Abandoned railways

[+Crafty Turtle]

There's an abandoned siding alongside a local active railway.

The siding is rusty, sleepers are worn, etc.

 

Right near the "loose" end of the siding, there a road crossing, and off to the side, a pedestrian crossing.

I cross here every day, and I have spotted a darling spot for a magnetic micro - underneath one of the rails, where the ballast has gone away. It is right at the pedestrian crossing, so it is in a spot where people are allowed to go. And if you want to get fussy, that particular spot is technically road, not railway. (Yes I did check the Land Office's plans)

 

What do you think?

Bad spot? Clever spot?

[+burtsbodgers]

Hi

I wouldn't.

i am sure it says somewhere in the regs that caches should not be placed within 100' of railway lines.

what you have to think about is, when someone is hunting they are distracted from many of the dangers that surround them. Also younger members of teams could wander, and bearing in mind that cachers gpsr's could give them a location 50' from where the cache is actually hidden. Would this put them in a dangerous area.

I would prefer that you treated locations like this the same as you would play parks, schools, hospitals etc.. leave them clear so as not to cause the game to be brought into disrepute with authorities.

I Believe you would also need written authorisation from the relevant authority, IE. the transport police

[Motorcycle_Mama]

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#offlimit

 

Off-Limit (Physical) Caches

 

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived. We also assume that your cache placement complies with all applicable laws. If an obvious legal issue is present, or is brought to our attention, your listing may be immediately archived.

 

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not exhaustive):

Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply.

 

If the cache location is within the prohibited distance of the remaining active tracks, then the cache likely would not be published.

 

If the cache location is beyond the prohibited distance, you would like need to provide clear evidence that the track are not in use. And you would likely need to provide evidence of permission from the land owner.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+Crafty Turtle]

Hmmm, yes. Very good points.

 

Technically, the spot is legal, in that is part of the pedestrian crossing, and on road reserve, not railway reserve. Then again, one would assume a pedestrian would walk directly from one side to the other, and not stop and be distracted by another activity. That point alone is enough for me to ax this spot.

 

I'll keep searching for a spot for my "cheeky" hide.

 

Thanks for your input.

[+StarBrand]

The real question here is not a question of "active" but rather if the spot is part of the railroad company's right-of-way. The whole issue with railroads is one of permission and private property.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

AND, though it may be a pedestrian crossing, the railroad still owns the right-of-way.

Usually, but not always, about the only way to use a rail grade is if the rails, ties etc. have been pulled. If the tracks and the like still exist there, one must assume the railway is owned/active.

[+Arrow42]

AND, though it may be a pedestrian crossing, the railroad still owns the right-of-way.

Usually, but not always, about the only way to use a rail grade is if the rails, ties etc. have been pulled. If the tracks and the like still exist there, one must assume the railway is owned/active.

 

In many areas there are "rails to trails" projects. As far as I know caches are permitted along those.

[+Cpl. Klinger]

usually in the case of rails-to-trails the track is torn out.

[Knight-Errant]

Sounds like there may be two issues involved.

 

1. Groundspeak's prohibition on caches within the 150 feet of an ACTIVE railway. In most situations the railway right of way (railway reserve) or land owned and controlled by the railway does NOT nearly extend the full 150 feet. The prohibition on caches within 150 feet of an ACTIVE railway is Groundspeak's margin of safety to attempt to reduce seaches for caches near ACTIVE railways (there could be a whole thread regarding the specifics of why and why that distance, but for now let's just leave it as that is Groundspeak's decision).

 

2. The ownership of the property near the railway (which may or may not be an active railway). However, this is usually only an issue for INACTIVE railways as the property around active railways are almost always included #1 above. If the railway is INACTIVE (and not likely to become active in the coming years), then it is just a question of who owns the property (which may or may not be a railway company). However, if it is a rails to trails situation, it is usually the city or county that "owns" the property.

[+StarBrand]

Sounds like there may be two issues involved.

 

1. Groundspeak's prohibition on caches within the 150 feet of an ACTIVE railway. In most situations the railway right of way (railway reserve) or land owned and controlled by the railway does NOT nearly extend the full 150 feet. The prohibition on caches within 150 feet of an ACTIVE railway is Groundspeak's margin of safety to attempt to reduce seaches for caches near ACTIVE railways (there could be a whole thread regarding the specifics of why and why that distance, but for now let's just leave it as that is Groundspeak's decision).

 

2. The ownership of the property near the railway (which may or may not be an active railway). However, this is usually only an issue for INACTIVE railways as the property around active railways are almost always included #1 above. If the railway is INACTIVE (and not likely to become active in the coming years), then it is just a question of who owns the property (which may or may not be a railway company). However, if it is a rails to trails situation, it is usually the city or county that "owns" the property.

