Ted Marshall wrote: Murray wrote: Ummmm...Psssst...Hey Ted! Isn't that what your doing?BTW: There must be a gazilion Ted Marshall's in the US. How do we know its you?Even though I'm under no obligation to divulge... maybe this will help:]http://tedmarshall.rrpicturearchives.net/http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRealTedMarshallhttp://profiles.yahoo.com/teddymarshall2003What else would you like to know?
Murray wrote: Ummmm...Psssst...Hey Ted! Isn't that what your doing?BTW: There must be a gazilion Ted Marshall's in the US. How do we know its you?
Ummmm...Psssst...Hey Ted! Isn't that what your doing?
BTW: There must be a gazilion Ted Marshall's in the US. How do we know its you?
Even though I'm under no obligation to divulge... maybe this will help:]
http://tedmarshall.rrpicturearchives.net/
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRealTedMarshall
http://profiles.yahoo.com/teddymarshall2003
What else would you like to know?
Why yes Ted I do:
I was told by the trains .com moderators that I could not advertise a website in my signature box. The site that I had in my signiture box was removed by them. Yet I notice that you are using your signature box to advertise yours.
Its a violation of forum policy he stated. I checked in the forum rules, and by golly he was right.
So my question to you is: Why does yours get to stay in?
zugmann wrote: Ted: you completely blew up my point. Our safety gear is required WHEN WE ARE ON THE PROPERTY! I just came back from a quick railfanning trip. Guess what? I didn't wear my safety glasses or boots. Know why not? Because I was not on the property. When I'm in the yard office - I do not wear my safety glasses because we are not required to. See what I'm getting at? You want to wear that crap? Knock yourself out. But to think all railfans (incl. myself) should wear all that is just rediculous. And again, that safety gear is for persons on the property. You should not be on the property, hence it is not unsafe for you to not wear it. By rule, when we see MOW peoples near the track, we are required to ring bell and blow short blasts on the horn. So if your dressing up as MOW (even if not your intent to) then we need to blow our horn at you, since we can't check IDs at 50mph. People who live nearby will be REAL appreciative if you're not near a x-ing.
Ted: you completely blew up my point. Our safety gear is required WHEN WE ARE ON THE PROPERTY! I just came back from a quick railfanning trip. Guess what? I didn't wear my safety glasses or boots. Know why not? Because I was not on the property. When I'm in the yard office - I do not wear my safety glasses because we are not required to. See what I'm getting at? You want to wear that crap? Knock yourself out. But to think all railfans (incl. myself) should wear all that is just rediculous. And again, that safety gear is for persons on the property. You should not be on the property, hence it is not unsafe for you to not wear it.
By rule, when we see MOW peoples near the track, we are required to ring bell and blow short blasts on the horn. So if your dressing up as MOW (even if not your intent to) then we need to blow our horn at you, since we can't check IDs at 50mph. People who live nearby will be REAL appreciative if you're not near a x-ing.
Ok... Now I see what you mean. But still, I want to be visible to you from a great distance away so you know that I'm there. I don't want to take you by surprise at the last second and leave you wondering if I'm about to throw myself in front of your train; too little time to think it out.
I'm always legal and usually near a public crossing where automotive and pedestrian traffic are a legitimate safety concern to me. I also prefer when street bums and the like leave me alone. They always do for some reason.
Sorry if my attire confuses you, but maybe you're analyzing it a little too much.
Ted M.
got trains?™
See my photos at: http://tedmarshall.rrpicturearchives.net/
Murray wrote: Mookie wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: Mookie wrote: According to the lecture given me - the railroad has say so 100 feet from the tracks. So even without a camera, the original poster was in violation of the 100 foot rule. This supposedly applies to private property, too. It did in my case! And was confirmed by an official of the railroad.Never heard of a 100-foot rule.Maybe I missed something. Lecture from WHO?check your pm.Why all the secrecy?Can you not share this with the rest of us? Perhaps it could aid in this debate.
