No wonder the railways are in such a state...

JGR · Post by **JGR** » 15 Dec 2006 15:51

BBC NEWS | England | Southern Counties | Man fell asleep on railway line

*sighs*, what is the world coming to...

Post by **Dave** » 15 Dec 2006 15:53

He was lucky and everything, but his father is perfectly correct. There should be better protection.

Ben_Robbins_ · Post by **Ben_Robbins_** » 15 Dec 2006 17:48

haha, what an awesum story. In any other country he would have been killed by the highspeed frequent trains.

I'm curious though, it says that staff said "If he had touched that live rail, he would certainly have died." Im confused, where are these 'live rails'?

Griff · Post by **Griff** » 15 Dec 2006 17:53

I'm not sure..Epsom isnt third rail..

Post by **Dave** » 15 Dec 2006 18:43

Ben_Robbins_ wrote: I'm curious though, it says that staff said "If he had touched that live rail, he would certainly have died." Im confused, where are these 'live rails'?

If you meant that generally, some of Britain's railways are equipped with electrification to 750v Direct Current by a third rail that sits to the outside of either of the two running rails.

Trains pick up power from these rails by "shoes" on the outside of the their bogies.

Touching these rails is almost certainly fatal, especially if you're in contact with the floor at the same time.

jpmaster wrote:I'm not sure..Epsom isnt third rail..

You sure? The pic on wiki says otherwise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsom_railway_station

Maedhros · Post by **Maedhros** » 15 Dec 2006 18:48

Dave Worley wrote:He was lucky and everything, but his father is perfectly correct. There should be better protection.

I don't think so. Why should it be Network Rail's responsibility to stop drunk people doing stupid things? If people aren't going to take responsibility for their own actions, why should anyone else do it for them?

Ben_Robbins_ · Post by **Ben_Robbins_** » 15 Dec 2006 18:57

Dave Worley: Yes, I ment generally rather than specifically. Cheers for your explination, I didn't know that.

On the picture on the bbc page though, There appears to be no 3rd rail.

Maedhros: Good point. People need to take the blame for there actions

Griff · Post by **Griff** » 15 Dec 2006 19:02

Ah yes, Worley is right.
If you stop the video at 5 seconds you can see the third rail.

Post by **Dave** » 15 Dec 2006 19:04

Maedhros wrote:
Dave Worley wrote:He was lucky and everything, but his father is perfectly correct. There should be better protection.
I don't think so. Why should it be Network Rail's responsibility to stop drunk people doing stupid things? If people aren't going to take responsibility for their own actions, why should anyone else do it for them?

Which is great from a moral standpoint, but legally, they ARE obliged to protect trespassers from either

a) Getting onto their property

OR

b) Stopping them from harm once they're on there.

In the case of Addie v Dumbreck (1929) AC 358, the Court of Appeal ruled that railway companies did NOT owe a duty of care to trespassers (in particular, children) when a 4 year old was crushed to death between a stationary coal wagon and another that had come loose from it's tethers.

Adversely, this law was modified in the House of Lords' first use of the 1966 Practice Statement (Which allowed such modifications to take place) in Herrington v British Railways Board (1972) AC 877 where a teenager was severely injured after coming into contact with Overhead Line Equipment.

Since then, railway companies have had a duty of care to anyone - legally there or trespassers - who are on their property.

Born Acorn · Post by **Born Acorn** » 15 Dec 2006 19:26

Why don't we just put vacuum tubes over everything and wrap everything in bubble wrap. Obviously the miles of fences and "Do not Trespass" signs aren't enough.

We're already one of the most safety obsessed nations around.

A more sensible method is to attack the cause, which is alcohol. I'm not for prohibition or any extremes, but something should be done to stop people getting drunk enough to fall asleep on railway lines.

Ben_Robbins_ · Post by **Ben_Robbins_** » 15 Dec 2006 19:49

Why was he only charged £560, When he caused £8000 in delays?. Why should anyone else pay for what he caused?

