Schoolboys left injured after playing near rail line to sue over 'psychological trauma'

[mpthomson]

I don't mind fencing but NR should provision places so you can see trains if you want to. The Amount of places is falling in the south.

Why should they do that?

 

[mpthomson]

I phrased that badly, of course it wouldn't see the inside of a courtroom, I could nevertheless threaten to sue and appoint solicitors and simultaneously make noises to the press, who invariably lap up these spurious cases without it getting anywhere near a courtroom.

However this isn't a spurious case if there is a hole in the fence, and it appears agreed that there was. It's for the judge to decide whether NR (or anyone else, like a TOC) should reasonably have known that it was there and if they should why it wasn't dealt with and what the legal implications of that may or may not be. If it gets to court and isn't settled prior, that is.

 

[mpthomson]

So you are saying that well established physical laws are wrong on the anecdotal evidence of a thirteen year old boy?

If this is the Allerton case, and I rather suspect it is, then it's been through the courts and the evidence/judgement is online.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Why should they do that?

Because by providing places from which one can safely watch trains go by, enthusiasts can do so without having to endanger themselves and/or cause service disruption. Quite a few airfields have designated 'spotter areas' for exactly this reason.

It probably doesn't make sense everywhere, but in a few locations something like the viewing gallery at the National Railway Museum (which is provided with a departures/arrivals board, IIRC) might well make Network Rail's life a lot easier.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't mind fencing but NR should provision places so you can see trains if you want to.

NR are not in the business of pandering to train spotters. They are in the business of providing a safe railway infrastructure.

Because by providing places from which one can safely watch trains go by, enthusiasts can do so without having to endanger themselves and/or cause service disruption.

stations?

but in a few locations something like the viewing gallery at the National Railway Museum (which is provided with a departures/arrivals board, IIRC) might well make Network Rail's life a lot easier.

how will that make the life of NR easier? This thread isnt about trainspotters and there is no indication these children were trying to break into the depot to write down engine numbers!

If this is the Allerton case, and I rather suspect it is, then it's been through the courts and the evidence/judgement is online.

that judgement wont be read by the experts here. They have decided and already know best.

 

[mallard]

It probably doesn't make sense everywhere, but in a few locations something like the viewing gallery at the National Railway Museum (which is provided with a departures/arrivals board, IIRC) might well make Network Rail's life a lot easier.

It's got a full blown signalling display, not just a departure board! But since Network Rail's policy seems to be to hide railways away wherever possible (e.g. the many places where they've replaced railings/fences with solid walls, increasing heights of bridge parapets, etc.) it's pretty unlikely that they'd install "viewing galleries" anywhere...

NR, like many on this forum (see the above post) seem to believe that if you're not actively making things difficult for rail enthusiasts (and casual tourists), then you're "pandering" to them, which is a waste of money (the rail industry apparently refuses to acknowledge that rail enthusiasts are very likely to be very profitable customers) and somehow inherently makes the entire network less safe...

 

[DarloRich]

It's got a full blown signalling display, not just a departure board! But since Network Rail's policy seems to be to hide railways away wherever possible (e.g. the many places where they've replaced railings/fences with solid walls, increasing heights of bridge parapets, etc.) it's pretty unlikely that they'd install "viewing galleries" anywhere...

NR, like many on this forum (see the above post) seem to believe that if you're not actively making things difficult for rail enthusiasts (and casual tourists), then you're "pandering" to them, which is a waste of money and somehow inherently makes the entire network less safe...

I am afraid you are showing a complete misunderstanding of the reasons behind the items you criticise.

 

[mallard]

I am afraid you are showing a complete misunderstanding of the reasons behind the items you criticise.

It's pretty clear that NR (and the government in general, with HS2 having a greater proportion of the route in-tunnel than the Metropolitan Line) considers railways as things to be hidden away from view, not displayed or appreciated. Obviously, the major reason for replacing railings and fences with opaque barriers is cost cutting (iron railings in particular are expensive to renew like-for-like), but other countries seem to manage very well with keeping their railways visible...

I'm sure that if Network Rail had something like Germany's Hohenzollern Bridge they'd be installing a big, opaque, solid wall between the pedestrian walkway and the railway. Hell, they'd probably be blocking off the river side too.