Number 1 is largely incorrect.

 

The issue is and has always been one of private property and tresspassing. Doesn't matter if the line is currently in use or not. From the RR point of view the issue of safety is a distant second to the issue about tresspassing.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

I've just put out 2 caches at disused railway stations, intended to become part of a greater series.

 

The caches are not on the tracks or anywhere on the actual property of the railway company (TfL/British Rail in this case) but actually at outside the locked entrances where the signpost and timetables are/were placed.

 

The only issue my reviewer had was one could be a potential flytip and put other geocachers off, but I said I'd monitor the site and it's close enough to the main road that it won't get nasty.

 

I find disused railways fascinating. There's also a different trail near me called the Ebury Way series, but this is now a cycle route and the tracks were torn out long ago.

 

I'd consider an offset cache if it was a dump or too near active tracks. In fact the next one for my series I'm probably going to make it offset due to the state of the area.

[+burtsbodgers]

I've just put out 2 caches at disused railway stations, intended to become part of a greater series.

 

The caches are not on the tracks or anywhere on the actual property of the railway company (TfL/British Rail in this case) but actually at outside the locked entrances where the signpost and timetables are/were placed.

 

The only issue my reviewer had was one could be a potential flytip and put other geocachers off, but I said I'd monitor the site and it's close enough to the main road that it won't get nasty.

 

I find disused railways fascinating. There's also a different trail near me called the Ebury Way series, but this is now a cycle route and the tracks were torn out long ago.

 

I'd consider an offset cache if it was a dump or too near active tracks. In fact the next one for my series I'm probably going to make it offset due to the state of the area.

Have you seen "Railway Walks" on the beeb Available on Iplayer.

This could be of interest as i think there are someting like 10,000 miles of disused railway lines in the UK

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

Have you seen "Railway Walks" on the beeb Available on Iplayer.

This could be of interest as i think there are someting like 10,000 miles of disused railway lines in the UK

 

No but now I shall definitely have to check that out!

[+larryc43230]

The only issue my reviewer had was one could be a potential flytip and put other geocachers off, but I said I'd monitor the site and it's close enough to the main road that it won't get nasty.

This sentence threw me off for a minute until I figured out what flytipping is all about (I'd never seen the term before). All I could think of was the fly equivalent of cow-tipping.

 

--Larry

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

This sentence threw me off for a minute until I figured out what flytipping is all about (I'd never seen the term before). All I could think of was the fly equivalent of cow-tipping.

 

--Larry

 

It was probably my own fault for exaggerating. My note to reviewer went something like "an lpc at a flytipping spot, what more could you want from a cache?"

 

Though I have noticed that Brits tend to complain less than yanks about lpc's.

[+bittsen]

This sentence threw me off for a minute until I figured out what flytipping is all about (I'd never seen the term before). All I could think of was the fly equivalent of cow-tipping.

 

--Larry

 

It was probably my own fault for exaggerating. My note to reviewer went something like "an lpc at a flytipping spot, what more could you want from a cache?"

 

Though I have noticed that Brits tend to complain less than yanks about lpc's.

 

What's a "yank"?

 

I am thinking of posting a cache ON RR tracks. Yes, I know there will be a discussion with the reviewer but the situation is as follows.

The rail line in question is inactive and in fact the tracks have all been pulled EXCEPT for the ones laid across the road that has been paved over. So there are about 10 feet of tracks poking out from each side of the road.

The only thing that even comes close ti it being considered "RR tracks" is that the metal looks like tracks. This area hasn't had an active rail line for at least a decade which is why the tracks were pulled up.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

 

What's a "yank"?

 

 

This:

 

http://www.jaunted.com/files/admin/americanpatriot.png

 

[Knight-Errant]

Sounds like there may be two issues involved.

 

1. Groundspeak's prohibition on caches within the 150 feet of an ACTIVE railway. In most situations the railway right of way (railway reserve) or land owned and controlled by the railway does NOT nearly extend the full 150 feet. The prohibition on caches within 150 feet of an ACTIVE railway is Groundspeak's margin of safety to attempt to reduce seaches for caches near ACTIVE railways (there could be a whole thread regarding the specifics of why and why that distance, but for now let's just leave it as that is Groundspeak's decision).

 

2. The ownership of the property near the railway (which may or may not be an active railway). However, this is usually only an issue for INACTIVE railways as the property around active railways are almost always included #1 above. If the railway is INACTIVE (and not likely to become active in the coming years), then it is just a question of who owns the property (which may or may not be a railway company). However, if it is a rails to trails situation, it is usually the city or county that "owns" the property.

Number 1 is largely incorrect.

