Have You had a Rude Railfan-Railroader Experience?

[edblysard]

Actually, I learned a few things here also...which is why I visit this forum more than any other...the people here make it worth it.

Ed

[Anonymous]

This thread was great... very EDUCATIONAL[^]

[chad thomas]

Well I for one thought this was a great thread. I learned a few things. Especialy from the posts of Ed and Mark.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

I think the show is over.

Yep, it's time to shake hands and let the thread go to the second page.

Dear Mr. Hemphill,
To avoid any misunderstandings, I did not disagree with your posts.

Dear Ed,
I didn't mean to be purile, but when you're on the defending side of a topic approaching the critical mass for a forum fire, things can happen. I'm sorry if I offended you. I appreciate your concern.

I work on steam locomotives on weekends--just black, no white [:)][:D][8D]!

Dear Junctionfan,
Yep, Canda is much smarter than the US.

Dear James,
Thanks for being on my "team."

Dear LimitedClear and Dan,
No hard feelings, okay [:)]?
________________________________________________________

Back in the middle ages, people would fight in wars (Crusades, Britan vs. France, etc.) for no good reason. The wars were started for one, but thirty years later nobody could remember why. Here, we got in an argument over GCOR rules, and seven pages later, we were throwing posts back and forth over completely different things than on pages one and two.

In the end, we argued a lot (even tossed in a few bible verses) and, 135 posts later, are nowhere but where we started.

When I posted this topic 11 days ago, I didn't think it would be controversially debated like this. As a matter of fact, I didn't even think the railroaders would chime in all that much. It was mostly for the railfans.

The best advice now is no different than when we started. Use common sense, don't look for a fight, and leave if asked. If you were (you feel) in the right (like on public property), then use the newspapers or other media to your advantage--courts cost more than 37 cents!!!! The railfans in the Metra incident used the media, remained out of court, and were succesful.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[:D][^][:I][:o)][8D][8)][:)][;)][:P][(-D][(-D][:-^]

[chad thomas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tarnett

If I am ever out shooting pictures along the railroad and someone tells me to get out of "their" spot because they are a "professional railfan", my response will be, "I'm a professional***kicker, wanna do some business?"!

T.

[:D] I resemble that remark [8D]

[richardy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates



If engineers had sufficiently loud horns at their disposal, they could simply blow their horns at these intrusive beligerants, and either make the leave , or go deaf..[:-,]

Yes, but then they probably would sue the railroad and win.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

The solution (as always) is that the trains need louder horns...[oX)]

If engineers had sufficiently loud horns at their disposal, they could simply blow their horns at these intrusive beligerants, and either make the leave , or go deaf..[:-,]

.....WHAT????......................................[;)]

[Anonymous]

The solution (as always) is that the trains need louder horns...[oX)]

If engineers had sufficiently loud horns at their disposal, they could simply blow their horns at these intrusive beligerants, and either make the leave , or go deaf..[:-,]

[tarnett]

If I am ever out shooting pictures along the railroad and someone tells me to get out of "their" spot because they are a "professional railfan", my response will be, "I'm a professional***kicker, wanna do some business?"!

T.

[Anonymous]

I think the show is over.

[chad thomas]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill

James: To repeat my post from 13 October:

1. You generally have the right to take photographs while you're standing on public property of anything you can reasonably see from public property. Public property usually does not include parking lots (even of public venues), station platforms, or the like. Parks, streets, and sidewalks are public property.
2. Photographs used for journalistic or educational purposes or personal use DO NOT require the consent of the person being photographed. Photos used for commercial purposes (just about every other use in which money changes hands or a product is sold) DO require the consent of the person being photographed.
3. If someone says you cannot take photos from public property, feel free to escalate as far as you want.

Correct. Thanks for the clarification Mark...

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

WOW........the U.S really needs some tort law reform in terms of criteria to take action in court.

Not being an American so I have to ask you; don't you get sick of hearing of rediculous excuses to sue?

Define "ridiculous excuses to sue"...(?)

If you stand to be on the receiving end of a massive wadd of cash, just about any reason begins to look justifiable.

Actually there are what is known as the Yost Statute, that attempt to curb malicious prosecution, sueing just to make the defendant suffer... But there is a whopping gray area, who is to say that I haven't "suffered" at the hands of the person I'm intending to sue? usually only the courts can decide that.

The grand litmus is in the plaintiffs ability to demonstrate that they have been made a victim.

And yes, I get really sick of the entire philisophy of victimology. everyone is the victim, take a number and stand in line.

[exPalaceDog]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lone Byrd

only one time a csx train stopped not too far from I was standing a crew menber shouted out rudely "Put that camera down You can't be [censored] recording THIS train!" But i was not listening to the crew member that was rude and continued recording elsewhere.

Are you sure that the train was NOT carrying military or some other type of sensitive material?

Aren't railroads required to hold information on who ships or receives what in what amounts in confidence? Business do not want their competiters to know their business.

Any chance that the railroader was violating some rule?

Have fun

[edblysard]

James,
Read Mark's post carefully...
Because he put into a few words what we have all been saying.

Now, take a look through the grey....and apply a good dose of common sense.
You are looking for a black and white definition of what is and isn’t...which has been provided you.

But it is up to you to decide if what you are after is worth the fight.

Imagine an instance where both your and the railroader are certain you are right...you might be on public property, by your definition, and he might think not, then you have to decide if the end result is worth the hassle.

The two Metro photographers who were badly treated felt it was worth it to them, and in the end, the system proved them "right"...but it did cost them.
So, is the cost worth it to you?

By law there is a definition, or a set of boundaries, in real life, such boundaries are often ill defined or not defined at all, they are in the grey, so to speak, and left up to you to decide.

Which is why we have the courts in the first place, because each instance has to be looked at on the merits of that particular incident.

Almost no one has the right to stop you from taking photos, but the law does allow them to recoup damages if they can convince a jury or a judge you violated their "rights" in doing so.

I think what you are asking is for a clearly defined place to shot photos from, or someone to tell you that this spot is ok, that spot is not...good luck.

Read Marks post again....

I think you already have a good idea what is and what isn’t...

I also think your right; most of us would love to be on a magazine cover!

So shoot all the photos you want, and if someone tries to tell you can not, apply your common sense, decide if its a fight worth it to you, if it is, hunker down and get ready, if it isn’t, move to a better spot and shoot some more!

And read Marks post one more time!

Ed

[Junctionfan]

WOW........the U.S really needs some tort law reform in terms of criteria to take action in court.

Not being an American so I have to ask you; don't you get sick of hearing of rediculous excuses to sue?

[Anonymous]

only one time a csx train stopped not too far from I was standing a crew menber shouted out rudely "Put that camera down You can't be [censored] recording THIS train!" But i was not listening to the crew member that was rude and continued recording elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I can still be sued for doing it..........................?????? Help me out here...........[%-)]

I could sue you for having red hair, even if you were bald.....

Whether I could collect anything remains to be seen, but I could cost you a fortune in attorney fees defending yourself.

[Junctionfan]

O.k so for so far, I am hearing some conflicted answers. Although there is no legal right to prevent non-commercial photographs of trains from public property, I can still be sued for doing it..........................?????? Help me out here...........[%-)]

[Anonymous]

I'ev been trying to figure out a way to jump into this. It came to me last night. Think of all the actors and actresses and musicians who try to protect their rights to privacy, either in their homes (photos of actresses topless lounging by their pool AT HOME taken with long distance cameras), or in public, when they're out trying to have dinner or go to a club. Supposedly there are even pictures of Princess Di dying in a car. I guess my point is to be really careful because you ARE taking pictures of someone who might not want you to take them. Respect them as a fellow human, not a railroader, or an actor, or a baseball player, or whatever.

I still think if you're trying to "buy" trouble, you'll find it.

Now, add to Ed's illustrious list of people who are trying to offer experienced advice, a slightly overweight special ed Engli***eacher.

Oh, NAR guy, asking Bergie to lock a thread like this... come on, we have these talks all the time. The last one on the mighty PC&N railroad died on it's own. This one will too.


mike

[Anonymous]

I am a locomotive engineer and you 'foamers' can take all the pictures you want. One bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch.

[dharmon]

Well put Ed....that was exactly the point.

Dan

[Anonymous]

So let me see if I get this straight now, as the gray area seems to be do I have a "right to take photos, or do the railroaders have a "right" to tell me not to. So If I am public property, usually there will be no problem since only a small minority of railroaders think that it is a problem to take pictures of there train, I am sure most would love to be driving the train that wins some photo contest. If someone, say a railroad worker, tells me I can't take pictures of the train from the public road that parallels the train yard. What should I do? Does he have the right to tell me not to? Should I phone the yardmaster, or someone and just make sure they don't have a beef then go take some more pictures. What about the police telling me, since they don't always represent the railroad’s want on the matter? Of course you should always be polite.

I am not trying to start an argument here, I was just under the impression from what I had read about the law, that you had the ability to take a picture of trains from public property, assuming the train tacks don't have any signs saying you can't. You couldn't sell a picture of a railroad worker without his approval, like a celebrity, assuming he was recognizable in the picture. It is not a matter of rights to take the picture, but who has the right to stop you. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, so I don't make any mistakes in the future.

[SealBook27]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

I failed to see that between the black and white of my then narrow and limited experiences that the world was really full of a lot, and I mean a lot, of gray.

Now, 30 years later, I have something I didn’t have as an 18 year old, the ability to see in gray, and to place myself in the position of another person, and try to see things as they would, whether I agree with them or not.



Ed

Many thanks Ed, and let me add a big AMEN. I've been trying to teach this to people most of my life.

I dearly wish I could remember who taught me this decades ago, but it proved to be a very valuable lesson in life. Recognizing the gray areas and seeing things from others points of view has enabled me to work with just about anyone.

[edblysard]

No Daniel,
You are perfectly entitled to have an opinion, in fact, encouraged to have one.