 

[Indigo Soup]

It's got a full blown signalling display, not just a departure board! But since Network Rail's policy seems to be to hide railways away wherever possible (e.g. the many places where they've replaced railings/fences with solid walls, increasing heights of bridge parapets, etc.) it's pretty unlikely that they'd install "viewing galleries" anywhere...

NR, like many on this forum (see the above post) seem to believe that if you're not actively making things difficult for rail enthusiasts (and casual tourists), then you're "pandering" to them, which is a waste of money (the rail industry apparently refuses to acknowledge that rail enthusiasts are very likely to be very profitable customers) and somehow inherently makes the entire network less safe...

Hence my comment about plane spotters. Airports aren't in the business of pandering to them, they're trying to provide a safe infrastructure for aircraft. And yet they seem to have decided that it's worthwhile to give them somewhere to stand that has a good view, is moderately comfortable, and doesn't get in the way of operations.

This argument isn't applicable to almost all of the railway network. Stations provide safe access as close to the trackside as necessary for enthusiasts in most locations. In a few locations, safe viewing areas might be appropriate, either because there isn't a suitable station (busy junctions perhaps) or because the station is too busy (London termini).

There are, in many cases, sound reasons to block off railway infrastructure. Safety is the big one, but there are others, and ignoring them isn't really helpful. Most people see trains as something that gets them from A to B quickly and reliably, and should be as inconspicuous as possible when not actually performing that function for them personally. Barriers help a great deal with that.

 

[mpthomson]

Because by providing places from which one can safely watch trains go by, enthusiasts can do so without having to endanger themselves and/or cause service disruption. Quite a few airfields have designated 'spotter areas' for exactly this reason.

It probably doesn't make sense everywhere, but in a few locations something like the viewing gallery at the National Railway Museum (which is provided with a departures/arrivals board, IIRC) might well make Network Rail's life a lot easier.

Your airfields example is a case for restricted spotter/enthusiast areas at stations, not alongside the railway out in the countryside somewhere. I'm not sure why the railways should provide extra places to watch trains from, their purpose is to provide transport, no pander to someone's (including mine, I'll add) hobby.

 

[mpthomson]

NR, like many on this forum (see the above post) seem to believe that if you're not actively making things difficult for rail enthusiasts (and casual tourists), then you're "pandering" to them, which is a waste of money (the rail industry apparently refuses to acknowledge that rail enthusiasts are very likely to be very profitable customers) and somehow inherently makes the entire network less safe...

Nonsense, there are plenty of places other than stations where enthusiasts and 'casual tourists' can get a fantastic view of trains passing at whatever speed one would like that don't require NR to waste precious resources making allowance for someone's hobby and are completely safe.

'Making things difficult for rail enthusiasts'? Do you seriously think that there's a department of killjoys within NR that works out what will irritate a train spotter the most and then implementing it?

 

[mpthomson]

Hence my comment about plane spotters. Airports aren't in the business of pandering to them, they're trying to provide a safe infrastructure for aircraft. And yet they seem to have decided that it's worthwhile to give them somewhere to stand that has a good view, is moderately comfortable, and doesn't get in the way of operations.
.

And airports are private businesses not using public money, so if that's what they want to do then fine, it's their money. Network Rail isn't the same thing at all.

 

[mpthomson]

It's pretty clear that NR (and the government in general, with HS2 having a greater proportion of the route in-tunnel than the Metropolitan Line) considers railways as things to be hidden away from view, not displayed or appreciated. Obviously, the major reason for replacing railings and fences with opaque barriers is cost cutting (iron railings in particular are expensive to renew like-for-like), but other countries seem to manage very well with keeping their railways visible...

I'm sure that if Network Rail had something like Germany's Hohenzollern Bridge they'd be installing a big, opaque, solid wall between the pedestrian walkway and the railway. Hell, they'd probably be blocking off the river side too.

It's transport infrastructure and a way of getting people from a to b, not something that's to be 'displayed or appreciated'. If there is any of it that is there then it's a happy bonus but certainly shouldn't be considered in the grand scheme of routing and infrastructure.

The main reason for solid barriers is safety. They stop objects being as easily thrown, both physically and by blocking the view of the 'target', and they also are thought (no research yet) to reduce the risk of suicides as it again reduces visibility of the means. It's not about cost-cutting. You comment about the bridge is slightly hysterical conjecture.