 

The issue is and has always been one of private property and tresspassing. Doesn't matter if the line is currently in use or not. From the RR point of view the issue of safety is a distant second to the issue about tresspassing.

You say that the 150 foot prohibition is really only one of private property, not safety. If this were true, then caches would only be prohibited on the actual railway right of way (property of the railroad) which is often only about 50 feet wide (but occasionally much more). If you do the math right, the prohibition by Groundspeak is at least 300 feet wide. It is very rare that the property line of a railway is anywhere near that distance.

We can assure you that the railroad companies are HIGHLY concered about safety. You can ask any railroad engineer that has been on the job for about ten years or more and they have very likely have been driving a train that has killed someone (almost never the railroads fault). Safety IS the primary reason they are so concerned by trespassing.

[+jeffbouldin]

Sounds like there may be two issues involved.

 

1. Groundspeak's prohibition on caches within the 150 feet of an ACTIVE railway. In most situations the railway right of way (railway reserve) or land owned and controlled by the railway does NOT nearly extend the full 150 feet. The prohibition on caches within 150 feet of an ACTIVE railway is Groundspeak's margin of safety to attempt to reduce seaches for caches near ACTIVE railways (there could be a whole thread regarding the specifics of why and why that distance, but for now let's just leave it as that is Groundspeak's decision).

 

2. The ownership of the property near the railway (which may or may not be an active railway). However, this is usually only an issue for INACTIVE railways as the property around active railways are almost always included #1 above. If the railway is INACTIVE (and not likely to become active in the coming years), then it is just a question of who owns the property (which may or may not be a railway company). However, if it is a rails to trails situation, it is usually the city or county that "owns" the property.

Number 1 is largely incorrect.

 

The issue is and has always been one of private property and tresspassing. Doesn't matter if the line is currently in use or not. From the RR point of view the issue of safety is a distant second to the issue about tresspassing.

You say that the 150 foot prohibition is really only one of private property, not safety. If this were true, then caches would only be prohibited on the actual railway right of way (property of the railroad) which is often only about 50 feet wide (but occasionally much more). If you do the math right, the prohibition by Groundspeak is at least 300 feet wide. It is very rare that the property line of a railway is anywhere near that distance.

We can assure you that the railroad companies are HIGHLY concered about safety. You can ask any railroad engineer that has been on the job for about ten years or more and they have very likely have been driving a train that has killed someone (almost never the railroads fault). Safety IS the primary reason they are so concerned by trespassing.

Starbrand is correct. It is all about property rights. Class 1 railroads are usually ready to prosecute trespassers. Groundspeak is not here to protect us. That is why there are caches in caves, on cliffs, under water, in the middle of the dessert, and other dangerous places. I have a cache that is less than 50 feet from the very active railroad mainline, 20-30 trains a day. There is another on the other side also less then 50 feet off the tracks. Both are on city property and there is a fence between the caches and the tracks. But the reason it is allowed is they are in city parks. Even if the fence was not there they would be allowed because they are on public property. I have found many others just as close because they are clearly not on railroad property.

[+Team Cotati]

The real question here is not a question of "active" but rather if the spot is part of the railroad company's right-of-way. The whole issue with railroads is one of permission and private property.

,, never mind.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+briansnat]

This sentence threw me off for a minute until I figured out what flytipping is all about (I'd never seen the term before). All I could think of was the fly equivalent of cow-tipping.

 

--Larry

 

It was probably my own fault for exaggerating. My note to reviewer went something like "an lpc at a flytipping spot, what more could you want from a cache?"

 

Though I have noticed that Brits tend to complain less than yanks about lpc's.

 

What's a "yank"?

 

I am thinking of posting a cache ON RR tracks. Yes, I know there will be a discussion with the reviewer but the situation is as follows.

The rail line in question is inactive and in fact the tracks have all been pulled EXCEPT for the ones laid across the road that has been paved over. So there are about 10 feet of tracks poking out from each side of the road.

The only thing that even comes close ti it being considered "RR tracks" is that the metal looks like tracks. This area hasn't had an active rail line for at least a decade which is why the tracks were pulled up.

 

Tracks or no tracks it may still be RR property. You will need to prove to the reviewer that the tracks have been pulled up AND it is now public property.

[+Team Cotati]

Good morning brian. Thank you for that really neat link yesterday.

 

Unfortunately it was not very helpful. But thanks any way.

[+uxorious]

 

This thread reminds me of one of my favorite caches, ( GCEF48 ). When I was looking for this one, I had to keep an eye over my shoulder for a speeding train.

 

This section of track is on a rails to trails area. The track has been pulled up before this area and again after. I have no idea why they left a somewhat long area of track, but I'm glad they did. It makes for a fun,if maybe a little eerie,spot