• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Wedding photos on Yorkshire railway track!

Status
Not open for further replies.

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
It’s stupid, we should string them up etc etc - I agree

But do we (the railway industry) really need to plaster it over social and traditional media? I get the objective is deterrence, but it’s highly unlikely the perpetrators will even be identified, let alone punished. Meanwhile some impressionable bride-to-be somewhere is seeing this in their BBC news feed and thinking, that looks a gorgeous photo setting, and they got away with it....

Anecdotally Trespass has gone up since NR has started pushing its various “stay off the tracks” schemes.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,044
Location
Birmingham
Strange place for a wedding photograph, now if it was in the middle of a full shed of diesels that would be understandable.
 

JohnMcL7

Member
Joined
18 Apr 2018
Messages
862
It’s stupid, we should string them up etc etc - I agree

But do we (the railway industry) really need to plaster it over social and traditional media? I get the objective is deterrence, but it’s highly unlikely the perpetrators will even be identified, let alone punished. Meanwhile some impressionable bride-to-be somewhere is seeing this in their BBC news feed and thinking, that looks a gorgeous photo setting, and they got away with it....

Anecdotally Trespass has gone up since NR has started pushing its various “stay off the tracks” schemes.

I can't see anyone looking at that photo and thinking it's a gorgeous photo setting unless they've a particular thing for level crossings in which case they might rethink it with the warnings in the article. Anecdotal claims are completely worthless and I don't believe for a moment warnings about being on the track have caused more people to go on them
 

Trackman

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2013
Messages
2,923
Location
Lewisham
Who also didn't report it but just posted onto Facebook
Well he’s in deep trouble now.
Taking a photo and reporting it fair enough, but just posting it on Facebook.
Anyway I’d be yelling at them to get off the tracks and off the crossing rather than taking pictures.
 

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,069
And has been seen in the past, there may be other trains running that aren't in the timetable, like tampers, etc.
Reminds me of an account by a Festiniog Railway (the one "F" dates it) volunteer of chasing a family off the tracks on a blind bend. The had "checked the timetable" which didn't include the works train which came around the bend a few minutes later.
 

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,074
Location
Powys
Reminds me of an account by a Festiniog Railway (the one "F" dates it) volunteer of chasing a family off the tracks on a blind bend. The had "checked the timetable" which didn't include the works train which came around the bend a few minutes later.
Quite!
I was thinking of the old lady going to chapel one Sunday morning, near Harlech, who got hit by a tamper. She complained that there were no trains on the Cambrian Coast on a Sunday morning so she didn't need to ring the Box.
 

2392

Member
Joined
7 Apr 2015
Messages
248
Location
Felling on Tyne
Both previous posts highlight the fact that not all trains appear in the public timetable. Especially freight [ok unlikely on the Esk Valley these days], specials/raitours, permanent way trains run in association with track maintenance work. Over the last several years the NYMR have had ballast delivered by rail to Grosmont as an example of a "special/freight" train. Over the last winter period the NYMR had the new replacement Bridge 27 delivered by rail from Teesside.............
 

800001

Established Member
Joined
24 Oct 2015
Messages
3,493
Are we sure it's the same photo/event? The article says it was taken from CCTV.
The picture was taken my a Northern guard on his phone, it appeared on a Facebook group the same day.
 

800001

Established Member
Joined
24 Oct 2015
Messages
3,493
Im pretty sure it was reported. The news just seem to pick and choose a story whenever they feel like it!

It may of been reported by people who saw it on a Facebook group that the guard posted on, but I have reread the Facebook post last night, and the person who took the picture clearly stated he did not report.
A btp officer on the group asked if it was reported, to which the photographer replied no, due to location, time getting there, and not wanting to waste btp's time.
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
When a MOP calls the signaller for permission to cross a UWC, we ask which crossing their at, how long they’ll require and how long they’ll require.

Any longer than 3 minutes the crossing is to be treated as a low/long or slow load so signal collar protection is to be placed.

What they do on the crossing once they have that permission is unknown.

So it is possible they had “permission” as in to cross the line.

Of course NWR aren’t going to say this, as it would open up a can of worms, far easier and safer to condone the actions.

Im saying we shouldn’t throw boiling water over them, as they may well of had permission...to cross at least.

On a relate note I reported to BTP a crossing used as access for a photo shoot, I have the mileage, crossing name and even the name of the shop who carried out the photo shot with the linked Facebook post from them.

Action taken by BTP ? Nothing at all, to busy poltical policing mask wearing to attend to actual safety and crime matters on the railway.

Permission to cross, is NOT permission to stop and take photos ! so yes, throw the said boiling water over them, just stupidity, put the photos in your album, and then others think we can take pictures too !

I doubt very much that they had permission to cross, would not even enter their heads, as I doubt they were 'crossing'

Do you know no action was taken on your report ? as far as I know, every report is attended to my the BTP, MOM or Level Crossing Manager to ensure all signs are correct, Did you get notification that the shop was not 'visited' ?
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
It’s stupid, we should string them up etc etc - I agree

But do we (the railway industry) really need to plaster it over social and traditional media? I get the objective is deterrence, but it’s highly unlikely the perpetrators will even be identified, let alone punished. Meanwhile some impressionable bride-to-be somewhere is seeing this in their BBC news feed and thinking, that looks a gorgeous photo setting, and they got away with it....

Anecdotally Trespass has gone up since NR has started pushing its various “stay off the tracks” schemes.

Quite agree. There's never been any real control over people using any unmanned, non cctv, rural crossing so it's a bit difficult to see why this one is causing upset, presumably because it's more visible to other people.
 

