Amtrak asks for reports on unsual interest in operations

Ken W2KB wrote:A police officer seeing a rail fan might, and as reported here, have done a field check on that person. That simply is good police work, whether for the arson example, photographing a bank or jewelry store, etc. Crossing line would occur if, for example, the officer were to direct the rail fan to leave a place at which the fan is lawfully present, etc.

I assume you are agreeing with my view on the subject to a point? I can understand one being given "dirty looks" if seen taking photos where one should not be taking photos (beyond "No Trespassing" signs, etc.). But taking photos at a station platform or from an overpass just does not seem that suspicious, ESPECIALLY if a very experienced rail photographer who has a bit of equipment on him suggesting that he "knows what he's doing", is the one taking photos. Terrorists don't have that kind of money to invest in all that equipment to take photos of infrastructure. They'll use simple methods like using disposable cameras, etc.

efin98
I don't know if laughing off dirty looks is arrogant. Being "pre-judged" (for a lack of better words), knowing good and well that you would do no harm and that your purpose there is legit is annoying and one should not let it get to them. So what do you do? You laugh it off. So I doubt the dirty looks are a result of arrogance.

May I respectfully ask if you have done any rail fanning (photography, or just watch trains pass, in addition to riding of course)? From your statements it does not sound as if you have done this yourself at any time. I could be wrong. I notice train photographers from the window of my train all the time. Being one who photographs trains periodically, I understand that there are others who do the same as well. There are millions of pictures of trains out there. Someone has to take them...................

As a photographer myself, it is my view that banning photography of trains is just as ridiculous as assuming terrorists don't use photography to help them plan attacks. There needs to be some middle ground. There are many perfectly legitimate reasons to photograph trains. You and I enjoy shooting them as a hobby. Others may be shooting trains as part of a larger work documenting urban (or rural) life in the early 21st century. Others just want a snapshot of the train Aunt Mary came in on yesterday. I don't mind if someone questions the purpose of my work as part of a security procedure, but I do object to the assumption that it shouldn't be allowed just because terrorists might also use cameras.

If photography itself is a threat, why limit bans to photography of trains and bridges? Why not office buildings, hotels, malls, theaters, stadiums, busy streetcorners, busses, agricultural fields, parks, etc? Almost everything is a potential terrorist target, so we should ban photography of everything, no?

I used to enjoy photographing airplanes at nearby airports. I made hundreds of images at several airports big and small. Even well before 9/11, though, the authorities made it more and more difficult, to the point that I hardly photograph planes at all anymore, unless I'm traveling by air. Curiously, when I have a plane ticket, nobody questions my right to photograph planes beacsue I look like a tourist. Only when I show up as a photographer loaded with gear for serious work do I get hassled.

When cameras are outlawed, only outlaws will have cameras. Probably concealed ones, at that.

If anyone is interested, here is my primary photography web site. http://hometown.aol.com/jamesbtoy

Mr. Toy wrote:As a photographer myself, it is my view that banning photography of trains is just as ridiculous as assuming terrorists don't use photography to help them plan attacks. There needs to be some middle ground. There are many perfectly legitimate reasons to photograph trains. You and I enjoy shooting them as a hobby.

I have photographed trains throughout my adolescent life. I cannot understand why our country is turning into the anti-Photography Country. I have never been approached by anyone regarding my photography.

John Poshepny

AMTRAK FORUM MODERATOR'S NOTE

Early on, it appeared that the discussion evolved into a subject that I am quite simply not prepared to entertain at the Amtrak Forum. I am however, aware than there are Members that would like to discuss this matter.

From a review of existing material posted, it appears that Mr. Railpac, Moderator of the Photography and Video Forum, is prepared to entertain discussion of this topic. Accordingly, I am moving this material to that Forum.

GBN
Moderator, Amtrak Forum

Gilbert B Norman wrote: I am however, aware than there are Members that would like to discuss this matter.

Thanks for keeping it Mr. Norman. I am one of those who likes to dissues these issues and I think it is our right ot continue taking Pictures.

John

Thank you guys for coming to the rescue. I was affraid for a moment that I would have to "fight this battle" on my own, lol.

Very well said fellas!

I work for a class-1 in the North East as a conductor and what I can say is that most guys working out here consider you all suspicious and do usually call the RR police via cell phone so you can not hear it over your scanners.
From our point of view it does seem suspicious at times, especially when you are hiding in the weeds or take off running after snapping your photo, but I do admit that it should not be banned. Maybe the government should come out with some sort of identification and security certification for photographers to eliminate some of the problems.

GE-RULES wrote:I work for a class-1 in the North East as a conductor and what I can say is that most guys working out here consider you all suspicious and do usually call the RR police via cell phone so you can not hear it over your scanners.
From our point of view it does seem suspicious at times, especially when you are hiding in the weeds or take off running after snapping your photo, but I do admit that it should not be banned. Maybe the government should come out with some sort of identification and security certification for photographers to eliminate some of the problems.

With all due respect to you and your fellow employees, most photographers I know do not 'hide in the weeds' or 'take off running after snapping photos'. On the contrary, I usually hang out at a given location, sometimes for hours on end. If someone wants to ask me what I'm doing, I'm not that hard to find. I have difficulty believing that a person with bad intentions, on the other hand, would stay in the same spot and wait to be discovered.

Just curious - you must know of certain popular railfan 'hot spots' where fans congregate all the time - do you call those folks in too?

Jim D.

GE-RULES wrote:I work for a class-1 in the North East as a conductor and what I can say is that most guys working out here consider you all suspicious and do usually call the RR police via cell phone so you can not hear it over your scanners.
From our point of view it does seem suspicious at times, especially when you are hiding in the weeds or take off running after snapping your photo, but I do admit that it should not be banned. Maybe the government should come out with some sort of identification and security certification for photographers to eliminate some of the problems.

A reasonable background check now a days takes my employer up to several months to get, and costs several or more thousand dollars.

No, I personally have not called anyone in for taking photos and it doesn't bother me at all, if anything, it kind of makes me feel like a mini celebrity with the paparazzi and all, especially when we have foreign power. I was just generally talking about crews I have worked with. In fact I myself am a "railfan" and working for the railroad makes it so much easier for me to take photos, plus I can get into areas others can not. If a police officer asks questions, I just flash my railroad I.D. and that sends them on their way.