But it might be the fact that after several people, who have had a lot more experience than you, all of whom have gone out of their way to explain why your concept of "rights" is flawed, you still insist on rationalizing your stand and stating your opinion in a somewhat, well, immature manner.

Look at the post above, rather smart*ssed and a little self serving, isn’t it....

Heck, you had the former editor of Trains magazine, myself, and Limited clear all trying to help you, and you insisted in refusing to listen or acknowledge what we were saying.

Man, you got free advice from an attorney, and that’s a small miracle in itself!

I remember being a teenager, and at 18, I was bullet proof, immortal and absolutely certain on almost all things...the world was easy to manage; every thing was in black or white, good or bad, true or false.

If I had a "right" to do something, I was almost fanatical in defending that right, whether it was truly a right, or simply something I perceived as one.

And I was just as determined to stamp out the wrongs in the world and I was in defending the things I saw as right.

Things were either good, or not.

I failed to see that between the black and white of my then narrow and limited experiences that the world was really full of a lot, and I mean a lot, of gray.

Now, 30 years later, I have something I didn’t have as an 18 year old, the ability to see in gray, and to place myself in the position of another person, and try to see things as they would, whether I agree with them or not.

The ability to look at an issue, be it the right to take photos, or the right own a handgun, all the way to who will sit on the US Supreme Court, from both sides,
and then form an opinion, based not only on the black and white of the issue, but the vast gray area in-between, where most people really live, now lets me realize that, although I might feel strongly on a particular issue, and be certain that my opinion is correct and theirs is not, I can now understand why they hold that opinion, as opposed to just being certain they are wrong.

What all this boils down to is that, because some of us have had more experience than you, solely because we have managed to survive longer than you, not because older is smarter, but because the people who have been replying to you have managed, between them, to have run a nation wide magazine, be an attorney, locomotive engineer, work for their state attorney generals office, manage several business, own a few, one of them is now in charge of rebuilding the Iraq railway, one of them is a navy pilot and now in charge of teaching recon flying to "newbies", years and years of hard earned experience and knowledge between them all, lots of working in the gray area, and you insist in ignoring all of their experience and viewing this as a black and white issue...with you certain that you are the white knight, righteously defending the "right" you perceive, while the rest of us are the black knights, bent on denying you... the whole time, your knee deep in the gray, and unaware of it.

Hope you don’t press your concept of your right to take any photo you want from "public" property, because you will, at some point, find someone else just as certain as yourself that you are "wrong", and you will end up on the losing end of a very expensive civil lawsuit.

Look at it this way, none of us here "win" anything by convincing you that we are right and you are wrong...no one gets any points, makes any money, saves any lives or gets the girl...so why would we go through all this trouble to explain anything to you, unless we valued your presence here, and wanted to keep you out of trouble?

Might it be that some of us have already been there and done that, and wanted to save you the hassle of learning it the hard way?

Ed

[Anonymous]

I think I should re-title this thread "Have You had a Rude Forum Member-Forum Member Experience?"!!!![:D][:)][:-,][swg][:)][8D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear
So think about that the next time you want to take a photo of a railroad employee.

LC

The amazing thing about this conversation is that the ones bellyaching the most defiantly are also the ones to have had unpleasant encounters with the railroads,

Coincidence? I suspect not... [;)]

and teens for the most part.....oh to be half as smart as I was then.....

As politely as possible,
So are you suggesting that James and I wait to state opinions for another 25 years, when we turn 40 and our opinions instantaneously become worthy? Better yet, since we're just "teenagers" are we even allowed to have opinions? I guess I should go check the penal code of California on "Opinions held by a Minor."

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[richardy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NARguy

OK. It's time to lock this one and move on. Bergie?

Relax, it's just a little inside fun between some of us. Now let's get back to the debate.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NARguy

OK. It's time to lock this one and move on. Bergie?

What? just a joke....[:I]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NARguy

OK. It's time to lock this one and move on. Bergie?

Lock it? why, no one is being nasty.... Such a control fixation for somone having only 18 posts...[:D]

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

Let me see if I am following this:

As a railfan, I need to be sure Millie is packed with a camera, no film, peek in no windows, except bathroom ones and only with one eye, carry an unarmed armament, a bible and be sure my lawyer is with me at all times!

I think I got it - and just in time for this weekend's train watching!

Mook

Is Millie the name of your car?

Yes - we have two - and rather than say old or new - I just named her. It is a Buick Century - hence the name Millenium "Millie".....

Our *middle* cat would be proud!

[Anonymous]

OK. It's time to lock this one and move on. Bergie?

[Anonymous]

[:D][:D][^][^][8D][:)][:)][:P][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

You remember!!!!

[richardy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by rgroeling

I am just wondering, why do some railroaders (not all of them, some) get so mad when you take pics of their train..

Maybe they are ashamed, because they have lowest seniority and always get stuck with the creaky old EMD's cause the senior guys always grab the GE's for themselves?... [}:)]

But, my personal bet is that they are not mad about the photos, they are mad about the snotty, defiant attitudes of the photographer telling them what the score is.

Okay CN Guy.[|)]

[Anonymous]

But I like creaky old EMDs... I think they are cool

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rgroeling

I am just wondering, why do some railroaders (not all of them, some) get so mad when you take pics of their train..

Maybe they are ashamed, because they have lowest seniority and always get stuck with the creaky old EMD's cause the senior guys always grab the GE's for themselves?... [}:)]

But, my personal bet is that they are not mad about the photos, they are mad about the snotty, defiant attitudes of the photographer telling them what the score is.

[Anonymous]

I am just wondering, why do some railroaders (not all of them, some) get so mad when you take pics of their train.. Wouldn't it be nice to know that someone takes such an interest in what you are doing that they want to photogrpah it...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Don't you need a restraining order of some sort in order to enforce no photography rules of private property from public property? Also, if you are to pleed that you are immune some how of being prosecuted for taking pictures, don't you have to be a licenced journalist/ press in order for that excuse to work?

No on all counts.

LC

[Junctionfan]

Don't you need a restraining order of some sort in order to enforce no photography rules of private property from public property? Also, if you are to pleed that you are immune some how of being prosecuted for taking pictures, don't you have to be a licenced journalist/ press in order for that excuse to work?

[chad thomas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

I prefer the Book of Armaments 1:1....

If thou cannot reason with thy foe, use all reasonable means and then some, to smite him into the ground.

Think I saw in the footnotes a referral to "A Smith & Wesson trumps four aces"....I am so-ooooo not worthy! Kudos Dan!

[bow][bow][bow]

Well then, Deal me in on that hand. My .44's ready to rock and roll. It doesn't get much excerscise now that I'm livin in the city.[;)]

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

I prefer the Book of Armaments 1:1....

If thou cannot reason with thy foe, use all reasonable means and then some, to smite him into the ground.

Think I saw in the footnotes a referral to "A Smith & Wesson trumps four aces"....I am so-ooooo not worthy! Kudos Dan!

[bow][bow][bow]

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear
So think about that the next time you want to take a photo of a railroad employee.

LC

The amazing thing about this conversation is that the ones bellyaching the most defiantly are also the ones to have had unpleasant encounters with the railroads,

Coincidence? I suspect not... [;)]

and teens for the most part.....oh to be half as smart as I was then.....

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Dear LimitedClear,
The first ammendment also, by default replies to state and local laws.

Of course, you are right, common sense should always be followed.

PEOPLE, ALWAYS BE CALM, POLITE, and USE COMMON SENSE.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

How does the First Amendment apply to you taking pictures of a train or railroad employees? All it says is what the government cannot do.....I don't see where it says anything about your right to take a picture, unless you are construing the freedom of speech or press to that end.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


As far as military bases go. Most will have a sign on the fence that says photography not permitted. Ergo, not allowed. Ignorance is not a defense.

Dan

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Dear LimitedClear,
Please take a look at this:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Most sincerely,
Daniel Parks

READ IT CAREFULLY. NOTHING IN THIS DOCUMENT CONFLICTS WITH WHAT I HAVE ALREADY SAID.

LC

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

Let me see if I am following this:

As a railfan, I need to be sure Millie is packed with a camera, no film, peek in no windows, except bathroom ones and only with one eye, carry an unarmed armament, a bible and be sure my lawyer is with me at all times!

I think I got it - and just in time for this weekend's train watching!

Mook

Is Millie the name of your car?

Yes - we have two - and rather than say old or new - I just named her. It is a Buick Century - hence the name Millenium "Millie".....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

I prefer the Book of Armaments 1:1....

I sort of like the book of EMD Gearing Ratios 27:98 [:)][:D][8D].

[Anonymous]

Dear LimitedClear,
Please take a look at this:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Most sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

Dear LimitedClear,
The first ammendment also, by default replies to state and local laws.

Of course, you are right, common sense should always be followed.

PEOPLE, ALWAYS BE CALM, POLITE, and USE COMMON SENSE.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Dear LimitedClear,
Any pictures I take from public property are fair game. According to the supreme court, this includes military installations until I am asked not to. Everything else is A-okay. It is the responsibility of the citizen to not become a railroader if he or she does not want railfans taking pictures of him or her.

Sincerely and respectfully,
Daniel Parks

Mr. Parks -

What concerns me is not so much what you do, it is the impression you are leaving on other impressionable people on this forum who may follow your dangerously wrong and unlawful advice. I urge those of you out there to use the rules of reason, use the common sense you were given. Most times you will be within the law. I am not aware of any U.S. Supreme Court decision that gives any specific right to take pictures from any property. There is a great deal of law out there that restricts all manner of activities on private property and more law still that governs the privacy of individuals from both government and individual intrusion. Don't count on the First Amendment to shield you from everything. The First Amendment controls the behavior of the government ONLY, and does not affect the rights of individuals or companies that could result in some nasty wake up calls in civil or criminal court.