Also, I see the 3rd rail now, but would the power have gone threw the souls of his shoes?. He is within a fraction of an inch of the line, and I find it hard to beleive that he never touched it.

Also Why didnt the train that went past sound its horn?

Post by **Dave** » 15 Dec 2006 19:53

Ben_Robbins_ wrote:Why was he only charged £560, When he caused £8000 in delays?. Why should anyone else pay for what he caused?

Also, I see the 3rd rail now, but would the power have gone threw the souls of his shoes?. He is within a fraction of an inch of the line, and I find it hard to beleive that he never touched it.

Also Why didnt the train that went past sound its horn?

It probably did. Or if there was sound and it blatantly didn't, bear in mind the driver is passing at 90 mph... It's hard to see the rail next to you from where he's sitting.

As for the charges - it's due to that law above. Network Rail are liable for any damages the trespasser causes, whether it means compensating said trespasser, or paying out for itself.

Obviously there are safety mechanisms with third rail, but basically I reckon he just got REALLY lucky.

Bad Hair Day · Post by **Bad Hair Day** » 15 Dec 2006 21:28

For those interested, another act of railway stupidity:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

Post by **Dave** » 15 Dec 2006 21:51

Yes, this particular story was on the telly. I'm not sure that he WOULD have died had the current been switched on.

It's sorta the same way birds don't die.

Unless the electricity could jump far enough to kill him when he hit the floor, he'd've had to come into contact with something that was earthed, wouldn't he?

Silly b******...

andel · Post by **andel** » 15 Dec 2006 23:04

I feel sorry for the poor guy. He's an alcoholic and he must be doing bad to drink into that state... he acknowledged his mistake, fair enough - he said sorry and he's paying the price.

Let it be, I think.

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 16 Dec 2006 04:32

In this case, everyone is relatively lucky - the guy didn't die or get squished, and the delays to trains were not so very bad. But the point I find disturbing is that anyone is even suggesting that it is anyone's fault but his own, or that there could have been any liability. There's a law saying that the rail company is liable even for trespassers? It's an idiotic law! People need to pay the consequences for their own stupidity. After a while you'll have fewer fools - some will win Darwin awards, and the rest will learn by their example. In the US we have ridiculous things like burglars tripping over a toy in the dark, breaking their leg, and... suing the homeowner! And winning! Enough already. If you are committing a crime or misdemeanor, on your own head be whatever ill becomes you.

Purno · Post by **Purno** » 16 Dec 2006 10:02

Dave Worley wrote:He was lucky and everything, but his father is perfectly correct. There should be better protection.

Disagreed, just because some drunk b****** can't resist sleeping on a railway line which almost killed him (I wouldn't care if it actually did TBH), the railway companies got to invest many pounds into fencing it off? No, wrong idea, the drunkards should be thought not to sleep on a railway line.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » 16 Dec 2006 11:42

I thought its a criminal offence to go onto the railways..drunk or not drunk. Besides there should be better protection. If he went onto the line and got hit by a train everyone would blame Network Rail for not protecting the railways.

Purno · Post by **Purno** » 16 Dec 2006 12:14

So, you wanna place signs every x meter on both sides of a railway line saying; "Do not sleep on the railway. There are trains on the railway. Trains can't stop and problaby kill you. Whenever you do decide to sleep on the railway anyways, do not touch the electrified rail as it is electrified and will electrocute you if you touch it. Whenever electrocuted you won't be able to jump aside when a train is approaching. When you are sleeping on the railway and not touching the 3rd rail, you can recognize an incoming train by several head lights, trilling rails, and several horns."

Come on, even Bush knows he shouldn't sleep on a railway line.

Just let these drunk b****** pay for any damage done, the full 8000 pounds in this case, IIRC.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » 16 Dec 2006 12:58

Nah, just a sign saying 'stay off the damn tracks you idiots'

Transport Tycoon Forums

No wonder the railways are in such a state...

No wonder the railways are in such a state...

Who is online