Mookie wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: Mookie wrote: According to the lecture given me - the railroad has say so 100 feet from the tracks. So even without a camera, the original poster was in violation of the 100 foot rule. This supposedly applies to private property, too. It did in my case! And was confirmed by an official of the railroad.Never heard of a 100-foot rule.Maybe I missed something. Lecture from WHO?check your pm.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Mookie wrote: According to the lecture given me - the railroad has say so 100 feet from the tracks. So even without a camera, the original poster was in violation of the 100 foot rule. This supposedly applies to private property, too. It did in my case! And was confirmed by an official of the railroad.Never heard of a 100-foot rule.Maybe I missed something. Lecture from WHO?
Mookie wrote: According to the lecture given me - the railroad has say so 100 feet from the tracks. So even without a camera, the original poster was in violation of the 100 foot rule. This supposedly applies to private property, too. It did in my case! And was confirmed by an official of the railroad.
According to the lecture given me - the railroad has say so 100 feet from the tracks. So even without a camera, the original poster was in violation of the 100 foot rule. This supposedly applies to private property, too. It did in my case! And was confirmed by an official of the railroad.
Never heard of a 100-foot rule.
Maybe I missed something. Lecture from WHO?
Why all the secrecy?
Can you not share this with the rest of us? Perhaps it could aid in this debate.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
And this post below is an example of why railfans are not taken seriously. Get over yourself. We were simply addressing whether railfans should feel the need to wear OSHA-stuff strictly to railfan. Sheesh.
Poppa_Zit wrote:There are laws against impersonating law enforcement personnel, even if just by dress. Necessary on all counts because we have been instructed almost since birth to respect and obey law enforcement personnel to preserve an orderly society.But I cannot believe some of the comments above, many directed by people claiming to be railroaders, at Ted. I word this carefully because I cannot be sure everyone on an open forum like this using assumed names really are what they claim to be just to somehow make their opinion more "valid".That said, what's the matter with you people? Since when did it become illegal to dress similar to a contractor or railroad worker off railroad property? It will be a sad day indeed when someone -- anyone -- starts telling me how I may or not dress. I'll be gol-darned if someone is going to tell me to wear "RAILFAN" across my back -- just for their convenience. I will if those who qualify wear "JERK" on their backs.Last time I checked, this was still a free country, and right now there are over a quarter million heroes in the Middle East doing everything they can so a poor schlub like me can -- among other things -- dress however he chooses without worrying about offending someone. Or stand on public property and make pictures of trains.So I'll take the opposite stance. Maybe it's time for all railroad employees to dress alike, clean, sharp uniforms that identify them as such with "RAILROAD EMPLOYEE" in 8-inch letters across the back. Then maybe the railroads in their zeal to stifle wannabees, railfans and terrorists, can lobby Congress to change the constitution and make it illegal to impersonate a uniformed railroad worker.Silly? Sure. But sorry, gang, there's a world of difference between wearing a safety vest and a law enforcement badge. Badges are not legally available to anyone outside the law enforcement community and there are laws against it. Safety vests do not fall into that category, neither do hardhats, jeans and steel-toed shoes.And regarding the Yelling Woman in the original post. It is out of line to tell the author he shouldn't do so because it could get the woman fired by writing the letter. He did exactly what his freedoms allow him to do. If she was acting as instructed, yelling from a distance, dispensing misinformation, ordering him off public property and failing to identify herself, she should be promoted right away. If not, she should be suspended or fired. That's how it works in the real world, and I'm not sure that's how the railroad wants its employees to interface with the public under any circumstances.
There are laws against impersonating law enforcement personnel, even if just by dress. Necessary on all counts because we have been instructed almost since birth to respect and obey law enforcement personnel to preserve an orderly society.