 

[mallard]

'Making things difficult for rail enthusiasts'? Do you seriously think that there's a department of killjoys within NR that works out what will irritate a train spotter the most and then implementing it?

Unfortunately, my more detailed respsonse where I went into this has been deleted by the moderators... Apparently a proper discussion of this is banned on this forum.

It's transport infrastructure and a way of getting people from a to b, not something that's to be 'displayed or appreciated'.

Yet, much transport infrastructure is appreciated for it's historic significance and engineering prowess. How many "listed" buildings does NR own? How many internationally-recognised (e.g. UNESCO) heritage sites are rail-related?

It's undeniable that rail enthusiasts (and tourists interested in transport, rail architecture, etc.) are profitable for the railway. They buy tickets and use amenities. They often encourage friends and family to use the railway instead of other forms of transport. Discouraging them is not going to be good for the bottom-line in the long run.

 

[mpthomson]

Unfortunately, my more detailed respsonse where I went into this has been deleted by the moderators... Apparently a proper discussion of this is banned on this forum.



Yet, much transport infrastructure is appreciated for it's historic significance and engineering prowess. How many "listed" buildings does NR own? How many internationally-recognised (e.g. UNESCO) heritage sites are rail-related?

It's undeniable that rail enthusiasts (and tourists interested in transport, rail architecture, etc.) are profitable for the railway. They buy tickets and use amenities. They often encourage friends and family to use the railway instead of other forms of transport. Discouraging them is not going to be good for the bottom-line in the long run.

My question was rhetorical, of course there isn't. NR is tasked to provide safe and effective infrastructure. The priorities and wishes of rail enthusiasts aren't and shouldn't be a consideration within that.

Much HISTORICAL infrastructure is appreciated, most modern infra certainly isn't historically significant. How is HS2 going to ever get close to WH status? Or the East/West Coast main line? Anything that's of this amount of historic interest is perfectly visible and will remain so.

Your last point, if it's profitable it'll be by so small an amount that it isn't even quantifiable in the grand scheme of things and will have close to zero effect if discouraged (and there's no evidence that this is what's happening anyway). I suspect if the reasons for increased rail use were looked at 'my trainspotting mate/brother/sister/whoever encouraged me to use the train' wouldn't even feature on it.

 

[GB]

Unfortunately, my more detailed respsonse where I went into this has been deleted by the moderators... Apparently a proper discussion of this is banned on this forum.



Yet, much transport infrastructure is appreciated for it's historic significance and engineering prowess. How many "listed" buildings does NR own? How many internationally-recognised (e.g. UNESCO) heritage sites are rail-related?

It's undeniable that rail enthusiasts (and tourists interested in transport, rail architecture, etc.) are profitable for the railway. They buy tickets and use amenities. They often encourage friends and family to use the railway instead of other forms of transport. Discouraging them is not going to be good for the bottom-line in the long run.

I don't really see what your problem is. If you want to see trains there are plenty of places to do it, be it a station, bridge, right side of a foot or level crossing. Why does there have to be something provided for you, something that will not doubt cost money and ultimately get trashed. There are far more important things for the railways to be concentrating on.

 

[mallard]

NR is tasked to provide safe and effective infrastructure. The priorities and wishes of rail enthusiasts aren't and shouldn't be a consideration within that.

Then why do they spend so much time and money refurbishing and improving their historic structures? They loudly touted that the Kings Cross refurbishment would expose the original historic frontage for the first time in many decades. Are archetecture fans a "better class" than rail enthusiaists? Why is pleasing them considered a good thing, but doing even small things for (or just not doing things to discourage) rail enthusiasts is "pandering"?

I'm not asking them to go out of their way to accomodate enthusiasts, just not to unecissarily discourage them. All rail users should be considered when making changes. If there's a genuine conflict between the interests of regular passengers and enthusiasts or a real safety concern, sure, go with the majority, but many of the ways that NR discourage rail fans doesn't fit into those categories.

Much HISTORICAL infrastructure is appreciated, most modern infra certainly isn't historically significant.

Modern infrastructure isn't historical yet. No reason to think it won't be eventually. Still, modern infrastructure is often appreciated for the engineering achievement that it is. There's a reason why there's a tourist information center at the Humber Bridge and a more extensive visitor center planned...

Or the East/West Coast main line?

