Railway fencing requirements

[Old Timer]

That's true, but the irony is that the legal fencing requirement was insisted upon by the landowners on whose land the railways were being built, not for their own safety but to prevent the railway staff from trespassing on the private land surrounding the line!

What I don't know is the year when the law was changed to reverse that - or even if it has actually been formally changed in law, which would be very interesting if it hasn't because we would then have the weird situation in which the railway is legally obliged to provide the fence to prevent the staff trespassing on the surrounding land while the law ( quite rightly, of course )makes it illegal for the rest of us to trespass on the railway...

It is a legal requirement that the Railway fences of its land against incursion by animals, principally livestock. I recall the terms cloven feet and hoof being used.

With regards to Level Crossings, these give only the right of passage over the Railway. Deliberately stopping on a level crossing and being struck by a train (say when stopping to open a gate on the other side of the Railway) is an offence undert the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act. This Offence can either be with intent or without intent, i.e. by omission/neglect.

The right of passage using an Occupation/Accommodation crossing or a public right of way only confers the right of the user to pass across the Railway. Stopping or lingering technically becomes trespass, stopping with a vehicle is treated under the 1861 Act

 

[Justin Smith]

(Split from this topic)

One of my bug bears is that all rail lines, no matter how infrequently used or how low the speed limit, are required to be fenced off. I don't know the legal position on this but they are all being fenced off anyway.
Apart from the fact this looks horrible it must cost an absolute fortune.
On the other hand it's perfectly legel, and far more dangerous, to cross any public road (except a motorway ? ) including 70mph dual carriageways !
To be frank I'd feel safer (and probably would be safer) crossing a 125mph stretch of the ECML than the dual carriageway near my home, and that's got a 30mph limit, technically anyway !
Ridiculous.

 

[Greenback]

One of my bug bears is that all rail lines, no matter how infrequently used or how low the speed limit, are required to be fenced off. I don't know the legal position on this but they are all being fenced off anyway.
Apart from the fact this looks horrible it must cost an absolute fortune.
On the other hand it's perfectly legel, and far more dangerous, to cross any public road (except a motorway ? ) including 70mph dual carriageways !
To be frank I'd feel safer (and probably would be safer) crossing a 125mph stretch of the ECML than the dual carriageway near my home, and that's got a 30mph limit, technically anyway !
Ridiculous.

AIUI, it;s been a legal requirement that railway land be fenced off ever since the 19th Century. Many people were fearful of railways when they first began being built for steam, rather than horse drawn tramways. I shouldn;t think the death of an MP during the opening of the Liverpool to Manchester did anything to reassure people either!

Of course, there were no motorways in those days and nothign approached the speed of a steam locomotice, although I'm sure horses and carts caused many injuries and fatalities!

I;v eneve rhad a problem with split advance tickets, but I agree with Yorkie - people are afraid that they will be starnded/have to pay a huge amount for a new ticket and this doesn't do the industry any favours. Surely it's better for someone to buy an advance plus a shorter walk up ticket than to drive all the way by car? You'd think so, but this is Britain!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

AIUI, it;s been a legal requirement that railway land be fenced off ever since the 19th Century. Many people were fearful of railways when they first began being built for steam, rather than horse drawn tramways. I shouldn;t think the death of an MP during the opening of the Liverpool to Manchester did anything to reassure people either!

That's true, but the irony is that the legal fencing requirement was insisted upon by the landowners on whose land the railways were being built, not for their own safety but to prevent the railway staff from trespassing on the private land surrounding the line!

What I don't know is the year when the law was changed to reverse that - or even if it has actually been formally changed in law, which would be very interesting if it hasn't because we would then have the weird situation in which the railway is legally obliged to provide the fence to prevent the staff trespassing on the surrounding land while the law ( quite rightly, of course )makes it illegal for the rest of us to trespass on the railway...

 

[merlodlliw]

Away from the railways, IE land adjoining an adoption of track/lane/road by the County Council/Borough, it is the responsibility of the land owner or tenant to fence his stock in the field & ensure all gates are closed.(Wales & England)

IE it is not my responsibility to fence his/her stock off my land/property,although an amount of common sense should prevail, unfortunately lacking at times on both parties.

 

[Ploughman]

I understood that the original intent was that the railway company had to define its boundary.
But over time this has come to mean fencing.

