious, not only for him but, as you say, anybody else who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.


Finally, as you didn't email me an amplification about trespass. This is, in 99% of cases, a civil matter dealt with by the civil courts. Criminal trespass is a specific offence that only covers certain types of trespass (eg royal palaces, MOD land and railways).

The only recourse in a civil case is for the plaintiff to show that he has suffered loss or damage, and wishes to reclaim that loss or damage from the defendant. Therefore, for example, if you trespass over my land and cause damage to crops, then I could sue you for the loss of those crops. If you simply walked over my field and caused no damage, I could put up all the "Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted" notices I liked, but in law they are not worth the paper they are written on, because there is no criminal (ie. prosecutable) offence of trespassing in my garden. If I were Prince Charles there would be, but I'm not

Excellent reply Jules and I heartily endorse your comments. BTW is that the longest reply ever posted?

Thanks for your support Roy It probably is the longest, but I thought it important

Good point about preventing an accident also - I guess that would come under my original "in an emergency" category, but I'd missed that one.

jules wrote: True. Harbourside and street railways have different rules, obviously. That's why the bits of it shared with the public are restricted to "walking pace". They might even have a person or two with some flags - I don't know

And tram routes are different again - no walking pace, no man with a red flag, yet they look like a railway, and behave like a railway

Bit of a can of worms here, methinks

As I've been sitting here for the last half hour reviewing this thread so far, this is something else that needs some clarification

jules wrote:. And you would be responsible for my safety as a trespasser, just the same as the railways are

In the real world it doesn't actually work like this. The problem is, we so often hear stories in the media something like somebody broke into someones house, fell down the stairs and killed himself or whatever, and now the householder is being investigated by the police. Or we hear the story about the girls in East Anglia who were killed by the second train over that level crossing and Network Rail get it in the neck.

There is no hard and fast rule - it all depends on the circumstances of the individual case. If a burglar happens to die whilst on my premises, then the police would need to investigate it to make sure that I had committed no crime. If this ficticious burglar was spotted by me upstairs, I began to chase him and he fell down the stairs and killed himself then, provided I had done nothing to accellerate his demise, there would be no case to answer. And his family could go whistle for the compensation.

In the East Anglian incident, it was shown that there was a fault with the crossing gates that NR knew about but did nothing about. That's why they were held liable. If, for sake of argument, those girls had leapfrogged over a locked gate and got killed by the train, NR would not have been held liable.

Finally, as you didn't email me an amplification about trespass.

I thought we had agreed not to go there on this thread

But in general, yes, I agree with all your comments re: trespass. In the case of the WSR or Bath Road Bridge incidents, I am sure if either railway made a complaint to the police, they would very definitely pursue it. Especially the BTP for the Bath Road incident, although technically, was he trespassing on the railway or not? Where does the pavement end and the railway start in the case of a bridge? (You suggested cans of worms lol!)

As to trams, well, they are lighter and they stop faster and they don't go so fast as an HST can .... they probably don't go 25mph even and if they are capable of it, they only do it on fast tram tracks similar to a railway.

One last point about trespass though. In the USA, all I have to do is post a sign saying "No trespassing" in the front of my yard and if somebody chooses to ignore it, my wife can warn them once and if they don't leave, then she can shoot at them. Not to kill, but shoot at them all the same and if they happen to die and she didn't deliberately aim to kill, well, they shouldn't have been in our yard anyway. Too bad. Only Americans can do this - they don't trust us "aliens" to own or fire our own guns ... but I'll tell you what - we don't have to bother locking our car overnight or our front door when we go out

I haven't commented on the Bath Road bridge incident yet. Yes the miscreant was taking a huge risk with his own safety but there were secondary risks as well. e.g. as this wasn't being done under controlled conditions, what about the motorist on Bath Road who could have ploughed into the car in front while rubber-necking. Or the train driver who could have SPAD'ed at this sudden distraction. That's not including the anguish and expense the guy's family would have suffered had he managed to kill or seriously disable himself. A very selfish act for a moment of infamy!

Strange times we live in, like having to plough through snow in Somerset the first week in November - weird!

jules wrote: As to trams, well, they are lighter and they stop faster and they don't go so fast as an HST can .... they probably don't go 25mph even and if they are capable of it, they only do it on fast tram tracks similar to a railway.

Not particularly professional footage of a driver's eye view of the Croydon Tramlink, but enough to give a WSR DMU driver apoplexy??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZhYy7pG ... re=related