LC

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

Let me see if I am following this:

As a railfan, I need to be sure Millie is packed with a camera, no film, peek in no windows, except bathroom ones and only with one eye, carry an unarmed armament, a bible and be sure my lawyer is with me at all times!

I think I got it - and just in time for this weekend's train watching!

Mook

Is Millie the name of your car?

[chad thomas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Dear LimitedClear,
Any pictures I take from public property are fair game. According to the supreme court, this includes military installations until I am asked not to. Everything else is A-okay. It is the responsibility of the citizen to not become a railroader if he or she does not want railfans taking pictures of him or her.

Sincerely and respectfully,
Daniel Parks

OK, lets take this from a more realistic perspective.

Suppose some sleazey photographer sets up his camera in the middle of your front yard, and he's just banging away taking pictures, through your windows.

You go out and tell him to stop, and he tells you some line trying to convince you that it's "OK" for him to continue.

You tell him that it's NOT ok, you want him to stop, and point out that he is trespassing on your property, and you want him to leave.
He moves back 12 feet to the public sidewalk, sets the camera back up, thumbs his nose at you, and defiantly states that there is nothing you can do to stop him now, because he is within his rights.


Just how diplomatic are you going to fell the need to be in the face of such an antagonistic attitude? O mean think about it, here this guy is at your place, trying to convince you that he's in charge, and there's not a thing you can do about it. (that is what thhis thread is about, the response of the employee, not the debate of the laws as written)

I'll say this much, if some squirrely little dingus came up to my place with that kind of attitude, he'd have an awful embarrassing time explaining how his camera got shoved so far up where the sun don't shine... that's for sure [:D]

There might not be anything legal you can do when he steps off your property BUT there is nothing he can do about you turning the garden hose on him. Cameras and water don't mix very well. [:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Dear LimitedClear,
Any pictures I take from public property are fair game. According to the supreme court, this includes military installations until I am asked not to. Everything else is A-okay. It is the responsibility of the citizen to not become a railroader if he or she does not want railfans taking pictures of him or her.

Sincerely and respectfully,
Daniel Parks

OK, lets take this from a more realistic perspective.

Suppose some sleazey photographer sets up his camera in the middle of your front yard, and he's just banging away taking pictures, through your windows.

You go out and tell him to stop, and he tells you some line trying to convince you that it's "OK" for him to continue.

You tell him that it's NOT ok, you want him to stop, and point out that he is trespassing on your property, and you want him to leave.
He moves back 12 feet to the public sidewalk, sets the camera back up, thumbs his nose at you, and defiantly states that there is nothing you can do to stop him now, because he is within his rights.


Just how diplomatic are you going to feel the need to be in the face of such an antagonistic attitude? I mean think about it, here this guy is at your place, trying to convince you that he's in charge, and there's not a thing you can do about it. (that is what this thread is about, the response of the employee, not the debate of the laws as written)

I'll say this much, if some squirrely little dingus came up to my place with that kind of attitude, he'd have an awful embarrassing time explaining how his camera got shoved so far up where the sun don't shine... that's for sure [:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear
So think about that the next time you want to take a photo of a railroad employee.

LC

The amazing thing about this conversation is that the ones bellyaching the most defiantly are also the ones to have had unpleasant encounters with the railroads,

Coincidence? I suspect not... [;)]

[Anonymous]

Dear LimitedClear,
Any pictures I take from public property are fair game. According to the supreme court, this includes military installations until I am asked not to. Everything else is A-okay. It is the responsibility of the citizen to not become a railroader if he or she does not want railfans taking pictures of him or her.

Sincerely and respectfully,
Daniel Parks

[chad thomas]

[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D] Too funny Mookie [(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

[edblysard]

You forgot your GCOR, again![:D]

Ed

[Mookie]

Let me see if I am following this:

As a railfan, I need to be sure Millie is packed with a camera, no film, peek in no windows, except bathroom ones and only with one eye, carry an unarmed armament, a bible and be sure my lawyer is with me at all times!

I think I got it - and just in time for this weekend's train watching!

Mook

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Honest to goodness, this is the most purile topic I've ever been on.

Firstly, while we're all pretending to be lawyers, if I'm on public property, and there is a window, then whatever I can see through that window with my eyes is fair game to take a picture of while on on private property. Now, all you people are going to say I'm some sort of pervert for this bathroom thing. The point is that a crew in a locomotive cab has no more expectation of privacy through their FRA-glazed windows than a car driver on a freeway.

I would like to thank James for sticking up for me. I owe you one. I would also like to thank Ed, Mr. Hemphill and everyone else who has remained reasonable.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

No pretending going on here Dan. I've been an attorney for almost two decades, although I don't currently spend time practicing law much. I prefer running locomotives and related railroading. Oh, and for the record, a train crew does have a greater expectancy of privacy on private railroad property than someone on a public highway. Also, if you take my photo and use it without my permission you will find yourself on the receiving end of a civil suit which doesn't require that I have any expectation of privacy at all. So think about that the next time you want to take a photo of a railroad employee.

LC

[dharmon]

I prefer the Book of Armaments 1:1....

If thou cannot reason with thy foe, use all reasonable means and then some, to smite him into the ground.

[Anonymous]

You know the Bible verse thing reminds me of Linus from Peanuts, "We don't win very many ballgames, but we sure have some interesting discussions." as Charlie Brown says. Not that I mind a bit.

[Anonymous]

Dear Ed,
Please believe me that I was not refering to you as one who had flamed me. And yes, Matthew 7.3 is apt for me in this situation too.

Say, as long as we're trading Matthew verses, check out the last sentence of Mathhew 6:9. I've done a few things on this thread to make it applicable to me.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[edblysard]

Daniel,
First, I was not flaming you....
You assumed I was, though not the case at all.
I was offering an explaination in response to a statement you made that I though was incorrect.

LC seems to think I was offering advice, which I was not, just passing on the information given to me by my former employer as to what I could, and could not photograph and publish.
As it seems any advice I did offer turns out to be deemed worthless, then I will cease to pass any of it along, for fear of leading anyone afoul of the law.

As for Bible verses, I perfer Matthew 7.3 myself.

Ed

[richardy]

Proper spelling, grammer and punctuation.[sigh]

[Anonymous]

Okay,
You can flame me about the GCOR.
You can flame me about the law.
If you're going to flame me for what's following, then at least I've got some powerful backup [:)]:

To paraphrase:
The second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor. Anger is a sin.
Look in the first sections of the New Testament if you want the unabridged text.

[angel][angel][angel][angel][:D][^][8D][:)][:D][angel]

Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

Honest to goodness, this is the most purile topic I've ever been on.

Firstly, while we're all pretending to be lawyers, if I'm on public property, and there is a window, then whatever I can see through that window with my eyes is fair game to take a picture of while on on private property. Now, all you people are going to say I'm some sort of pervert for this bathroom thing. The point is that a crew in a locomotive cab has no more expectation of privacy through their FRA-glazed windows than a car driver on a freeway.

I would like to thank James for sticking up for me. I owe you one. I would also like to thank Ed, Mr. Hemphill and everyone else who has remained reasonable.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by glennbob


Using this ridiculous argument a peeping Tom could justify his crime.

[}:)]In my home town years ago a family was growing marajuana in there greenhouse in the back yard on a large peace of land the police looked across another persons property using bynoculars to see the actions of the pot growers when it went to court the judge threw out the case claiming the evidence was not in plane sight becouse the police had to use bynoculars to magnify what they were seeing or they could not have seen it;[:(] plus they did not get permission to look across other privetly owned land in gathering their information[:)]glennbob

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PigFarmer1

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Ahh, but allow me also to point out that if the bathroom has windows, and I take a picture of you in there through the window, because of the window, you don't have a reasonable expectation to privacy. Similarly with locomotive cabs, and houses (lawyers talk about "plainsight").

-Daniel Parks

Using this ridiculous argument a peeping Tom could justify his crime.

[}:)]In my home town years ago a family was growing marajuana in there greenhouse in the back yard on a large peace of land the police looked across another persons property using bynoculars to see the actions of the pot growers when it went to court the judge threw out the case claiming the evidence was not in plane sight becouse the police had to use bynoculars to magnify what they were seeing or they could not have seen it;[:(] plus they did not get permission to look across other privetly owned land in gathering their information[:)]glennbob

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Why after he clarifed it do you still misunderstand what he said? Do we need three posts after Ed has made it clear what he means? I think he meant, if someone gets a picture throught the window of a loco cab.

Not only did he NOT clarify anything, he used completely inapplicable and WRONG ideas to illustrate why some people will be spending a considerable time in jail if they follow his worthless advice. 'nuff said.

LC

[Anonymous]

No can't say that i have .been doing train spotting for years; everyone i meet loves trains ;maybe its my gray hair

[Anonymous]

Why after he clarifed it do you still misunderstand what he said? Do we need three posts after Ed has made it clear what he means? I think he meant, if someone gets a picture throught the window of a loco cab.

[PigFarmer1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Ahh, but allow me also to point out that if the bathroom has windows, and I take a picture of you in there through the window, because of the window, you don't have a reasonable expectation to privacy. Similarly with locomotive cabs, and houses (lawyers talk about "plainsight").

-Daniel Parks

Using this ridiculous argument a peeping Tom could justify his crime.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Ahh, but allow me also to point out that if the bathroom has windows, and I take a picture of you in there through the window, because of the window, you don't have a reasonable expectation to privacy. Similarly with locomotive cabs, and houses (lawyers talk about "plainsight").

-Daniel Parks

The foregoing shows a shocking lack of understanding of the law. There are some places you ALWAYS have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Just because there is a window there doesn't give you the right to look in. The "Plain View" Doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with the Right to Privacy. "Plain View" deals solely with the Fourth Amendment determinations concerning search and siezure by police without a warrant. I'd suggest you spend some time reading on the law before jumping to such silly conclusions...