Tom Quinne

On Moderation
Joined
8 Jul 2017
Messages
2,225
Permission to cross, is NOT permission to stop and take photos ! so yes, throw the said boiling water over them, just stupidity, put the photos in your album, and then others think we can take pictures too !

I doubt very much that they had permission to cross, would not even enter their heads, as I doubt they were 'crossing'

Do you know no action was taken on your report ? as far as I know, every report is attended to my the BTP, MOM or Level Crossing Manager to ensure all signs are correct, Did you get notification that the shop was not 'visited' ?

Im an insider and have access to internal information streams.
 

GodAtum

On Moderation
Joined
11 Dec 2009
Messages
2,633
I'm a bit confused, are the CCTV hidden? I've crossed small crossing like these and have never seen CCTV. Looks like the 2nd photo was hidden in a birdbox!
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
When a MOP calls the signaller for permission to cross a UWC, we ask which crossing their at, how long they’ll require and how long they’ll require.

Any longer than 3 minutes the crossing is to be treated as a low/long or slow load so signal collar protection is to be placed.

What they do on the crossing once they have that permission is unknown.

So it is possible they had “permission” as in to cross the line.

Of course NWR aren’t going to say this, as it would open up a can of worms, far easier and safer to condone the actions.

Im saying we shouldn’t throw boiling water over them, as they may well of had permission...to cross at least.

On a relate note I reported to BTP a crossing used as access for a photo shoot, I have the mileage, crossing name and even the name of the shop who carried out the photo shot with the linked Facebook post from them.

Action taken by BTP ? Nothing at all, to busy poltical policing mask wearing to attend to actual safety and crime matters on the railway.

You also ask, what they are crossing with, just walking (if they ring), then just cross allowing about minute max, and assuming as they called, there is not train ! any longer then the request will be a car, van, 600 sheep ! no one will say, well I am going to take some wedding photos ! and if thhey did, they would get a swift 'No' and a 'What are you thinking ? ! '
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
2,907
I'm a bit confused, are the CCTV hidden? I've crossed small crossing like these and have never seen CCTV. Looks like the 2nd photo was hidden in a birdbox!

You'd be surprised how many crossing and known trespass points have covert cameras.
 

PG

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
2,809
Location
at the end of the high and low roads
Spotted this photo on BBC News website.
bf3bda01-e5a7-4ef1-9aab-0cfe8ef56e02.jpg

(Photo show 3 people stood near to railway tracks on a level crossing at Alrewas)

While I hope the people pictured had permission to take it, it strikes me as poor judgement because people will view it and think that it is okay to take photos on level crossings.
 

fireftrm

Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
846
Location
North Yorkshire
Spotted this photo on BBC News website.
bf3bda01-e5a7-4ef1-9aab-0cfe8ef56e02.jpg

(Photo show 3 people stood near to railway tracks on a level crossing at Alrewas)

While I hope the people pictured had permission to take it, it strikes me as poor judgement because people will view it and think that it is okay to take photos on level crossings.
The level crossing barriers are open and therefore the footpath and road are - the area is immediately in front of the signal box and therefore under immediate direct control. As such where they were is safer than standing on a platform surely?

Well he’s in deep trouble now.
Taking a photo and reporting it fair enough, but just posting it on Facebook.
Anyway I’d be yelling at them to get off the tracks and off the crossing rather than taking pictures.
If this was a guard, as has been suggested in other posts, then they would have been at the rear of their train and on leaving Sleights that train would have been heading away from that crossing, on a single line middle of the section with the next potential service a minimum of 40 minutes away - though the timetable means that no trains cross at the next crossing point (Section) Glaisdale. The guard would therefore have been aware that the next service was over 2 hours away ( before anyone says he would have known of any special train movements). So no doubt why he didn't report it, or yell at them to get off the tracks. Why this then became a story is a moot point. I agree with the poster about the location though - how uninspiring unless one of the couple had some connection with the railway/station - maybe that's why the guard took the photo?
 
Last edited:

PG

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
2,809
Location
at the end of the high and low roads
The level crossing barriers are open and therefore the footpath and road are - the area is immediately in front of the signal box and therefore under immediate direct control. As such where they were is safer than standing on a platform surely?
Looking at this photo from Geograph I'd suggest in front of the field gateway would have been a safer place.
Photo © Alan Heardman (cc-by-sa/2.0)
stamp.php

(Photo shows Alrewas Level Crossing and area immediately adjacent to it including land not forming part of the crossing or roadway)
 

fireftrm

Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
846
Location
North Yorkshire
Yes it would have been away from the railway, but as I pointed out the crossing is manned and in direct on-site view of the signaller. You can't get much safer and be in a position showing the railway clearly for a press photo. The safe situation of being under signal protection is why signallers don't require PTS....
 

alxndr

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2015
Messages
1,467
Yes it would have been away from the railway, but as I pointed out the crossing is manned and in direct on-site view of the signaller. You can't get much safer and be in a position showing the railway clearly for a press photo. The safe situation of being under signal protection is why signallers don't require PTS....

The relative safety of those particular circumstances is only half the issue though. The other half is the image it gives off to the general public who don't understand the difference between different types of level crossings.
 

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
Spotted this photo on BBC News website.
bf3bda01-e5a7-4ef1-9aab-0cfe8ef56e02.jpg

(Photo show 3 people stood near to railway tracks on a level crossing at Alrewas)

While I hope the people pictured had permission to take it, it strikes me as poor judgement because people will view it and think that it is okay to take photos on level crossings.

Yes. An MP and Malcolm wotsit the head of West Mids Transport or whatever it’s called. Seemingly ought to know better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top