But I cannot believe some of the comments above, many directed by people claiming to be railroaders, at Ted. I word this carefully because I cannot be sure everyone on an open forum like this using assumed names really are what they claim to be just to somehow make their opinion more "valid".
That said, what's the matter with you people? Since when did it become illegal to dress similar to a contractor or railroad worker off railroad property? It will be a sad day indeed when someone -- anyone -- starts telling me how I may or not dress. I'll be gol-darned if someone is going to tell me to wear "RAILFAN" across my back -- just for their convenience. I will if those who qualify wear "JERK" on their backs.
Last time I checked, this was still a free country, and right now there are over a quarter million heroes in the Middle East doing everything they can so a poor schlub like me can -- among other things -- dress however he chooses without worrying about offending someone. Or stand on public property and make pictures of trains.
So I'll take the opposite stance. Maybe it's time for all railroad employees to dress alike, clean, sharp uniforms that identify them as such with "RAILROAD EMPLOYEE" in 8-inch letters across the back. Then maybe the railroads in their zeal to stifle wannabees, railfans and terrorists, can lobby Congress to change the constitution and make it illegal to impersonate a uniformed railroad worker.
Silly? Sure. But sorry, gang, there's a world of difference between wearing a safety vest and a law enforcement badge. Badges are not legally available to anyone outside the law enforcement community and there are laws against it. Safety vests do not fall into that category, neither do hardhats, jeans and steel-toed shoes.
And regarding the Yelling Woman in the original post. It is out of line to tell the author he shouldn't do so because it could get the woman fired by writing the letter. He did exactly what his freedoms allow him to do. If she was acting as instructed, yelling from a distance, dispensing misinformation, ordering him off public property and failing to identify herself, she should be promoted right away. If not, she should be suspended or fired.
That's how it works in the real world, and I'm not sure that's how the railroad wants its employees to interface with the public under any circumstances.
Ted Marshall wrote:I find it very amusing that certain people who hide behind anonymous screen names ironcally spout senseless b.s. about impersonating, posing and pretending at those of us who obviously have absolutely nothing to hide about who we are and what we're doing.
Must have been those guys who came out of the black Suburbans in black suite and sunglasses.
If railfans don't comply, they swoop them up and take them to North Dakota...where the are forced to listen to nonstop Lawrence Welk music.
Ted Marshall wrote:I believe the 100' Rule that Mookie refered to is that the railroad's right-of-way is generally 100' wide, 50' either side of centerline in single track territory. This is a guide to use when a boundary line is not physically established or cannot be clearly discerned otherwise.
PigFarmer1 wrote: Wrong. We see a guy with a shiny hard hat, bright and clean vest, and CLEAN clothes and we see a management puke. Don't forget to wear your ear plugs and gloves while you're out there pretending to be one of us.
Wrong. We see a guy with a shiny hard hat, bright and clean vest, and CLEAN clothes and we see a management puke. Don't forget to wear your ear plugs and gloves while you're out there pretending to be one of us.
The LAST thing I would ever do is pretend to be one of you, whatever you are. Do all railroaders think we want to emulate them?? Sheesh!
Excuse me sir, but where did I mention anything about wearing a hard hat? Huh? That's what I thought... I didn't. As for the ear plugs... If it's excessively noisy where I am, I just may... I have before. I haven't had any need for gloves yet, though.
I find it very amusing that certain people who hide behind anonymous screen names ironcally spout senseless b.s. about impersonating, posing and pretending at those of us who obviously have absolutely nothing to hide about who we are and what we're doing.
Ted Marshall wrote: zugmann wrote: It is because they think you are an official or contractor and belong there. Deception, plain and simple. Wrong... They know I'm a railfan. When I'm asked I tell them. Like I stated before, I've been told by railroad employees I've talked to while out railfanning and police officers who've stopped to make chit chat that if OTHER RAILFANS followed my example there would be fewer RAILFAN related problems for them to deal with. It's clear to me that you prefer to fly below the radar when pursuing your passion. That's fine and I respect that. I, however, want everyone to see me and if there's any problem feel free to come over to talk to me. I'll tell you exactly who I am and what I'm doing. No deception there.
zugmann wrote: It is because they think you are an official or contractor and belong there. Deception, plain and simple.