LC

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Ahh, but allow me also to point out that if the bathroom has windows, and I take a picture of you in there through the window, because of the window, you don't have a reasonable expectation to privacy. Similarly with locomotive cabs, and houses (lawyers talk about "plainsight").

-Daniel Parks

Nice try..plain sight refers to search and seizure and rules of evidence (ie fruit of the forbidden tree), not invasion of privacy or in this case, potential to drift into the area of stalking, which is illegal in most states.

Dan

[edblysard]

James, their phone numbers are often listed on that railroads web page.

Daniel, I do have a reasonable right to expect privacy in a restroom or bathroom,even if it has windows, same as you have a reasonable right to expect privacy inside your home.

Ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Jordan,
Yes, we do have a GO stating just that.
It is for the PTRA, although I would guess most other railroads have something similar.
GN and GO, (General notices and General orders) are issued under the name and signature of our Superintendent.
This one makes no distinction between a photographers being on property or not...it says "All persons photographing ...."
Reason being the nature of a lot of our cargo and the specific location of our yards, smack dab in the middle of a bunch of refineries.
This GO does not make it illegal to take photos.
.It does require us to report anyone doing so.

The RR cops do have the right and duty to check out anyone taking pictures.

They don’t have the right to stop you from doing so legally, but they can check you out.

They can not confiscate your camera or film, (you own both the film and, depending on what you were taking photos of, the images on it) with out a court order, which they can not get unless your were breaking the law while taking said photos.

If you were trespassing when taking the photos, they still have to get a court order, they can’t just grab your camera and remove and destroy the film.
Our legal system still operates under the presumption of innocence; they have to prove criminal intent on your part…which is why most of them just ask you to leave.
If you persist, or argue, they can issue you a citation, and depending on your actions from that point on, arrest you if you fail to comply with their instruction to leave.


Lotus,
It might not hurt to ask a yardmaster or a trainmaster for permission, (see above) most wouldn’t mind, some might give you even more access that you expect.

As for your right to photograph, a lot depends on the venue the photograph is taken in... a “public” or a "private" setting, and ownership of the image and ownership of the contents in the image.

Believe it or not, you "own" the right to your face and any images of it!

Let’s say you and a friend are out shooting photos and you friend takes a nice shot of you against a great backdrop...your face is clearly seen and easy to identify...

If your friend publishes that photo in a travel magazine, on the web, or in any way "sells" that image and they did not get your written permission to do so, they have broken the law.
That would be a photo taken in a private venue, the image of your face is your property,(the film is theirs) to sell or not sell.
If you signed a photographers waiver, then you assigned the right to that image, and that image only, to the person taking the photo, they now own that image of your face and are free to do with it as they please, and use it in any manner they like, unless otherwise specified in the waiver.

Same place, same photographer, but instead you are part of a group walking miles to raise funds for your favorite charity....now, because you are appearing in public for the express intention of being noticed, (you are performing in public for a fee and to attract attention to the charity) and because you have associated yourself with a group with the same purpose, you no longer own exclusive rights to any image of your face taken in that setting only.
That would be a public venue, and an instance where you are performing in public and should expect to be photographed, by both private citizens and professional photographers.

Ever notice that the photographs in Trains magazine rarely include the face of the crew, and the few times it does, you can’t really identify them?

And those photos that do show them clearly, or anyone else for that matter, are sure to have a photographer’s waiver and permission to publish, in writing, somewhere in Kalambach's files.

The courts have ruled that some jobs or professions, by their very nature, encourage photography, and those people who hold said jobs can not expect a right to private ownership of their face...one that comes to mind easily would be the President of the US, and his family.
Because he accepted, in fact, sought out such a high profile job, one that involves numerous public appearances, he has, according to the courts, given up exclusive ownership to his image.
In other words, the face of the President belongs to us, the people of the United States...

Same thing applies to performers, rock bands, and comedians on stage, any person who puts themselves in a public venue, if their job requires public appearance, then you have the right to photograph them, and do as you wish with the image.

I, on the other hand, am a private citizen, do not put myself in a public venue, and have a right to expect my privacy not to be intruded upon.
I still own my face, because I do not place myself in a public venue for the express purpose of being noticed.
Because I perform my job on private property, you do not have the right to take my photo, and publish it anywhere in any form with out my written permission.

Take my profile photo...I own it.
It is here for the express use on this forum only; no one may copy it and use it anywhere else, with out my permission.
You might assume this is a public venue, after all, its a forum open to the public, but in fact, it is not...this is a semi-private venue, open to those that join, and any images used here are for the express use of the members only, i.e. the photo is there only for the enjoyment (or not) of the members of Trains.com.

Now take railroads....because it is impossible to erect walls around them, they appear to be a public venue, but they are not, they are private property.
The courts have ruled that, because the railroads paint their name or logo on the locomotives, they are engaged in a form of advertising, in that they want you, the general public, to notice their locomotives and railcars, and have applied those logos in an attempt to attract your attention...there by placing those items in a public venue.

The courts, in an attempt to protect my right to privacy, have ruled that my actions can determine whether I am in a public or private venue.

If I am sitting in the locomotive, minding my own business and performing my job, or if I am walking down a switching lead or in an industry, going about my normal daily duties as a conductor on private property, I am considered to be in a private venue.

On the other hand, if I step out on the front porch of the locomotive, and wave at you as we go by, then I am intentionally placing myself in a public venue, and you can take all the photos you want.
You can’t publish or sell them, unless I give you permission to do so, but you can take said photos for your own private collection and enjoyment.

Ever notice a photo credit line that states,”From the private collection of….”
Rarely will you see a face in those photos, and if you do, bet on the photographer having had to find the person and obtain a waiver.

The courts have even ruled that how you, the photographer, present yourself can determine if a photo is one intended for public consumption or not.
If you go about dressed in everyday clothes, as a private citizen, and carry a camera taking photos, then you are considered to be taking photos for your” private collection”.

If, on the other hand, you are employed by ABC news, and are wearing id or a ABC News tee shirt or in any way presenting your self as a professional photographer, you have three cameras slung on your shoulder, carring a battery pack and a camera junk bag, in other words, it is obvious that you take photos for a living, then you are considered to be a public or professional photographer, and anyone who places them selves in a position to be photographed by you should expect such photos to be used in a public manner, with written their permission.
Most professional photographers have two collections of photos…those taken in the course of their job, or their public collection, and those taken for their personal enjoyment only…private photos of places, people and such, never intended for publication.
Your collection of train photos is a private collection, unless you took the photo with the express intend of publishing it, which then requires you to obtain permission from those persons that appear and can be identified from that image, which then places the photo in a public collection.

Because wabash is performing his normal duties as a private employee on private property, he has the right to have his privacy to be respected.
As long as he does not place himself in a public venue, or through his actions give you permission, you don’t have the right to take his photograph and use it in any manner, unless you get his permission in writing to do so, which seems very unlikely!

Ed

[bow][bow][bow][bow][bow]Once again Ed shows his wisdom.[bow][bow][bow][bow][bow]
How would I find a yardmaster's number.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NARguy

If you come north to Canada, don't make me "unite to protect the company's interests" and have your***hauled off the property in the back of a police car. I will truly enjoy it.

CN and CP both expect us to turn in any and all trespassers. "Access to the workplace" comes to mind, and YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY!

Obviously there is some kind of attitude problem going on here if you get your kicks from turning in railroaders while they are doing their jobs.

I suspect that particular GCOR rule is meant to cover passenger service, not some poor bloke pounding the lead in freight only territory.

Stay away from my rail yard, and don't tell a railroader how to do his job.

You better simer down. What did I say to make you think that, I just like pictures of train, did Otto Perry have any problems with this?

[Anonymous]

Let me expoain the "rights" here.
I cann't trespass
I can take the picture with you in it.
I cann't sell the picture without your permission.
I can take pictures form a public road.

You have no right to take my camera or film it is stealing.
You have no right to stop me from takeing your picture, just fom using your name.

[Anonymous]

Ahh, but allow me also to point out that if the bathroom has windows, and I take a picture of you in there through the window, because of the window, you don't have a reasonable expectation to privacy. Similarly with locomotive cabs, and houses (lawyers talk about "plainsight").

-Daniel Parks

[edblysard]

I have a good collection of...well, work related magazines in there for just such times![:D]

As Mark stated, it is the reasonable expectation of privacy that is the lynch pin

Ed

[jeaton]

So Ed, if you don't want your picture taken stay in the rest room.[}:)][}:)][(-D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard


Yes, we do have a GO stating just that.
It is for the PTRA, although I would guess most other railroads have something similar.
GN and GO, (General notices and General orders) are issued under the name and signature of our Superintendent.
This one makes no distinction between a photographers being on property or not...it says "All persons photographing ...."
Reason being the nature of a lot of our cargo and the specific location of our yards, smack dab in the middle of a bunch of refineries.
This GO does not make it illegal to take photos.
.It does require us to report anyone doing so.

Yanno Ed, I hate to admit it when I am wrong, but...you were right about the orkin man (being needed)

Normally I'm real big on free expression of opinion. But what you are being forced to argue here is not a rail roading issue at all. But rather you are having to mediate someones beef with the way the world spins, as opposed to their personal preferances.

And after weeks and weeks of seeing it over an over again, same emotions, just rooted in different topics...I have to agree with you. One reaches a point where....well...[:D]

[chad thomas]

....and explaining how he got a black eye for trying to get some poor unsuspecting railfans film.

[Anonymous]

Dear Chad,
Ahh, but the chainlink fence was a good reason to have a point-and-shoot around to slip through the links.

I can see wabash1 big-holing his intermodal, walking back the stopping distance to the railfan, and explaining to the dispatcher why his train stopped [:)][:D].

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[chad thomas]

These days it is getting more common for the fences on overpasses to have camera portholes so you can shoot the action without the chainlink in the way. It's always nice to have a railfan friendly overpass.

