Staff knowledge of photography rules

But, again, the LU guidelines only mention 'our platforms'. Where would be actual boundary be between LU and Network Rail ownership of the infrastructure? LU certainly 'own' the trackbed and track through the station, do they also 'own' the platform edges but delegate maintenance to Network Rail / C2C.

I think you are overestimating the detailed knowledge of many enthusiasts, we are after all talking about a fairly unusual location / situation.

As an aside, which rules would you say apply at Harrow and Wealdstone? There is no sign of the LU 'ownership' on the mainline platforms here, but the Bakerloo Line took over the station when Silverlink's reign ended.

I have to ask since Daniel was there, but what did happen before the video started rolling? Was this guy just having a power trip?

As I have said, LUL management are not remotely impressed by the staff treatment of our customers and are investigating, to include referral to C2C. Indeed it has been suggested we, as a company, should be encouraging those whom have an interest in our operations and generally act as positive promoters of our activities.

I believe one or two posters here are allowing their personal opinions of one (or two) of this unconnected group of four persons to influence their views on events.

It has also been suggested, within LUL, that since the gentlemen concerned were within 2m of the LUL tracks, then the certification, if any, required for them to take pictures or film would be that required by LUL rules. Examination of booklet OS LF08, "London Underground / Network Rail Interface", though not specifically referring to the taking of photographs, can be read such as to support that assertion. Apparently the bridge structure at the East end, and in question, is also LUL property.

Eitherway, the rules on LUL or guidance on NR are broadly simmilar and certainly not designed to stop what could clearly be seen by the security contractor as taking place. Since the persons arrived on a C2C train and dashed over to the LUL side to get pictures whilst passing through, clearly there was no time and no point to go seeking out ellusive C2C employed staff to ask permission to take pictures of a train that by then would have gone.

At the end of the day the security guy, no matter how thick, couldn't fail to notice that the train in Platform 4 was nothing like a D stock and as soon as that had gone so would the photographers. His actions were unnecessary and inappropriate. At best they represented poor judgement and at worst were plain malicious.

I'd also agree with Jim's comments, enthusiasts, as usual, seen as a soft target !

Can I ask a slightly off topic question - the District Line train driver. Presuming the comments that he had his "wife" in the cab - as made in the video - and that LU managers are investigating the incident - what is the current "penalty" for unauthorised people in a cab?

There are rights and wrongs on both sides in this incident - neither camp is whiter than white and that is perhaps why members of this forum are 'out of step' as you put it.

Both sides could have handled things differently, and had they done so, there may well have been a different outcome.

As Colin has stated, the damage has already been done, I feel free to post my 2 pence worth.
I don't know much about this Gavelex person, so no axe to grind here.
I think he was well out of order posting his video of the incident on you tube, alleging the driver had an unauthorised person in the cab.
Can someone here explain to me how Gavelex assumed the female in the cab was his wife and not an off duty member of staff!

Whoever was in the cab whether an off duty member of staff or your wife, it is still unautherised. All drivers, myself included at some point have had unautherised people in the cab, and this is generally tollerated, but this driver has got himself into an arguement on the rules where he is in effect guilty of breaking rules himself. He sould have stayed out of this arguement.

Return trip recorded without incident at Kings Cross, where local staff showed interest and filmed it themselves after I'd approached the S/S first and thus made them aware of the move.

www.flickr.com/photos/24772733@N05/3882582994/

www.flickr.com/photos/24772733@N05/3881796091/

I think that many a professional journalist, of which I am one, would challenge YOUR right to 'speak on behalf of the great unwashed', the general public, in pontificating what does, and what does not, interest them!

Editing things out is a sure way to create a suspicion of 'cover up', surely you have noticed that much from recent happenings in the press?

I'm sorry, but we are going to have to agree to differ on this one.

I do not regard your statement that 'in the public interest' is a legal term, far from it.

It cannot be determined UNTIL the public are exposed to the information, and have reacted, or not, accordingly.

Sorry, but it does NOT fit into an nice convenient boxes! ;D

My understanding of publication, in the sense of photography, is that it covers taking pictures which are specifically to be used in a book / press-release / magazine and for monetary gain.

So if you are planning to take pictures for 'profit' then you need to get a permit, otherwise you are OK. Many pictures in the railway press are probably in breach of the rules, but I suppose it would come down to whether the photographer was planning on publication when he took the picture. I've certainly seen it mentioned that publication on the web doesn't count, although I can't give you a reference at the moment. The rules are more aimed at LU getting some of the cash for publication and retaining control of their intellectual property.