It is because they think you are an official or contractor and belong there. Deception, plain and simple.
Wrong... They know I'm a railfan. When I'm asked I tell them. Like I stated before, I've been told by railroad employees I've talked to while out railfanning and police officers who've stopped to make chit chat that if OTHER RAILFANS followed my example there would be fewer RAILFAN related problems for them to deal with.
It's clear to me that you prefer to fly below the radar when pursuing your passion. That's fine and I respect that. I, however, want everyone to see me and if there's any problem feel free to come over to talk to me. I'll tell you exactly who I am and what I'm doing. No deception there.
The RR's authority, like any property owner, ends at the edge of their right of way or at their property line.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
eolafan wrote: chatanuga wrote: I remembered this photo on my website and thought I'd post it to show where everything happened. This is originally from 1996.The woman was on the porch of the white building behind the locomotive in the picture. I was at the stop line for the crossing on the right.KevinPorch, what porch? I don't see a porch or anything else that would hold something the size of a chair for her to sit on.
chatanuga wrote: I remembered this photo on my website and thought I'd post it to show where everything happened. This is originally from 1996.The woman was on the porch of the white building behind the locomotive in the picture. I was at the stop line for the crossing on the right.Kevin
I remembered this photo on my website and thought I'd post it to show where everything happened. This is originally from 1996.
The woman was on the porch of the white building behind the locomotive in the picture. I was at the stop line for the crossing on the right.
Kevin
Porch, what porch? I don't see a porch or anything else that would hold something the size of a chair for her to sit on.
The porch is behind the locomotive.
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
But it makes no sense. I know of several fast food parking lots that come closer than 100 feet from the tracks. If someone is in the drive-thru waiting for their food, can the railroad come chase them away and call them a terrorist for wanting a cheeseburger? What about if I want to go in and eat and park my car in the lot? Will I have my car towed from the parking lot? This is really getting ridiculous.
Willy
eolafan wrote: Porch, what porch? I don't see a porch or anything else that would hold something the size of a chair for her to sit on.
But she don't need no stinkin' badge.
Murray wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: That's how it works in the real world...This isn't the real world...this is trains.com
Poppa_Zit wrote: That's how it works in the real world...
This isn't the real world...this is trains.com
Yeah. Where I can come to have anonymous people tell me how they'd like me to behave. Just what I need.
Ok so lets just let all the rainfans run amuck...and safety and security be darned.
How 'bout that?
Just for the chance to take a picture of a train?
Murray wrote: Ted Marshall wrote: zugmann wrote: You should not be close enough to the tracks to WARRANT safety apparel*. Unless you are wearing it for car traffic (like the biker). So, I guess by your assertion that people shouldn't wear safety attire at all unless it's absolutely necessary. Sorry, but I think that's absurd.Ted, your response to Zugmann it itself makes no sense whatsoever.
Ted Marshall wrote: zugmann wrote: You should not be close enough to the tracks to WARRANT safety apparel*. Unless you are wearing it for car traffic (like the biker). So, I guess by your assertion that people shouldn't wear safety attire at all unless it's absolutely necessary. Sorry, but I think that's absurd.
zugmann wrote: You should not be close enough to the tracks to WARRANT safety apparel*. Unless you are wearing it for car traffic (like the biker).
You should not be close enough to the tracks to WARRANT safety apparel*. Unless you are wearing it for car traffic (like the biker).
So, I guess by your assertion that people shouldn't wear safety attire at all unless it's absolutely necessary. Sorry, but I think that's absurd.
Ted, your response to Zugmann it itself makes no sense whatsoever.
To you perhaps... which is completely understandable.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.