As I'm sure you know, long-distance railway lines are rarely (if ever) considered historic sites in their entirety. There are, of course, many historic structures and sites along both the ECML and WCML.

I suspect if the reasons for increased rail use were looked at 'my trainspotting mate/brother/sister/whoever encouraged me to use the train' wouldn't even feature on it.

As marketing exectuives have long understood, asking people to name a specific reason why they purchased a product is of limited benefit. Decisions aren't made on the basis of a single ad/conversation/etc. Rail enthusiasm (along with many other factors) helps shape the entire attitude to rail in the UK. It's the reason why the Flying Scotsman returning to steam made national headlines (and the reason why it happened at all), it's the reason that places like the National Railway museum and preserved railway lines exist, it's even the primary reason this forum exists!

If you take all that away from society, not only will railways lose even more of their "positives" in the public imagination and consiquently passenger numbers, but society as a whole will be worse off.

Why is the UK railway industry so intent on throwing away free advertising?

If you want to see trains there are plenty of places to do it, be it a station, bridge, right side of a foot or level crossing. Why does there have to be something provided for you, something that will not doubt cost money and ultimately get trashed.

I'm not asking for something to be provided for me (although I do agree that "viewing galleries" like the one at the NRM are good things)... Just that things I already "have" not be taken away without good reason.

 

[mpthomson]

Then why do they spend so much time and money refurbishing and improving their historic structures? They loudly touted that the Kings Cross refurbishment would expose the original historic frontage for the first time in many decades. Are archetecture fans a "better class" than rail enthusiaists? Why is pleasing them considered a good thing, but doing even small things for (or just not doing things to discourage) rail enthusiasts is "pandering"?

I'm not asking them to go out of their way to accomodate enthusiasts, just not to unecissarily discourage them. All rail users should be considered when making changes. If there's a genuine conflict between the interests of regular passengers and enthusiasts or a real safety concern, sure, go with the majority, but many of the ways that NR discourage rail fans doesn't fit into those categories.

As marketing exectuives have long understood, asking people to name a specific reason why they purchased a product is of limited benefit. Decisions aren't made on the basis of a single ad/conversation/etc. Rail enthusiasm (along with many other factors) helps shape the entire attitude to rail in the UK. It's the reason why the Flying Scotsman returning to steam made national headlines (and the reason why it happened at all), it's the reason that places like the National Railway museum and preserved railway lines exist, it's even the primary reason this forum exists!

If you take all that away from society, not only will railways lose even more of their "positives" in the public imagination and consiquently passenger numbers, but society as a whole will be worse off.

Why is the UK railway industry so intent on throwing away free advertising?



I'm not asking for something to be provided for me (although I do agree that "viewing galleries" like the one at the NRM are good things)... Just that things I already "have" not be taken away without good reason.

Kings Cross and St. Pancras are nationally important (and listed) pieces of architecture and seen by more people in a day than there will be trainspotters in the UK. Railway lines have none of that cachet and any bits of the infrastructure that do, Glasgow Central, York, Carlisle, the list of stations is long before we even get onto viaducts etc will never be 'taken away'.

I still don't understand why you think that NR should consider rail enthusiasts at all. I'm one myself, but it simply isn't their job to do that and if enthusiasts are discouraged because of a need to improve safety or infra then so be it. If other organisations like NRM, who ARE funded to bring history to life and increase interest in the railway as a social entity encourages enthusiasts then that's great and please do more of it but you're confusing the heritage/social aspect of the industry with the operational railway and the two are radically different. Heritage activities don't increase rail use in any significant number at all and I would imagine that sometimes the temptation for NR to decide to ban all heritage operations from the network must be nearly overwhelming given the chaos that some of these have caused in the past.

There ARE good reasons for a small number of these things to be taken away, safety requirements being one, which brings us back to the topic at hand and from which we've digressed. Trains are still highly visible in the UK and that will always be the case.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

This thread appears to have gone completely OT from the original conversation

 

[mallard]

I still don't understand why you think that NR should consider rail enthusiasts at all.

Rail enthusiasts are rail users. Unusually profitable (even if you only count their own expenses) rail users. All rail users should be considered to an appropriate degree by the industry.

confusing the heritage/social aspect of the industry with the operational railway and the two are radically different

Huh? If the railway weren't "operational" it would have very-close-to zero social importance.