[Anonymous]

the BNSF in Galesburg, IL are in general, very courtious. ive been pitched out of a couple places, but they also tell you the next closest public road that you can shoot from. and a MAJOR plus, about 15 years ago or so, the state built a brand new highway overpass over the BNSF yard. its one of probably VERY few, if any, bridges in the country WITH fullsize shoulders! it HAD to be by request of the BN at the time, to give foamers a place to go, to keep them out of the yard. you can park and sit on the bridge all day, and never have a problem!
there is a private road along side of the yard, but aslong as you stay in the car, and smile and wave at anyone else on the road, weve never been kicked out, we got booted once a few years back, because we were out of the car taking pictures of a BN fuel tender at the engine facility. but never agian since we learned to stay in the car.

[chad thomas]

Thanks for that excellent run-down Ed. That was a great post, and very informative. Might have to re-read it, mabee even save it.

When I am taking train pictures I am shooting the train, not the crew. I can understand Wabash's desire to not be photographed, but claiming he would climb down and tamper with my camera is just absurd. There are things in this world we just have to live with. I hate it when the neighbors people pull in the driveway and whale on the horn because they are too lazy to go to the door and knock, especially late at night and early in the morning. But what can I do, I mean realisticly nothing. Like I said there are certain things in this world we have to live with.
So I say to those whineing about having there picture taken GET OVER IT. Your picture is probably being taken many times a day without you even knowing it anyway. Convienience stores, traffic signals, freeway monitors and security cameras are everywhere these days and there is nothing you can do about that.[8D]

[edblysard]

Thanks, Brian...
As a younger man, I did the "portrait” studio thing far a short time...but its a hard business to be in, open any yellow pages and look at how many photographers there are!
Photography laws are not as convoluted as they seem, you, the photographer, own the film and the images it contains, and most of the time; the person being photographed owns the right to sell or publi***hat image.
The standard photographer's waiver and assignment of rights gives you, the photographer, the right to sell, on a limited basis, use of that image for a commercial purpose.
A lot depends on what or how the waiver is written; they can be very general or broad in terms, or quite specific, limiting the image to one particular use or purpose.

If you ever get your photograph taken at a studio, note they do not often give you the negatives, and with the advent of digital photography, the file or card.
Both of those belong to the photographer; the way they are used belongs to the subject.

On the other hand, if you place yourself in a position where being photographed is part and parcel of what you are doing, the courts say you have voluntarily given up your ownership of the use of your image...cops, firefighters on duty, politicians, Princes Harry and William and such are appearing in public as part of their "job" and are free game....
You, as a private citizen, sitting in your living room watching TV are not, even if you have a huge picture window that allows people to see inside.
You have a right to expect privacy inside your home and work place, if such places are private property, even if you take no steps yourself to ensure it...such as hanging curtains or installing blinds, prudent as both would be.

The President of the United States, when appearing in his official capacity as such, has no right to photographic privacy...GW Bush working on his ranch in Crawford, within the confines of that ranch, does.

Ed

[blhanel]

You know Ed, the more of your posts I read, the more respect I have for you. Awesome explanation there.

BTW, great profile shot! I'd add one of me to my profile, but I would be afraid of taking the website down.[;)]

[edblysard]

Jordan,
Yes, we do have a GO stating just that.
It is for the PTRA, although I would guess most other railroads have something similar.
GN and GO, (General notices and General orders) are issued under the name and signature of our Superintendent.
This one makes no distinction between a photographers being on property or not...it says "All persons photographing ...."
Reason being the nature of a lot of our cargo and the specific location of our yards, smack dab in the middle of a bunch of refineries.
This GO does not make it illegal to take photos.
.It does require us to report anyone doing so.

The RR cops do have the right and duty to check out anyone taking pictures.

They don’t have the right to stop you from doing so legally, but they can check you out.

They can not confiscate your camera or film, (you own both the film and, depending on what you were taking photos of, the images on it) with out a court order, which they can not get unless your were breaking the law while taking said photos.

If you were trespassing when taking the photos, they still have to get a court order, they can’t just grab your camera and remove and destroy the film.
Our legal system still operates under the presumption of innocence; they have to prove criminal intent on your part…which is why most of them just ask you to leave.
If you persist, or argue, they can issue you a citation, and depending on your actions from that point on, arrest you if you fail to comply with their instruction to leave.


Lotus,
It might not hurt to ask a yardmaster or a trainmaster for permission, (see above) most wouldn’t mind, some might give you even more access that you expect.

As for your right to photograph, a lot depends on the venue the photograph is taken in... a “public” or a "private" setting, and ownership of the image and ownership of the contents in the image.

Believe it or not, you "own" the right to your face and any images of it!

Let’s say you and a friend are out shooting photos and you friend takes a nice shot of you against a great backdrop...your face is clearly seen and easy to identify...

If your friend publishes that photo in a travel magazine, on the web, or in any way "sells" that image and they did not get your written permission to do so, they have broken the law.
That would be a photo taken in a private venue, the image of your face is your property,(the film is theirs) to sell or not sell.
If you signed a photographers waiver, then you assigned the right to that image, and that image only, to the person taking the photo, they now own that image of your face and are free to do with it as they please, and use it in any manner they like, unless otherwise specified in the waiver.

Same place, same photographer, but instead you are part of a group walking miles to raise funds for your favorite charity....now, because you are appearing in public for the express intention of being noticed, (you are performing in public for a fee and to attract attention to the charity) and because you have associated yourself with a group with the same purpose, you no longer own exclusive rights to any image of your face taken in that setting only.
That would be a public venue, and an instance where you are performing in public and should expect to be photographed, by both private citizens and professional photographers.

Ever notice that the photographs in Trains magazine rarely include the face of the crew, and the few times it does, you can’t really identify them?

And those photos that do show them clearly, or anyone else for that matter, are sure to have a photographer’s waiver and permission to publish, in writing, somewhere in Kalambach's files.

The courts have ruled that some jobs or professions, by their very nature, encourage photography, and those people who hold said jobs can not expect a right to private ownership of their face...one that comes to mind easily would be the President of the US, and his family.
Because he accepted, in fact, sought out such a high profile job, one that involves numerous public appearances, he has, according to the courts, given up exclusive ownership to his image.
In other words, the face of the President belongs to us, the people of the United States...

Same thing applies to performers, rock bands, and comedians on stage, any person who puts themselves in a public venue, if their job requires public appearance, then you have the right to photograph them, and do as you wish with the image.

I, on the other hand, am a private citizen, do not put myself in a public venue, and have a right to expect my privacy not to be intruded upon.
I still own my face, because I do not place myself in a public venue for the express purpose of being noticed.
Because I perform my job on private property, you do not have the right to take my photo, and publish it anywhere in any form with out my written permission.

Take my profile photo...I own it.
It is here for the express use on this forum only; no one may copy it and use it anywhere else, with out my permission.
You might assume this is a public venue, after all, its a forum open to the public, but in fact, it is not...this is a semi-private venue, open to those that join, and any images used here are for the express use of the members only, i.e. the photo is there only for the enjoyment (or not) of the members of Trains.com.

Now take railroads....because it is impossible to erect walls around them, they appear to be a public venue, but they are not, they are private property.
The courts have ruled that, because the railroads paint their name or logo on the locomotives, they are engaged in a form of advertising, in that they want you, the general public, to notice their locomotives and railcars, and have applied those logos in an attempt to attract your attention...there by placing those items in a public venue.

The courts, in an attempt to protect my right to privacy, have ruled that my actions can determine whether I am in a public or private venue.

If I am sitting in the locomotive, minding my own business and performing my job, or if I am walking down a switching lead or in an industry, going about my normal daily duties as a conductor on private property, I am considered to be in a private venue.

On the other hand, if I step out on the front porch of the locomotive, and wave at you as we go by, then I am intentionally placing myself in a public venue, and you can take all the photos you want.
You can’t publish or sell them, unless I give you permission to do so, but you can take said photos for your own private collection and enjoyment.

Ever notice a photo credit line that states,”From the private collection of….”
Rarely will you see a face in those photos, and if you do, bet on the photographer having had to find the person and obtain a waiver.

The courts have even ruled that how you, the photographer, present yourself can determine if a photo is one intended for public consumption or not.
If you go about dressed in everyday clothes, as a private citizen, and carry a camera taking photos, then you are considered to be taking photos for your” private collection”.

If, on the other hand, you are employed by ABC news, and are wearing id or a ABC News tee shirt or in any way presenting your self as a professional photographer, you have three cameras slung on your shoulder, carring a battery pack and a camera junk bag, in other words, it is obvious that you take photos for a living, then you are considered to be a public or professional photographer, and anyone who places them selves in a position to be photographed by you should expect such photos to be used in a public manner, with written their permission.
Most professional photographers have two collections of photos…those taken in the course of their job, or their public collection, and those taken for their personal enjoyment only…private photos of places, people and such, never intended for publication.
Your collection of train photos is a private collection, unless you took the photo with the express intend of publishing it, which then requires you to obtain permission from those persons that appear and can be identified from that image, which then places the photo in a public collection.

Because wabash is performing his normal duties as a private employee on private property, he has the right to have his privacy to be respected.
As long as he does not place himself in a public venue, or through his actions give you permission, you don’t have the right to take his photograph and use it in any manner, unless you get his permission in writing to do so, which seems very unlikely!

Ed

[Anonymous]

If you come north to Canada, don't make me "unite to protect the company's interests" and have your***hauled off the property in the back of a police car. I will truly enjoy it.

CN and CP both expect us to turn in any and all trespassers. "Access to the workplace" comes to mind, and YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY!

Obviously there is some kind of attitude problem going on here if you get your kicks from turning in railroaders while they are doing their jobs.

I suspect that particular GCOR rule is meant to cover passenger service, not some poor bloke pounding the lead in freight only territory.