When I was involved with PW Maintenance we had a constant stream of letters from farmers demanding fence improvements as they were going to put stock in the field the following year which meant installing 7 wire post and wire fence or netting.
However in urban areas then fencing was an absolute requirement even if the locals were removing it within an hour of new fence being erected.
Didn't matter what type of fence you put up it would be broken through if you blocked up a shortcut. Yet imagine the complaints if you didn't do it and something happened.

 

[Old Timer]

I understood that the original intent was that the railway company had to define its boundary.
But over time this has come to mean fencing.

When I was involved with PW Maintenance we had a constant stream of letters from farmers demanding fence improvements as they were going to put stock in the field the following year which meant installing 7 wire post and wire fence or netting..

The law only required the fencing to be adequate to prevent animals from accidentally straying onto the line, and technically did not require the Railway to be fenced OTHER than where it passed through farmland.

Of course as you rightly say, the fencing was continued in order to set out the boundary of the Railway but there was no DUTY in law for this to be done in urban areas.

...However in urban areas then fencing was an absolute requirement even if the locals were removing it within an hour of new fence being erected.
Didn't matter what type of fence you put up it would be broken through if you blocked up a shortcut. Yet imagine the complaints if you didn't do it and something happened.

This arose from the Common Law responsibility of having installed a fence to prevent access to then maintain it in a suitable condition.

Unfortunately our Judicial system does not penalise adequately those who damage or remove fencing, indeed I have known cases where even following the death of a child on the line, locals were cutting steel pallisade fencing down with oxy/acetylene torches within hours of it having been installed, indeed whilst the reptiles of the media were still shouting about the responsibility of the Railway to fence off the access !

 

[jopsuk]

fencing doesn't have to look ugly. But cheap fencing is invariably nasty looking

 

[kentuckytony]

If you don't like fenced railways, you can always move down the road a piece from me - in LaGrange, Kentucky: http://www.cincyrails.com/csxphotos/csxQ375LaGrangeKY3-18-06JELandrumPhoto.jpg.
And yes, on the right side, the gray car is waiting on the cross street to cross the main street - with no benefit of a gated crossing.
There have been times when I was parked on either side of the street and had to wait for the train to go on by before I could get enough room to pull out.

 

[lancastrian]

To me it is simple, despite all that the railway does to fence off the lines, there are always some pilliocks who will, as has been said, will destroy it.

In this country as opposed to possibly every other country, we wrap people up in cotton wool. If they are that stupid to trespass on the Railway, then they are IN THE WRONG, in every other country they assume that people are intelligent enough to realise that if you walk on the railway you will be killed, just like on any Motorway.

The sooner that ANY who tresspasses on the railway is sued for every penny they have and all the people who live in the area around where the fence is damages, charged to replace any fencing. It might get through to even the thickest person that Railways are as dangerous as roads.

I like many watch the TV series Swiss Railway Journeys, and if you look at almost all of there lines, they go through streets, along roads, besides houses, they pass by fields and yet there is no need to fence them off. If a farmer wants to keep his livestock in his fields, it is his responsability to fence them in, as so it should be here.

End of rant.

 

[Ploughman]

Maybe we should have fences that fight back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7x8wd36uJg

 

[lancastrian]

Maybe we should have fences that fight back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7x8wd36uJg

Absolutley brilliant, lets hope that the wall broke his leg. He proberbly never felt it, because they say where there is no sense there is no feeling.

 

[Justin Smith]

To me it is simple, despite all that the railway does to fence off the lines, there are always some pilliocks who will, as has been said, will destroy it.

In this country as opposed to possibly every other country, we wrap people up in cotton wool. If they are that stupid to trespass on the Railway, then they are IN THE WRONG, in every other country they assume that people are intelligent enough to realise that if you walk on the railway you will be killed, just like on any Motorway.

The sooner that ANY who tresspasses on the railway is sued for every penny they have and all the people who live in the area around where the fence is damages, charged to replace any fencing. It might get through to even the thickest person that Railways are as dangerous as roads.

I like many watch the TV series Swiss Railway Journeys, and if you look at almost all of there lines, they go through streets, along roads, besides houses, they pass by fields and yet there is no need to fence them off. If a farmer wants to keep his livestock in his fields, it is his responsability to fence them in, as so it should be here.

End of rant.