Heritage activities don't increase rail use in any significant number at all

You're missing the point. Rail enthusiasm, of which heritage operations are one expression, help shape society's view of the railway in positive ways that the rail industry benefits from in no small part. There are entire lines (the S&C being a notable example) that would not have survived without this impact; when the government briefly considered significant closures in the 1980s (the Serpell Report), the reaction was overwhelmingly negative largely because of the impact of rail enthusasm on society. Even "non enthusiasts" often have a general fondness for trains/railways.

You take all that away, you make rail enthusiasm a taboo; officially discouraged and "agianst the rules", then the railway will suffer in the long-term. Passenger numbers will drop, government subsidies will lose public support, be slashed and result in widespread cuts to services. You'll end up with little more than a few commuter lines and some premium inter-city routes.

There ARE good reasons for a small number of these things to be taken away, safety requirements being one.

But it's not "a small number" that are being taken away. It's a much larger number. Not all of them can be justified on safety grounds, many, if not most, are for commercial or cost-cutting reasons. Sure, budgets are limited, but there are better ways to save money than replacing railings with cheap plastic fencing (which, of course, it much easier to coat in unsightly graffiti as well as blocking views).

Trains are still highly visible in the UK and that will always be the case.

While, of course, the railway will never be entirely covered up, the trend is to cover it more especially in urban areas. Even in less-urban areas there's a trend towards putting up motorway-style sound barriers (not necissarily a bad thing, if done in a considerate way). It's not inconcievable that opportunites to "spot" trains unhindered will be limited to rural sites in the (fairly distant) future.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Your airfields example is a case for restricted spotter/enthusiast areas at stations, not alongside the railway out in the countryside somewhere. I'm not sure why the railways should provide extra places to watch trains from, their purpose is to provide transport, no pander to someone's (including mine, I'll add) hobby.

Absolutely - and it should provide facilities for enthusiasts only in locations where it makes sense to do so on operational grounds. Station throats are probably more likely to make a case for this than an isolated junction.

Part of Network Rail's remit is to provide a safe network. If ever-taller, ever-stronger fences aren't keeping people and trains apart, then other options need to be considered. Footbridges are part of that, and I'm sure that there must be cases where a footbridge has been installed because of repeated foot crossings of a working line. Moving operations away from high-risk areas is another option that must have occurred at some point.

Viewing areas might be another solution in a similar vein. Equally, there might not be anywhere they're appropriate. What isn't appropriate is ignoring these kinds of options because they constitute 'pandering'.

 

[mpthomson]

1. But it's not "a small number" that are being taken away. It's a much larger number. Not all of them can be justified on safety grounds, many, if not most, are for commercial or cost-cutting reasons. Sure, budgets are limited, but there are better ways to save money than replacing railings with cheap plastic fencing (which, of course, it much easier to coat in unsightly graffiti as well as blocking views).



2. While, of course, the railway will never be entirely covered up, the trend is to cover it more especially in urban areas. Even in less-urban areas there's a trend towards putting up motorway-style sound barriers (not necissarily a bad thing, if done in a considerate way). It's not inconcievable that opportunites to "spot" trains unhindered will be limited to rural sites in the (fairly distant) future.

I could argue much of this, particularly the economic benefits of rail enthusiasm which I think you're significantly over-stating and your point about trainspotting being taboo lowering passenger numbers to the point of their being large service cuts is one of the most fanciful things I've read on this forum but I'm not going to as it would drag the thread even further away from its original point. To be fair all of that is probably an interesting debate for a new thread. I'll address two points very briefly though, the first is safety related and very relevant to the thread.

1. Where is your evidence that it's done as a cost cutting exercise? The palisade fencing erected fairly recently at the end of my garden between me and the ECML certainly wasn't cost cutting, it's very expensive and costs far more than what it replaced. Where has cheap plastic fencing?

2. Neatly illustrates your outlook on this. Sound barriers are to assist with the quality of life of those who live close to the railways, your comment about not necessarily a bad thing if done in a considerate way misses the point entirely. Considerate to whom? They're for the benefit of people who live near the railway, not rail enthusiasts.

 

[mallard]

Neatly illustrates your outlook on this. Sound barriers are to assist with the quality of life of those who live close to the railways, your comment about not necessarily a bad thing if done in a considerate way misses the point entirely. Considerate to whom? They're for the benefit of people who live near the railway, not rail enthusiasts.