Stay away from my rail yard, and don't tell a railroader how to do his job.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Originally posted by wabash1

train junky

you also must remeber that where i work we dont use the gcor . you can wave at me what you like if you take a pic of me with out my permission your gonna lose either film or a camera. then go and report me. wont mean anything to me or my boss. I am not scared and i do work for the NS. In other words you show respect and most railroaders will show it back to you. but come off like you are god and wave rules that dont even apply or taken out of text . and tell them you have the right to do as you want . lets just say i hope you grow up before that happens .

YOu make it sound as if I need permission even if I am not on railroad property! We have a right to take the pictures, you have a right not be encroached upon. So unless a railfan is trespassing, they may take as many pictures as they want.

Lotus -

I am always amused when someone says they have the "right to take pictures". Please show me where that right is published in the law. It isn't in the U.S. Constitution, nor is it in the Constitution of any state that I am aware of. Also, such a right is not granted by staute.

The simple fact is that you have a qualified right to take photographs given to you under the First Amendment. Notice I said qualified. Our rights to free speech are delineated by the Supreme Court depending upon the type of forum involved and the type of speech.

For example a public forum such as a street corner or public park is held to have the least restriction while military bases, and industries (Such as Railroads) are held to be private forums where speech can be completely restricted. Other areas such as shopping malls and commercial areas are deemed semi-public forums and have a middle level of restriction.

Also, the type of speech is subject to analysis. For example, dangerous speech such as that which incites violence can be completely restricted (note that there are even more restrictions on speech of this type since 9-11). More customary speech is less restricted and political speech is particularly protected.

So, as you can see, you don't have an absolute right to take photos on even public property. I haven't even gotten into the possibilities of civil lawsuits based upon use of photos of people without their permission which is a completely separate area of the law concerning individual privacy.

It is always better to use courtesy and caution, than it is to assert a "right" which in fact is not absolute.

LC

So, should I go and bug the yardmaster before I take some shots of his crew boarding a train, or stop a train to ask the engineer? No, I do not see a restricted right to take pictures from public property. Basically I can encroach upon the railroads by trespassing, just as I can encroach on someone by disturbing the peace, which means we don't have total free speech, you can't yell fire in a crowded room. Now show me the law that enables some jerk to decide he doesn't want to be in my picture. Why can he encroach on me and take my film? The only reason we don't have total free speech is that it encroaches on someone else’s rights, or may be dangerous to our people; other than that I can say anything I want.

[adrianspeeder]

This thread is a good one...



Adrianspeeder

[Jordan6]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Chris...
Dont blink!

Daniel...
You forgot the beginning of that section of the GCOR....


1.6 Conduct
Employees must not be:

Careless of the safety of themselves or others
Negligent
Insubordinate
Dishonest
Immoral
Quarrelsome
or
Discourteous


Seems you left out the first few lines, most importantly the one about safety of themselves, and others...you fall into the "others" category.

Negligent...means I can’t turn a blind eye to your trespassing.

Insubordinate...I have a standing General Order to report any trespasser, any person acting suspicious, and any person taking photos of railroad equipment, tracks, bridges, structures and employees...guess I have no choice but to report you now, wouldn’t want to violate the GCOR and be insubordinate and ignore a General Order, would I...

Ed[:D]

You seriously have a general order that says we have to report people taking photos of equipment and stuff?!! Is that a system or division general order? what number?

[Anonymous]

Hmm! I would like to see you jump off the end of a train and stop me! Why can't I take pictures? I do have that right. Since, nobody has the right to steal my camera, or film.

[wabash1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Originally posted by wabash1

train junky

you also must remeber that where i work we dont use the gcor . you can wave at me what you like if you take a pic of me with out my permission your gonna lose either film or a camera. then go and report me. wont mean anything to me or my boss. I am not scared and i do work for the NS. In other words you show respect and most railroaders will show it back to you. but come off like you are god and wave rules that dont even apply or taken out of text . and tell them you have the right to do as you want . lets just say i hope you grow up before that happens .

YOu make it sound as if I need permission even if I am not on railroad property! We have a right to take the pictures, you have a right not be encroached upon. So unless a railfan is trespassing, they may take as many pictures as they want.

I will say this you dont need my permission to take pictures but if my picture is taken by your camera then i will go to the extra trouble and get the camera or the film. Trust me i will win.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by exPalaceDog

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainboyH16-44

Remember, ALWAYS wave to the engineer, up here I always get a nice friendly wave back, once he opened the window in -20 just to wave at me! I love Canada....
Matthew

You might want to think twice about that advice. It is hard for an engineer to know whether someone is trying to wave or trying to throw a rock at the engine.

Have fun

I suppose it depends on the way the arm goes. If the arm goes from side to side-that is a wave, if the arm moves fast toward the engineer's direction-might be an airborne object enroute.[:D]

[Anonymous]

John, do you ever still come down here to railfan? If so, have we met? I live in Schulenburg and do all of my railfanning in Flatonia.

Oh, and for the record, no, I've never had a bad railfan-railroader experience. I stay on my side of the road.

mike

[AztecEagle]

I used to live in Flatonia,Texas,and I was Railfanning at least a good 10 Years before trains Magazine discovered it.One Friday Night,I walked up to the Tower because I had the feeling that a Northbound Train was coming on the Shiner Branch.I sat down at side facing the Tracks when some Petty Official comes out and tells me "BOY!!(I was 29 at the time!!)YOU GET THE HELL OUTA HERE!!YOU AIN'T GOT NO D@MN BIDNESS AT THIS TOWER!!GIT ON OUTA HERE OR I'M CALLING THE COPS!!".So,I started walking towards the West and the side road that ran by it when he comes out again "I JUST CALLED THE COPS!!THEY'LL BE HERE IN ABOUT FIVE MINUTES!!",so I turned around and walked back towards town.Of course,the Cops never showed up.For the most part,the Crews at Tower 3 in Flatonia were usually friendly.In fact,I used to drink Beer with two retired Towermen pretty regullary.

[exPalaceDog]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainboyH16-44

Remember, ALWAYS wave to the engineer, up here I always get a nice friendly wave back, once he opened the window in -20 just to wave at me! I love Canada....
Matthew

You might want to think twice about that advice. It is hard for an engineer to know whether someone is trying to wave or trying to throw a rock at the engine.

Have fun

[trainboyH16-44]

Remember, ALWAYS wave to the engineer, up here I always get a nice friendly wave back, once he opened the window in -20 just to wave at me! I love Canada....
Matthew

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

The most rude experience I have had with a railfan was in 1979 at Edelstein Hill, just west of Chilicothe, Il. on the ATSF.

The TPW was hosting 765 the Nickle Plate Berkshire for weekend trips. A carload of buddies drove to Peoria and during a lull we drove to Edelstein.

A very well know railfan, tons of pictures published over the years was there...and let everyone know who he was. He then proceeded to take out a saw and cut down a small tree (3" diameter) that was in his view.

Is it any wonder that that area is now fenced off and posted "No Trespassing"?

Can you believe the nerve of the owners? Keeping railfans off of their property? Tisk, Tisk.

ed

Hullihan's(sp?) Curve? a few more "bad" railfans finally broke the straw there 5-10 years back. littering, yelling, scared the poor old lady that lives there, threatened her, spun thier tires when they left, threw rocks all over her house.... The fence was up within a week. IIRC

there went one of the best shots in Chilli-Edelstien

[Anonymous]

MMM! Just reading this makes me think that you all need to take a chill pill (or MAYBE A WHOLE BOTTLE).
I am a railroader and a fan too!!!!!
The last thing that a Railroader wants is to have some foamer throwing qoutes from the GCOR in their face, are you just trying to make a bad situation worse? I can't believe that fans are thinking that they'd take copies along with them on shoots. Like Wabash1 I don't worlk under GCOR (they don't exist "down under").
Don't you need to get a signed disclaimer from a person before you publish a photo (I don't know US law), regardless of whether you are on Public or Private property? How can a Engineer tell whether you are taking a photo for your own collection or are going to submit it to a mag like trains.
WE don't have Railway Police in AUS...Train crews call Control (Dispatcher) and they call out the real police. And they don't like wasting their time. Believe me on that one...I found out the hard way at 17.
We all can remember a bad experience with Railroaders, but did you ever stop to think that they might have had one in return. Just south of Sydney (50 miles) lies a small town called Picton. A heritage listed station, beautiful box with Armstrong levers (some signals are still semaphores...in 2005). The point to all this was that nearly ten years ago a tour was being run to welcome a diesel back into service (after restoration {A GE / ALCO cab unit) and the train was pulled into the siding to let a ten wheeler take on water. People where just walking over both main tracks and when the tower operator asked several people to get back up on the platform, they told him to "Get F#@---". Nowadays Railfans aren't allowed within a mile of the place.
Can't everybody just get along?

[Anonymous]

People, people, we need to take a chill pill!

I posted some verbatim quotes from the General Code of Operating Rules primarily for the railfans of this forum to see (the railroaders already know their rules). I get flamed, broiled, and served in a delightful hollandaise sauce with seasonal veggies for doing so, then railroaders complain about railfans, railfans complain about railfans, railfans argue about constitutional rights, railroaders complain about railfans exercising constitutional rights, and enough flaming goes on to heat my house through winter (I live in southern California)!

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

Well here's my awful RR employee story:

This RR guy comes to pick me up at my house at like 9 AM to show me around the yard and areas he works, pet a locomotive and meet the folks he works with, have lunch and even go see thye circus train......Can you believe that...9AM!!! The nerve.....

Dan

You mean he left out the fuel rack and the sand station? How could he? [;)]

[CopCarSS]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nikoncraig

Chris,
I read your experience at Galesburg and the fellow that had to get that "perfect" shot, well you may have run into those, " PROFESSIONAL RAILFANS."
Craig S. Cloud

Craig...I'm sure he was. With the exception of myself, I don't know many amateur railfans that shoot medium format. I tried looking around the magazines right after that trying to determine who he was, or who he was shooting for. I never saw the shot that spoiled everyone elses picture, so I never was able to figure it out.