On a similar subject, near Morley a girl got killed by a train when she went after her dog which ran off up the line as she was crossing the line (on an official path crossing the line).
Her parents were understandably distraught and started a campaign to have the crossing closed.
As far as I know they actually succeeded.
Now that`s ridiculous.
As a walker I find that a complete over reaction which, if replicated across the country, would severely affect me in a very negative way.
It`s perfectly legal for anyone to cross any road (apart from a motorway), and doing so is a dangerous activity, relatively speaking, but nobody is campaigning to make it illegal to do so.
My logic circuits find such inconsistency very difficult to take in.

 

[PinzaC55]

There was a case a few years ago where a lad trespassing in Hull Docks "surfed" a train and lost a leg as a result. His parents reaction? Sue Railtrack for not stopping up gaps in the fence of course!

 

[Flamingo]

Of course, you don't have to go all the way to the USofA to see unfenced main-line railways.

Anybody been to Wexford Town, Ireland, lately?

 

[island]

The main Rosslare-Dublin line goes right through the Wexford waterfront completely unprotected.

 

[Flamingo]

Great minds think alike!

 

[Old Timer]

There was a case a few years ago where a lad trespassing in Hull Docks "surfed" a train and lost a leg as a result. His parents reaction? Sue Railtrack for not stopping up gaps in the fence of course!

In English Law if you deciede to fence of your property for whatever reason, you become responsible for the condition and maintenance of it. You have created a duty of care by your actions.

If you then fail to maintain the fence, such that someone is exposed to the hazard then you are responsible because you have failed in your duty of care.

 

[lancastrian]

In English Law if you deciede to fence of your property for whatever reason, you become responsible for the condition and maintenance of it. You have created a duty of care by your actions.

If you then fail to maintain the fence, such that someone is exposed to the hazard then you are responsible because you have failed in your duty of care.

This only goes to show that the 'Law is an Ass'. What ever happened to personal responsability. Gone down the pan thanks to the 'Human ****e Law'. He deserved every thing he got for being a complete morron.

I did hear that the judge through it our, can anyone confirm this. It is a real pity it wasn't his head he lost, then such morronic genes would not breed.

 

[Old Timer]

This only goes to show that the 'Law is an Ass'. What ever happened to personal responsability. Gone down the pan thanks to the 'Human ****e Law'. He deserved every thing he got for being a complete morron.

I did hear that the judge through it our, can anyone confirm this. It is a real pity it wasn't his head he lost, then such morronic genes would not breed.

It is nothing to do with the Human Rights Act, it is to do with Common Law, and frankly one day you may well be relying upon that same Law in the event that someone caused you a serious injury or an injury that prevented you from working ever again.

What is needed is a refinement that penalises those who place themselves in danger deliberately, who are engaged upon anti-social acts or behaviour or who are engaged in Criminal activities.

As for the Human Rights Act, many of the interpretations can be laid at the door of a Politically biased Judiciary which was created by Bliar in order to help him consolidate and impose his will on the UK constitution.

In general the HRA does not confer anything more than is already contained within existing Common Law, but it did enable one Mrs Bliar (as well as a variety of Bliar's former friends and colleagues in the legal system) to set up a legal business which does very well indeed out of the HRA.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

This only goes to show that the 'Law is an Ass'. What ever happened to personal responsability. Gone down the pan thanks to the 'Human ****e Law'. He deserved every thing he got for being a complete morron.

I did hear that the judge through it our, can anyone confirm this. It is a real pity it wasn't his head he lost, then such morronic genes would not breed.

Nope, it's perfectly fair.

Let's imagine a landowner puts up a fence around his field. He's not very good at that kind of thing, and didn't really follow the instructions.

You come along, nice sunny day, walking the dog, you climb over a stile, which is partly rotten, it collapses with you on it, causing you to break your leg.

You would be unable to work for a while, suffer a lot of pain and suffering, loss of earnings, loss of amenity - for a serious break you may not be able to carry out the activities you once did.

Would you like to be told; "nope, no compensation for you, it wasn't the landowner (the person who erected the fence)'s fault that the stile collapsed. Tough luck.

You're out of work, in pain, with a broken leg and you can't go out running again. You're not even entitled to compensation. Now that, is unfair.

 

[Justin Smith]

Nope, it's perfectly fair.

Let's imagine a landowner puts up a fence around his field. He's not very good at that kind of thing, and didn't really follow the instructions.

You come along, nice sunny day, walking the dog, you climb over a stile, which is partly rotten, it collapses with you on it, causing you to break your leg.

