|
|
Post by Christopher J on Apr 1, 2006 21:24:50 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2006 21:39:45 GMT
There's a pair of EDs stabled between the crossovers at Richmond right now; they look like the GBRf 73s with female names.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2006 21:48:05 GMT
There were actually two more on the front of a ballast train from Eastleigh to Acton Yard. I spotted them at Willesden Jn, turning onto the WCML at mitre bridge junction.
Sam
|
|
|
|
Post by doubletrigger on Apr 4, 2006 12:39:27 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2006 16:25:06 GMT
I highly doubt that it is..!!
Sam
|
|
|
|
Post by doubletrigger on Apr 4, 2006 16:57:53 GMT
Hmm... a tad annoying, especially when so many enthusiasts do it in station areas. It's not safe, it's not funny, it's not big! It also gives any staff around a big headache and liability concern if they don't make an attempt to move them.
|
|
|
|
Post by setttt on Apr 4, 2006 17:12:56 GMT
Superb vantage point at Newhaven Marine there.  |
|
|
|
Post by Christopher J on Apr 4, 2006 17:13:18 GMT
The path was authorized to my knowledge, the Hertfordshire Railtour staff on the tour said you are allowed down onto it on condition no goes off the path or over the clutter seperating the path and rails (which AFAIK, are derelict and unelectrified) I am also sure the path mentioned leads to the warehouse in the background behind paulbigland.fotopic.net/p22983317.html so it could be a walkway to the entrance. |
|
|
|
Post by doubletrigger on Apr 4, 2006 17:20:56 GMT
I can't see a hole in the fence for this path though. It also continues off down to the other lines of some variety. I don't know if it is authorised fully myself either or if the staff are just being lenient but either way it does give some enthusiasts the idea they can stray places they shouldn't be. Most recent example I saw was a few weeks ago at York, people off the end of the platform and on the ballast for pic of an A4. York of all places.... it's not exactly the fastest through station but still shouldn't happen!
|
|
|
|
Post by setttt on Apr 4, 2006 17:38:38 GMT
I can't see a hole in the fence for this path though. It also continues off down to the other lines of some variety. I don't know if it is authorised fully myself either or if the staff are just being lenient but either way it does give some enthusiasts the idea they can stray places they shouldn't be. Most recent example I saw was a few weeks ago at York, people off the end of the platform and on the ballast for pic of an A4. York of all places.... it's not exactly the fastest through station but still shouldn't happen! This is totally different to York though. We're talking about a 150m spur which sees just one regular service per week. I'm not saying it is acceptable to go off the ramp at any station, but the chances of anything going tits up at Newhaven Marine are really rather slim. If we're looking to blame anyone, it should be the HRT staff who allegedly authorised the group to descend the ramp. |
|
|
|
Post by doubletrigger on Apr 4, 2006 17:42:41 GMT
I do not define trespassing by linespeed, use etc. It is still trespass. Yes, perhaps HRT staff were in the wrong but a lot more people should know better and not just be lured in to trespassing for the sake of a photograph. It's simply not worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by setttt on Apr 4, 2006 18:02:53 GMT
I do not define trespassing by linespeed, use etc. It is still trespass. Yes, perhaps HRT staff were in the wrong but a lot more people should know better and not just be lured in to trespassing for the sake of a photograph. It's simply not worth it. I agree, 99% of the time it genuinely is not worth the risk, but the risk involved at Newhaven Marine is virtually nil. As I said, it is one of the most lightly-used stretches of line in the south east; you'd have to be brain-dead to come to any harm. We could argue about the principles of why trespass is wrong all day, but the basic fact still exists that those who went to that particular spot to take photos were at very little risk of being injured or killed. |
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Apr 4, 2006 18:52:34 GMT
We could argue about this all day night. Both are right, as both sides are right in our endless discussions about graffiti.
It can be even more of a problem on private railways coz the punters think that national rules don't apply. So you get people standing in the 4ft in front of a steamer which is about to depart and complain when they are shouted at.
My view is:
1. The railtour operators MUST bear some responsibility. If they don't, these sorts of tours will soon be banned.
2. DT is absolutely right in a legal sense. Trespass is trespass.
3. Seth is also right. The staff at Newhaven probably had a million and one other things to do. They had the authority to move folks on, but probably didn't think it worth it.