To me, professionalism goes beyond having a press pass, a big camera and a big name. I shoot a lot of high school basketball out here, and I try to be aware of staying out of other people's shots as much as possible. The same holds true when I shot the Women's US Open down at Cherry Hills this year. I went on practice days when anyone could and did bring their cameras. Here again, wven though I was shooting with a 300mm f2.8 L IS (not the biggest in Canon's****nal, but enough to attract attention) I still did my best to avoid being in photos.

Professionalism, especially in a specialty hobby, means at least a modicum of courtesy. Railfans are a fairly tight knit bunch. I'm sure some people knew who this turkey was at Galesburg, and probably had a lot of the same feelings I did. He literally messed up 100s of peoples' photos. I usually don't hold grudges, but this one still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Thanks for the comments, and [#welcome] to the forum! Stop by the Diner and I'll buy you a cup of coffee, even if you do use that "other" camera brand! [:D][:p][}:)]

[Anonymous]

Chris,
I read your experience at Galesburg and the fellow that had to get that "perfect" shot, well you may have run into those, " PROFESSIONAL RAILFANS."
Craig S. Cloud

[BudKarr]

I suspect that I am not necessarily clued in regarding the term "railfan." I have encountered all sorts of personalities in my rail travels, worldwide. Whether they fit in the category mentioned, I do not know.

There have been a few who risk personal encounters through absolute rude behavior either on the platform or on board the train. They seemingly have to always push ahead - rush for the seats - or talk over the sounds of the traveling train. I consider those behaviors as rude.

Rail employees have had no reason to exhibit rudeness in my direction, although in Europe, there have been times when the Customs people were rather short on patience when some passengers fumbled for their identification. The language barrier never presented itself as a problem to me whether in Europe or Asia - the overwhelming number spoke a degree of English. Although it helped greatly if one tried to pose the question in the native tongue. That is always respected, even if using an English-foreign language dictionary.

BK

[edblysard]

Daniel,
First off,
It’s just Ed...Mr. Blysard was my Dad[:D]

Second, I took no offense, but was pointing out that the "rules" both GCOR and Norac, are a two edged sword...they can cut both ways.

James,
If you think about it, you do indeed need Wabash1s permission to take his photo, at least a photo you would want to show to people.
If he sees you, and decides to "ruin" your photo, he can and will, not because he is mean, but because he has a personal and professional reason for not wanting his photo taken.
His professional reason is valid, and if you ask him, I am sure he will explain it...his personal reason is just that, personal.
But in the end, don’t you think it is better to have the cooperation of the people your photographing, instead of standing on your supposed "rights" and getting into an argument, which will guarantee that the rest of your photo will have to be clandestine?
After all, what if someone took your photograph, and you were unaware of it...and were picking your nose when they snapped your photo...you go home, log on to the computer, check out your favorite web site, and ta- da, there you are, in all your glory, pointing at your brain!


Daniel, just to give you something to think about...most of the "rules" don’t tell us what we have to do, they tell us what we cant do...the rest is up to us...

It doesn’t tell me how close to a main line switch I can get with my locomotive when I am in a siding...it tells me I cant foul the main....how close that is, well, that’s is up to me to decide....

It doesn’t tell me I have to be polite...it says I can’t be....

I can assume you have a current copy of the GCOR and Norac?

If not, look here...



http://www.railroadcontrols.com/gcor/
GCOR
http://thebecketts.com/images/NORAC%208th%20Edition%20NJT.pdf
Norac

Ed

[Anonymous]

Rights, Freedoms and Privledges: three words that have over the years been the sourse of either the greatest joy or the greatest heartbreak to those that love and practice them. I hope someone is listening --PL

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Originally posted by wabash1

train junky

you also must remeber that where i work we dont use the gcor . you can wave at me what you like if you take a pic of me with out my permission your gonna lose either film or a camera. then go and report me. wont mean anything to me or my boss. I am not scared and i do work for the NS. In other words you show respect and most railroaders will show it back to you. but come off like you are god and wave rules that dont even apply or taken out of text . and tell them you have the right to do as you want . lets just say i hope you grow up before that happens .

YOu make it sound as if I need permission even if I am not on railroad property! We have a right to take the pictures, you have a right not be encroached upon. So unless a railfan is trespassing, they may take as many pictures as they want.

Lotus -

I am always amused when someone says they have the "right to take pictures". Please show me where that right is published in the law. It isn't in the U.S. Constitution, nor is it in the Constitution of any state that I am aware of. Also, such a right is not granted by staute.

The simple fact is that you have a qualified right to take photographs given to you under the First Amendment. Notice I said qualified. Our rights to free speech are delineated by the Supreme Court depending upon the type of forum involved and the type of speech.

For example a public forum such as a street corner or public park is held to have the least restriction while military bases, and industries (Such as Railroads) are held to be private forums where speech can be completely restricted. Other areas such as shopping malls and commercial areas are deemed semi-public forums and have a middle level of restriction.

Also, the type of speech is subject to analysis. For example, dangerous speech such as that which incites violence can be completely restricted (note that there are even more restrictions on speech of this type since 9-11). More customary speech is less restricted and political speech is particularly protected.

So, as you can see, you don't have an absolute right to take photos on even public property. I haven't even gotten into the possibilities of civil lawsuits based upon use of photos of people without their permission which is a completely separate area of the law concerning individual privacy.

It is always better to use courtesy and caution, than it is to assert a "right" which in fact is not absolute.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wabash1

train junky

you also must remeber that where i work we dont use the gcor . you can wave at me what you like if you take a pic of me with out my permission your gonna lose either film or a camera. then go and report me. wont mean anything to me or my boss. I am not scared and i do work for the NS. In other words you show respect and most railroaders will show it back to you. but come off like you are god and wave rules that dont even apply or taken out of text . and tell them you have the right to do as you want . lets just say i hope you grow up before that happens .

YOu make it sound as if I need permission even if I am not on railroad property! We have a right to take the pictures, you have a right not be encroached upon. So unless a railfan is trespassing, they may take as many pictures as they want.

[wabash1]

train junky

you also must remeber that where i work we dont use the gcor . you can wave at me what you like if you take a pic of me with out my permission your gonna lose either film or a camera. then go and report me. wont mean anything to me or my boss. I am not scared and i do work for the NS. In other words you show respect and most railroaders will show it back to you. but come off like you are god and wave rules that dont even apply or taken out of text . and tell them you have the right to do as you want . lets just say i hope you grow up before that happens .

[UPTRAIN]

Its people of any kind that over react that burn my hide, they really need to fricken grow up.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Chris...
Dont blink!

Daniel...
You forgot the beginning of that section of the GCOR....


1.6 Conduct
Employees must not be:

Careless of the safety of themselves or others
Negligent
Insubordinate
Dishonest
Immoral
Quarrelsome
or
Discourteous


Seems you left out the first few lines, most importantly the one about safety of themselves, and others...you fall into the "others" category.

Negligent...means I can’t turn a blind eye to your trespassing.

Insubordinate...I have a standing General Order to report any trespasser, any person acting suspicious, and any person taking photos of railroad equipment, tracks, bridges, structures and employees...guess I have no choice but to report you now, wouldn’t want to violate the GCOR and be insubordinate and ignore a General Order, would I...

Ed[:D]

Dear Mr. Blysard,
I am afraid that I must apologise for having posted in a hurry, and for not making my point clear.

I do not intend to suggest that anybody wave the GCOR in the face of a railroader. What I meant is that if a railfan is treated by a railroad employee in a manner not becoming of a professional of the company, to get his or her name and other pertinent information, and to write a letter either to the railroad or to a newspaper. The public does not know sections 1.3 and 1.6 of the General Code of Operating Rules, so if a letter is written to a newspaper about exceeding discourtesy, they should be made aware of such facts. Once again, I DO NOT mean that a railfan should talk back to a railroader by quoting GCOR.

If you were following your General Orders, and asked me to leave the property in a calm, professional manner, I will leave without hesitation. I understand that you have a job to do. You are a gentleman whose postings I have always respected, and if you will notice, in my topic, I said in the first line after "Hello everyone" that I was speaking of "mean employees."

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[Junctionfan]

Actually no; I do my best to not put myself in a position that they would care enough to come over. I tend err on the side of caution when it comes to areas I don't know is railroad property or not just because it is the wise thing to do.

As far as cameras go, I have had no problems. I have even taken pictures in a VIA train between St.Catharines and Toronto toward outside but I would imagine that is a norm-more so for folk on the Canadian or the Ocean though.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

Well here's my awful RR employee story:

This RR guy comes to pick me up at my house at like 9 AM to show me around the yard and areas he works, pet a locomotive and meet the folks he works with, have lunch and even go see thye circus train......Can you believe that...9AM!!! The nerve.....

Dan

No donuts? Who do these people think they are?

I'd give up railfanning altogether if I was you.
mike

[PBenham]

I have had too many encounters with rude RR employees, Ya can't make make a jerk friendly, I'm no angel but I was right approximately half the time. The paranoid attitude of RR Police and SOME employees is only going to get worse. The next successful terrorist attack can only cut into our freedom some more, that folks, means a victory for them. And they cannot be defeated until we allow citizens to go about their affairs unfettered by Paranoid JERKS!

[CopCarSS]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

The most rude experience I have had with a railfan was in 1979 at Edelstein Hill, just west of Chilicothe, Il. on the ATSF.

The TPW was hosting 765 the Nickle Plate Berkshire for weekend trips. A carload of buddies drove to Peoria and during a lull we drove to Edelstein.

A very well know railfan, tons of pictures published over the years was there...and let everyone know who he was. He then proceeded to take out a saw and cut down a small tree (3" diameter) that was in his view.

Is it any wonder that that area is now fenced off and posted "No Trespassing"?