You would be unable to work for a while, suffer a lot of pain and suffering, loss of earnings, loss of amenity - for a serious break you may not be able to carry out the activities you once did.

Would you like to be told; "nope, no compensation for you, it wasn't the landowner (the person who erected the fence)'s fault that the stile collapsed. Tough luck.

You're out of work, in pain, with a broken leg and you can't go out running again. You're not even entitled to compensation. Now that, is unfair.

It`s perfectly fair, or to be more accurate, perfectly reasonable, the word that seems to be disappearing from Law.
The principle is that the person who climbed over the stile should be capable of judging if it`s safe. I do loads of walking over 100s of stiles. I really don`t find it difficult to judge whether is stile is knackered. If it is dodgey I get over it in a way that I won`t be injured if it collapses. I`m sure if I tried I could get injured every other walk I go on, or indeed every time I cross the road, but I feel it`s worth putting a bit of thought and effort into staying in one piece.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It's perfectly fair, or to be more accurate, perfectly reasonable, the word that seems to be disappearing from Law.
The principle is that the person who climbed over the stile should be capable of judging if it's safe. I do loads of walking over 100s of stiles. I really don't find it difficult to judge whether is stile is knackered. If it is dodgey I get over it in a way that I won't be injured if it collapses. I'm sure if I tried I could get injured every other walk I go on, or indeed every time I cross the road, but I feel it's worth putting a bit of thought and effort into staying in one piece.

Maybe youare capable of judging, but the law is about protecting the masses - not just you. What about children, the elderly, those with learning difficulties?
When I was 9 or 10 I used to run around the countryside with friends; nothing wrong with that but I wasn't capable of judging whether a stile was structurally safe. I put my trust, as the law says, in the person who erected it.

 

[Geezertronic]

Is it landowners or councils who are responsible for maintaining public right of ways though? Even if that right of way crosses someones land, are the land owners responsible for making sure it is kept in a suitable condition?

 

[Greenback]

AIUI local authorities are responsible for maintaining public highways, but landowners are responsible for their own land whether it is part of a right of way or not.

If the postman came up my path, tripped up on a loose paving stone and then landed on a broken bottle I hadn;t cleared up, I would expect to be sued!

 

[Justin Smith]

If the postman came up my path, tripped up on a loose paving stone and then landed on a broken bottle I hadn;t cleared up, I would expect to be sued!

I don`t see why. Whatever happened to personal responsibility ? Can`t the postman look where he`s treading ?
Why do so many people seem to think that other people are incapable of taking any reasonable precautions for themselves ?
What`s even harder to accept, is that by far the most dangerous thing any of us do every day is go on the roads, either as a driver, a passenger, or a pedestrian. Yet measures to reduce this very real danger, like speed cameras, or, even more effective, GPS receivers in all cars (so they physically can`t break the speed limit) are treated like they`re inventions of the Devil.......

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I don't see why. Whatever happened to personal responsibility ? Can't the postman look where he's treading ?
Why do so many people seem to think that other people are incapable of taking any reasonable precautions for themselves ?
What's even harder to accept, is that by far the most dangerous thing any of us do every day is go on the roads, either as a driver, a passenger, or a pedestrian. Yet measures to reduce this very real danger, like speed cameras, or, even more effective, GPS receivers in all cars (so they physically can't break the speed limit) are treated like they're inventions of the Devil.......

And that is why there is an established duty of care in that situation under the 2nd Caparo test.

 

[Greenback]

I don't see why. Whatever happened to personal responsibility ? Can't the postman look where he's treading ?
Why do so many people seem to think that other people are incapable of taking any reasonable precautions for themselves ?
What's even harder to accept, is that by far the most dangerous thing any of us do every day is go on the roads, either as a driver, a passenger, or a pedestrian. Yet measures to reduce this very real danger, like speed cameras, or, even more effective, GPS receivers in all cars (so they physically can't break the speed limit) are treated like they're inventions of the Devil.......

Why should the postman, or anyone else, have to look out for unexpected hazards on my path, when I have a duty of care to keep it maintained for my visitors? Especially when it's dark? Have you ever been a postman? It's no fun trying to negotiaite your way to people's doors in all weathers, reading the addresses at the same time without having to guard against unexpected hazards with every step as well.

It's all very well calling for personal responsibility, but I don't see the hardship in doing your best to help ensure that other people do not come to unnecessary harm as a result of your own negligence. I really don't like the 'sod 'em if they can't see where their going' attitude.