90019
Established Member
Thats correct. I'm not sure why Yorkie is having a hard time processing it.
Probably the same reason he has yet to answer my questions.
Thats correct. I'm not sure why Yorkie is having a hard time processing it.
Yes, you could well be right. Anyone know what that black box is, does it contain lights? The guy in the background at least is surely waiting in a safe place. Is there a sign that says something like "When red light shows, stand behind this sign" or similar? I'd imagine so. I reckon there's 6 people ahead of where they 'should' be, and of those, only 2 or 3 look like being "spotters" (although the absense of notebooks and 2 of them having cameras suggests "photters" may be more appropriate!)Looks to me like most of these could well be ignorant crossing abusers rather than trainspotters given the absence of cameras. Good evidence of the need to reduce the number of crossings where the public can put themselves in danger.
Probably the same reason he has yet to answer my questions.
How is it trespass if he was "allowed" to go there? (Or are you accusing him of lying?)
It's only in the UK where people get so wound up by such things, mainland Europe has a more sensible view.
OK lets examine that logic then....
Exactly, and FYI Scotsboy, yes we were allowed to go there by someone. Now why on earth you have made such a big deal I don't know. Do you know the layout at Kingussie?
I did actually already answer.Probably the same reason he has yet to answer my questions.
Well, that's blatantly incorrect. Standing in a siding of course is trespassing (if not given permission or have authority to be there ) but trespassing doesn't necessarily mean that you are in danger, and just because crossing a road isn't trespassing doesn't mean it is not dangerous. The woman who stood in front of a Pacer the other week was trespassing but she was probably safer stood there (the driver was hardly going to run her over) than if she stood in the middle of a main road (where some drivers, you wouldn't trust not to run her over!) If you think crossing a main road is safer than doing what Chester025 did (whether trespassing or not) then you don't realise how dangerous it is to cross a main road.
You say running lines, but it's still equally "trespassing" to be on sidings, and that is what Scotsman is so unhappy with Chester025 about, and that is what is meant by "common sense" applying in mainland Europe. Over there, they may not treat a siding the same as a high speed line, in a similar way (yes I know they're not "the same" before anyone starts) that a motorway is not the same as a side road.Enthusiasts being allowed on running lines will only go to one extreme. You couldn't possibly regulate a middle ground.
I did actually already answer.
The answer is a). Standing in / crossing a siding is trespassing in this country. Standing in / crossing a busy main road is not trespassing.
That's ludicrous. Why is the onus on me to say that charters are not exempt from the legislation requiring NR to give paths? I have stated I do now know the details about the legislation but you are the one who is telling us NR have authority to do this, so surely the onus is on you to back up that statement?And mine.
You say running lines, but it's still equally "trespassing" to be on sidings, and that is what Scotsman is so unhappy with Chester025 about, and that is what is meant by "common sense" applying in mainland Europe. Over there, they may not treat a siding the same as a high speed line, in a similar way (yes I know they're not "the same" before anyone starts) that a motorway is not the same as a side road.
Surely we are arguing for the same thing then? If indeed it is a closed siding, then my point is entirely that there is no 'common sense' treating a siding (whether disused or not, but more so if it is disused) as the same as a running line, and is this not your point too? If not, what is it?There is no difinitive answer to your question, it is all relative to what road and what siding you compare.
In fact, if what he says about the siding is true, and it was closed, then your question is only relevant when it is compared to a closed road.
You posted a link to an incredibly flabby document. I am asking you to point out where it supports your claims. Why is that so ludicrous?That's ludicrous. Why is the onus on me to say that charters are not exempt from the legislation requiring NR to give paths? I have stated I do now know the details about the legislation but you are the one who is telling us NR have authority to do this, so surely the onus is on you to back up that statement?
Ah, you want me to answer the last bits, specifically in relation to the sidings at Kingussie?Simple question: Which is trespassing and which isn't?
a) Chester025 taking the photo he took at Kingussie
b) someone crossing a main road?
Also, which is more likely to be able to stop when the driver sees someone in the way; a car or a train?
Which one can take evasive action?
why have i just had to read 4 pages of an arguement over absolutely f.all ?
is it not just, dont trespass its against the law end of?
why have i just had to read 4 pages of an arguement over absolutely f.all ?
is it not just, dont trespass its against the law end of?
you would think so wouldn't you. But some people seem to hold the believe that just becuase its a siding or lightly used line its ok:roll:
you would think so wouldn't you. But some people seem to hold the believe that just becuase its a siding or lightly used line its ok:roll:
It was not me who came up with the claims! First was kyrano , followed by MattE2010, who claimed specials may be stopped. I asked if there is evidence to back up this claim. You replied by also repeating their claim that "Network Rail will just stop allowing and pathing charters and specials."You posted a link to an incredibly flabby document. I am asking you to point out where it supports your claims. Why is that so ludicrous?
It was not me who came up with the claims! First was kyrano , followed by MattE2010, who claimed specials may be stopped. I asked if there is evidence to back up this claim. You replied by also repeating their claim that "Network Rail will just stop allowing and pathing charters and specials."
I asked for evidence of this claim, and that request remains.
I asked for evidence of this claim, and that request remains.
You don't 'have' to read anything. And if Chester025 states he had permission to be at that siding, then I believe him. End of indeed!why have i just had to read 4 pages of an arguement over absolutely f.all ?
is it not just, dont trespass its against the law end of?
You don't 'have' to read anything. And if Chester025 states he had permission to be at that siding, then I believe him. End of indeed!
You don't 'have' to read anything. And if Chester025 states he had permission to be at that siding, then I believe him. End of indeed!
The bloke in the white top looking at the camera was filming until our train came to a stop,what annoyes me is the women with the child ,now the child will think its the norm to play on the lines ,so next thing she goes there without her parents and gets killed ,then the family sues the railway.
And if Chester025 states he had permission to be at that siding, then I believe him. End of indeed
Ah, you want me to answer the last bits, specifically in relation to the sidings at Kingussie?
I am not sure if a train driver driving at approx 15mph at a siding in Kingussie is more or less able to stop in time compared to a car driving at up to 40mph on a main road (obviously if the speeds were equal the car can stop a lot quicker!), although if the siding is indeed disused then I guess the question is not relevant? The ability for a car to take evasive action doesn't necessarily make crossing the road safer, as evasive action can in itself cause further problems (e.g. the car swerving to avoid a pedestrian may swerve into the path of another vehicle), a train cannot take evasive action but if there is no chance of a train going to be using that siding then I am unsure what the relevance of the question is. I would suggest our time would be better spent elsewhere than this sort of question.