Can you believe the nerve of the owners? Keeping railfans off of their property? Tisk, Tisk.

ed

Ed,

I remember a similar experience at Galesburg Railroad days one year. I'm not sure who the gentleman was, but I'm sure he was another of the "big" names. This was about 10 years ago, so I would've been 15 at the time. I was getting a picture of something, and the guy whistled at me, and then shooed me out of hi way. He was shooting Medium Format, and I generally try not to be be in other people's pix. I moved to a different spot, and he again did the same thing. I was a little perturbed, and went elsewhere.

Later in the evening, a shot was staged by the organizers with the Milw. Rd. 261, and the Zephyr from IRM (I think...this was awhile ago). This was a limited event, since it clogged up both mains in Galesburg. A half-circle photo line formed and all the railfans there were content to get their shots in the photo line...except this guy. He marches out in front of everyone's shot, and proceeds to take the only decent shots with the crews of the two special trains. He managed to perturb the whole railfan community present. Had I known who he was shooting for, I would have more than likely boycotted that magazine for a bit (my apologies to the Trains crowd if it was one of their's).

I still have issues with that day, and have tried to be vigilant of established Photo Lines and such ever since then. I avoid being in front of other camera's, even if it's a seven-year old with a one-time use camera, because I remember how it felt to be young and stepped on because of that fact.

Chris
Denver, CO

[MP173]

The most rude experience I have had with a railfan was in 1979 at Edelstein Hill, just west of Chilicothe, Il. on the ATSF.

The TPW was hosting 765 the Nickle Plate Berkshire for weekend trips. A carload of buddies drove to Peoria and during a lull we drove to Edelstein.

A very well know railfan, tons of pictures published over the years was there...and let everyone know who he was. He then proceeded to take out a saw and cut down a small tree (3" diameter) that was in his view.

Is it any wonder that that area is now fenced off and posted "No Trespassing"?

Can you believe the nerve of the owners? Keeping railfans off of their property? Tisk, Tisk.

ed

[CopCarSS]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan.

Ya,if I am on a public street out Railfanning and I don't care who it is that tell me to leave I will tell them to [censored] off. Allan.

Allan,

Couple things...

1) I have yet to have a railroader approach me to chase me off of public property. By the way your posts are reading, this is happening to you quite a bit. Where on earth do you railfan at? I think I'll not go there.

2) Have you ever heard of the art of schmoozing? The term may have a slight negative connotation to it, but it basically means approaching a situation with tact and grace to persuade another party to assist you. This relates somewhat to what Mookie and Ed touched on. Carrying a little tact into a conversation, even if you are in the "right" can work wonders. Immediately yelling expletives at and shoving a tiny part of a big document to a railroader probably won't do much to help your cause.

Schmoozing has allowed me to have good experiences at the DMV of all places. Keep in mind that even DMV employees are humans too, and they have a lot of crud that they have to deal with every day.

I think as railfans, the scales are already tipped in our favor, anyways. I would guess that a large majority of railroaders are railfans, even if they are closet ones. Why else would they choose to work in a tough industry with bad hours and a moderate level of on-the-job danger? Chances are that if you approach any potential problem situations with a little tact, a peaceful, mutually beneficial understanding and/or solution could be achieved.

Just a suggestion from a former youngster (who once upon a time shared your "In Your Face" attitude). Good luck trackside!

[DPD1]

I happen to be watching once while a derailment happened in a yard for a local shortline. It was pretty obvious to me they screwed up pretty bad. I was nowhere near being on their property when it happen. It was towards the back of the yard, which had a public city road running along the side of it. As I decided to leave, I figured I'd drive down that road to the back of the yard real fast, just to get a glance at the derailment. I took a quick look, then turned the car around to come back... Never even got out of the car. As I was driving back down the street, I see this guy in a pickup coming the opposite way, and with no warning, he abruptly turns into me head on and forces me to stop my car. I then realize it's a guy that works for the RR who I've seen before... Possibly their Trainmaster. He comes to the side of the car, and says "Do you need help?" or something to that effect. Which I thought was a funny thing to ask after being forced to stop by another vehicle. I said: "No... What are you doing man?" And just kind of looked at the guy like he was crazy. He looked at me for a few seconds, then stormed back into his truck and sped off. I knew that he knew his own guy had caused the derailment, so it wasn't an issue of security. I decided he simply was annoyed that someone was looking at their screw up. Being that I'm not a saint and have certainly lost my temper a few times in life, I decided to let it go. I think forcing someone off a public road because you don't like them looking at your business is a little off the deep end though.

Dave
-DPD Productions - Featuring the TrainTenna LP Gain RR Scanner Antenna-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/

[Anonymous]

Awwww, Ed. Why did you have to go bust this ding-a-ling's bubble with fact and reason. I think that I'll carry a copy of GCOR in my camera bag too.....Oh wait, I don't have a camera bag........I have a grip with a copy of GCOR in it. Oh well. This has gotta be in the top 5 stupid threads of all time!
Go ahead and fight fire with fire there Daniel. It'll go something like this......
-Hello T.M. XXXX
--Um, yes, I would like to report a rude employee
-O.K. Sir. Which company are you with? Was it a crew spotting your business?
--Well, um, no.....I'm a railfan.
-We're very sorry. I'll have a talk with them
Notice in this example the TM didn't bother asking what day, eng #, or what time. Why, because he won't give a rat's a**. Those guys are too busy chasing after us to care about this petty crap.

[Mookie]

Dan - be glad it was Ed and not Mookie - she would have had you out of bed at 4 am....

[CShaveRR]

Ed--

I've said it before:

You da man!

[dharmon]

Well here's my awful RR employee story:

This RR guy comes to pick me up at my house at like 9 AM to show me around the yard and areas he works, pet a locomotive and meet the folks he works with, have lunch and even go see thye circus train......Can you believe that...9AM!!! The nerve.....

Dan

[edblysard]

Chris...
Dont blink!

Daniel...
You forgot the beginning of that section of the GCOR....


1.6 Conduct
Employees must not be:

Careless of the safety of themselves or others
Negligent
Insubordinate
Dishonest
Immoral
Quarrelsome
or
Discourteous


Seems you left out the first few lines, most importantly the one about safety of themselves, and others...you fall into the "others" category.

Negligent...means I can’t turn a blind eye to your trespassing.

Insubordinate...I have a standing General Order to report any trespasser, any person acting suspicious, and any person taking photos of railroad equipment, tracks, bridges, structures and employees...guess I have no choice but to report you now, wouldn’t want to violate the GCOR and be insubordinate and ignore a General Order, would I...

Ed[:D]

[Chris_S68]

hehehe
I'd like to be there when a railfan attempts to instruct an employee on the GCOR.

[Mookie]

There are rude people in every business. It doesn't mean you have to be rude back.

I think most railroad people are like anyone else - you have happy ones and grumpy ones. Mostly happy as in most jobs. But if you go down the tracks and see people deliberately trying to and sometimes succeeding in killing themselves and trying to include you in it, or people shooting at you with rifles or vandalizing your freight cars, and add in just a tad of tresspassing - (cuz no one on this forum would deliberately tresspass!) it would make me a little grumpy, too.

These people aren't out there to be entertaining or program directors. They are there to make the railroad safe for employees and public alike. So cut them some slack and mind your p's and q's and check the attitude at the door.

Mook

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mustanggt

Back 2 years ago at north station I took a pic of an MBTA cab coach (to use as a detailing guide for a model which I sold off anyway) and got a "look" from a few Conductors.... They were real grouchy looks too. One of them said: "Put away the *** camera" ,so I did. And after I put it away they still gave me a dirty look. But you can't argue with these guys. They're just doing they're jobs to protect the station, even if they were a little rude.

But when someone tells you to put away your camera when your on public land is totaly wrong. Allan.

[Mookie]

I think the GCOR rule should apply to the public as well.

I also still think some railfans "cop a 'tude" and figure their presence with a camera should allow them to do as pleased.

I scared the daylights out of some poor maintenance worker, but even with a terrified look on his face, he still treated me with respect. (Yes I was on private property, but it wasn't railroad property and I only asked a question!)

So please don't think that a GCOR rule gives you the upper hand to treat property and people badly.

Don't be an "Ugly Railfan".....

[bbrant]

In 1994 I got some pics of a stopped CSX train in Pittsburgh. I stayed well away from the tracks when I was taking my pictures. For whatever reason when the train started to go the engineer was saying something to me. I can't read lips but I'm positive it wasn't a friendly "hello".

[mustanggt]

Back 2 years ago at north station I took a pic of an MBTA cab coach (to use as a detailing guide for a model which I sold off anyway) and got a "look" from a few Conductors.... They were real grouchy looks too. One of them said: "Put away the *** camera" ,so I did. And after I put it away they still gave me a dirty look. But you can't argue with these guys. They're just doing they're jobs to protect the station, even if they were a little rude.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Hello everyone.

I just wanted to remind those railfans that have had dealings with mean employees that you have one other recourse:

Employee discourteousy is a GCOR infraction:
1.6 Conduct
Employees must not be:

5. Immoral
6. Quarrelsome
or
7. Discourteous


1.9 Respect of Railroad Company
Employees must behave in such a way that the railroad will not be criticized for their actions.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

this is good to know and everyone should keep a copy in your camera bag when railfanning glennbob

[Anonymous]

NO, none comes to mind at this time.

[Anonymous]

Hello 06archerd if you read this you are paying attention to the forum and reading all the postings have fun railfanning[bow][bow]

[Anonymous]

What a good idea :i just made a print out of the GCOR infraction 1.6 Conduct ,and will keep a copy in my camera bag from know on>>>>[B)][angel][bow]glennbob

[Anonymous]

I like the GCOR infraction 1.6 the best hit em with their own rules..[^]

[Anonymous]

Ya,if I am on a public street out Railfanning and I don't care who it is that tell me to leave I will tell them to [censored] off. Allan.