4. The enthusiasts themselves knew full well what they were doing but were seeing what they could get away with. Same as if I (choose to ) break the speed limit. I know it's wrong but unless someone stops me I'll go ahead anyway. That's what the guys at Newhaven were doing. If asked to move I bet 90% would have done so without complaint - but they obviouly weren't.
|
|
|
|
Post by doubletrigger on Apr 4, 2006 22:16:10 GMT
I agree with your summary in general Phil but suppose the point I failed to mention was why upload these pics to the public when you are possibly trespassing? If they are that good keep it for your personal collection but careful if you are posting something which could be volatile, you don't who is watching!
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Apr 4, 2006 22:27:21 GMT
Ignoring our own member for a moment, Paul Bigland is a professional railway photographer (hence the copyright across his phots). Draw any conclusions you like as to the implications of that.
Now to our own member: if a pro photographer can get away with this sort of action, why shouldn't a keen amateur attempt the same.......? And if the pro publishes his (illegal?) phots on his website, why shouldn't a young amteur copy him?
Points to ponder about examples being set to young people.....
|
|
|
|
Post by doubletrigger on Apr 4, 2006 22:37:43 GMT
Not entirely sure why you are summarising again Phil with a hint suggesting (as far as I can analyse) that I'm annoyed at an individual in particular. I don't know if Paul Bigland was in the wrong areas or not in that photo, it's hard to tell, however I did not see any of his photos taken from said angle. He can quite easily zoom easily from the platform/slope side. Being "slope side" may not be trespassing depending on how far the mark is drawn, this differs place to place. However he did not post any pictures from the place in which I question. I do notice there are a lot of other, older, photographers in Paul's photo and agree with you, yes, they should know better and set an example but I am by no means targetting anyone here. Just when I saw these right away I wasn't sure exactly how "trespassering" these photos were and wanted of enlightenment in to the Newhaven Marine situation.
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Apr 4, 2006 22:49:54 GMT
I think the point I was making was that without having been there it's difficult to tell just form photos who was where and what was going on (and who was in charge). As such, publication of photos would not have been an issue to anyone who took them there.
BTW - like the new sig.
|
|
|
|
Post by doubletrigger on Apr 4, 2006 22:53:21 GMT
Fresh from Sunday's shift, arriving in at the ungodly hour of 0020 Monday morning. Those pesky signallers! |
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Apr 4, 2006 23:36:29 GMT
if a pro photographer can get away with this sort of action Is it not possible that, as a professional railway photographer, he has the necessary training and authorisation to be on the track? On his site he claims to do work for Milepost 92 1/ 2 who say on their website that they are PTS certified. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2006 0:26:36 GMT
I remember Newhaven Marine from the slammer trip. There is an authorized walking route from the platform ramp to behind the buffers. The photographers stand behind piles of sleepers and staff only allow you on the authorized walking route because the third rail is still juiced up. The place where they allow you to stand is a lot futher away than it looks in Chris' picture as he has zoomed in. There are 'marshals' making sure nobody strays.
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Apr 5, 2006 9:28:29 GMT
Is it not possible that, as a professional railway photographer, he has the necessary training and authorisation to be on the track? On his site he claims to do work for Milepost 92 1/ 2 who say on their website that they are PTS certified. Yes, and no! Being PTS lets you "on or near the line", but only under very strict conditions - you're not allowed to go just anywhere on your own. The IWA 'add-on' (individual working alone) severely limits activities you can carry out on or near the line for the very reason there is nobody else watching for trains. (Just being PTS does not let you on or near the line without a COSS) |
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Apr 5, 2006 10:07:40 GMT
he has the necessary training and authorisation to be on the track? (Just being PTS does not let you on or near the line without a COSS) That's my understanding also, hence my comment about necessary training and authorisation. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by doubletrigger on Apr 6, 2006 17:51:46 GMT
The first rule of PTS - Only to be used for duty purposes and only when it is so warranted and use can't be avoided. By following that you could be reducing your chances of an accident! Paul Bigland might have one, I don't know but if he does it'd be companies allowing and supervising him taking photos for professsional use only.
I've only ever used my PTS qualification on 3 occaisions since passing it in July and twice was for training purposes. Some people have it because their job may depend on it, though not very often.
|
|