I've seen cases where large barriers have been put up at the end of people's gardens, severely reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the garden. I can't speak for the homeowners, but personally, even if I didn't like trains I'm sure I'd be willing to put up with the noise of a few trains per hour if it meant that my garden got enough light for plants to grow. In other cases, sound barriers have been placed between the railway and a busy road. Is that to protect the railway from the noise of the road traffic or something? Seems rather pointless...

Large sound barriers are a bit of an eyesore, IMHO, that can sometimes be worse than the noise they're supposed to abate.

 

[contrex]

Firstly in Eastern Electric by John Glover ISBN 0-7110-2934-2, the death of a steam loco fireman brought about a local test demonstration in April 1959.
It had been claimed that the fireman's death had been brought about by an arc from the overhead at a distance of 9 feet. A demonstration was arranged at Colchester St. Botolphs (now Town) 'using a J20 0-6-0 making plenty of smoke and a dummy man astride the boiler. This was done in front of a large industry audience. The contact wire, energised at 25 kV ac, was lowered gradually. A flashover did take place, but only when the wire was less than 2in above the top of the chimney.'

I'm sure I once saw a photo in a magazine of a test on the WCML in which an unfortunate dummy, dressed in overalls and (if I remember correctly) a flat cap on its head(!) was placed prone on top of the coal in a tender, and then made to rise with the aid of a long stick or pole until a flashover occurred. I think it would have been around 1959.

 

[thealexweb]

Could DBC pursue a private prosecution for trespass?

 

[whhistle]

I think it’s a strange world we live in when people have more sympathy for animals than children.

I have more sympathy for my cats than some young teen fare dodger who thinks they can do whatever they like, constantly swearing at the guard, telling him to "come off the railway and we'll knock you out".

So yes, while I don't advocate death, I would feel more sorry for someones family pet (relatively innocent) than a human who isn't someone I like.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have more sympathy for my cats than some young teen fare dodger who thinks they can do whatever they like, constantly swearing at the guard, telling him to "come off the railway and we'll knock you out".

So yes, while I don't advocate death, I would feel more sorry for someones family pet (relatively innocent) than a human who isn't someone I like.

Quite. Animals are by and large innocent, just following their instinct. If a human (of adequate age to know better) is doing something wilfully stupid and dangerous, it's a lot harder to feel for them when that stupid or dangerous thing causes them to be injured or killed. In such cases I'd feel more for those who have to deal with the aftermath - staff, families etc - than the individual.

 

[pt_mad]

This thread got me thinking. If there is potential for litigation where a railway yard is accessible and someone could get onto an engine or wagon (whether through a gap in the fence or not), then what about when a freight train is stationary on a platform line for any length of time? The empty wagons could easily be stepped onto by anyone. Youths could attempt to walk on a wagon. I'm surprised this hasn't happened or someone hasn't said there should be a sign to say do not attempt to climb on these wagons,on every empty wagon. Or is there?

 

[DarloRich]

Could DBC pursue a private prosecution for trespass?

This thread got me thinking. If there is potential for litigation where a railway yard is accessible and someone could get onto an engine or wagon (whether through a gap in the fence or not), then what about when a freight train is stationary on a platform line for any length of time? The empty wagons could easily be stepped onto by anyone. Youths could attempt to walk on a wagon. I'm surprised this hasn't happened or someone hasn't said there should be a sign to say do not attempt to climb on these wagons,on every empty wagon. Or is there?

please read the links above.

1. Where is your evidence that it's done as a cost cutting exercise? The palisade fencing erected fairly recently at the end of my garden between me and the ECML certainly wasn't cost cutting, it's very expensive and costs far more than what it replaced. Where has cheap plastic fencing?

Nowhere. Unless the linked poster means temporary work site hoardings.

 

[island]

This thread got me thinking. If there is potential for litigation where a railway yard is accessible and someone could get onto an engine or wagon (whether through a gap in the fence or not), then what about when a freight train is stationary on a platform line for any length of time? The empty wagons could easily be stepped onto by anyone. Youths could attempt to walk on a wagon. I'm surprised this hasn't happened or someone hasn't said there should be a sign to say do not attempt to climb on these wagons,on every empty wagon. Or is there?

The PIS, if any, usually says stand away from the platform edge in those scenarios.