I love Westerns, and occasionally Hollywood gets it right as far as period rolling stock (deMille's "Union Pacific", John Ford's silent "The Iron Horse" Richard Sale's "A Ticket to Tomahawk" and the good Alan Ladd western "Whispering Smith"), but I learned at a VERY early age not to expect miracles when a train chuffed onto the scene, LOL
One of the reasons deMille got it more or less right is because he had access to ex V&T equipment. In fact, the "J.W. Bowker" 2-4-0 is plays a rather prominent role in some scenes. I haven't seen "The Iron Horse" in its entirety, but we're talking 1924, when some of this stuff was still available relatively easily. Another good silent is "The General", starring Buster Keaton. Even though the railroad equipment is obviously anachronistic, it's still a fun movie to watch. Disney's "The Great Locomotive Chase" isn't bad, either, even if it is a drama rather than a comedy.
Other movies involving trains that are reasonably good are:
"The Titfield Thunderbolt" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046436/ Actually, the first time I saw this one as a teen, I laughed my head off.
"The Train" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059825/ Some nice shots of French steam. Unfortunately, there was an anachronism in that the motive power depot that got blown up contained some 141 R's, which didn't exist at the time. http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/fr/steam/141_R/misc/141r-haus-rs.jpg
"Murder On The Orient Express" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071877/
"Von Ryan's Express" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059885/ Some nice shots of an Italian Railways Franco-Crosti boilered 2-8-0 in action on the chase train.
"Bhowani Junction" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049007/
"The Cassandra Crossing" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074292/ As a movie, this one was rather a bit melodramatic, but there were some really nice shots of the train in the Swiss Alps. IIRC, much of the train footage was shot on the SBB.
"Silver Streak" (the Gene Wilder/Jill Clayburgh version) wasn't bad even if it had some extremely implausible scenes (most notably Wilder getting caught by a signal gantry which rotated 180 degrees before his stunt double dropped to the ground).
Andre
Andre--
I'm with you on the Sierra Railway--I live within a couple of hours of Jamestown, and as I remember, that area moviewise has been Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and I think even Colorado and Utah on several occasions, among a lot of other settings that it does not even faintly resemble. And the former 'star' of the show, the 1897 Rogers #3 4-6-0 has played everything from a Civil War locomotive ("Kansas Pacific", "Drums in the Deep South") to a 1930's Dust-Bowl locomotive traveling through Oklahoma in a film about Woody Guthrie. And 20th Century 2-8-2 #28 has been robbed by the 19th-Century Dalton Boys a couple of times (trailing truck and all).
I love Westerns, and occasionally Hollywood gets it right as far as period rolling stock (deMille's "Union Pacific", John Ford's silent "The Iron Horse" Richard Sale's "A Ticket to Tomahawk" and the good Alan Ladd western "Whispering Smith"), but I learned at a VERY early age not to expect miracles when a train chuffed onto the scene, LOL!
Tom
,
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
snagletooth wrote: andrechapelon wrote: Autobus Prime wrote: snagletooth wrote: MY GOD.. where's Wilford Brimley when you need him? Who else took take a MP GP38-2 from Little Rock to Chicago on CTC controlled territory and NOT have a swictch thrown in front of them.... W.B. IS THE MAN!!!!s:I am glad you posted this, as it reminds me that I'm not the only one who has seen END OF THE LINE. I feel your pain, brother.AndreWe're not alone, guys. We're not alone
andrechapelon wrote: Autobus Prime wrote: snagletooth wrote: MY GOD.. where's Wilford Brimley when you need him? Who else took take a MP GP38-2 from Little Rock to Chicago on CTC controlled territory and NOT have a swictch thrown in front of them.... W.B. IS THE MAN!!!!s:I am glad you posted this, as it reminds me that I'm not the only one who has seen END OF THE LINE. I feel your pain, brother.Andre
Autobus Prime wrote: snagletooth wrote: MY GOD.. where's Wilford Brimley when you need him? Who else took take a MP GP38-2 from Little Rock to Chicago on CTC controlled territory and NOT have a swictch thrown in front of them.... W.B. IS THE MAN!!!!s:I am glad you posted this, as it reminds me that I'm not the only one who has seen END OF THE LINE.
snagletooth wrote: MY GOD.. where's Wilford Brimley when you need him? Who else took take a MP GP38-2 from Little Rock to Chicago on CTC controlled territory and NOT have a swictch thrown in front of them.... W.B. IS THE MAN!!!!
MY GOD.. where's Wilford Brimley when you need him? Who else took take a MP GP38-2 from Little Rock to Chicago on CTC controlled territory and NOT have a swictch thrown in front of them.... W.B. IS THE MAN!!!!
s:
I am glad you posted this, as it reminds me that I'm not the only one who has seen END OF THE LINE.
I feel your pain, brother.
Oh, the pain doesn't end there. I watched second unit filming of a piece of cr... er, I mean fluff called "Chattanooga Choo Choo" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087041/ ) as I was a member of the Pacific Locomotive Association which was running the concession at Railtown 1897 at the time (2-8-0 #28 was used in the filming). I don't even remember what the "plot" was, fortunately for my continued mental health. The filming itself wasn't bad (none of the stars were involved in this), but when the thing was put together and shown as a TV film, I wanted to rip my eyes out of their sockets. If it weren't for the fact that I enjoyed seeing #28 run both in person and on film, I probably would have. I don't remember the last name of the engineer who ran #28 (his first name was Dave), but I do remember that Mike Pardhina, a long time employee of the Sierra Railroad was firing. Mike passed away a few years ago.
There was one other thing that eased the pain of watching that movie and that was a good memory. I caught a ride in the cab of #28 from Oakdale back to Jamestown. There's nothing like riding upgrade in the cab of a steam locomotive listening to her work. We had 4 heavyweight passenger cars in tow, so #28 had some work to do.
Hmm. Maybe things weren't as bad as I thought. The movie was awful, but everything else was fun.
EDIT: Note for anyone who might see this movie in the future (may God have mercy on your soul). The Mother Lode country of California bears no resemblence whatsoever to any location in the state of Tennessee. Trust me on this. I've been to both. The movie goes down hill from there.
You're the one who brought up the subject of freelancers here. Whether a freelancer with a cartoony layout is really a model railroader is a different argument, and one that's been hashed out ad infinitum on this forum. My point is that one is a hobby, and the other is a business. I can create whatever fantasy I want in my own basement if that's my desire, but if I were building a historical layout for a museum, or large scale models for use in a serious drama, then I'd be darn sure to get the details right. Movies or shows that play fast and loose with the facts are considered poor, because they insult the intelligence of the viewer. I think a show like Jericho (although admittedly I haven't watched much of it) has gained a fan base and critical acclaim by being a bit more realistic than the average dopey action flick.
What does it matter that one is a business and the other a hobby? So's golf and if you try to play golf to the "anything goes standard", you're not going to play much golf because no one is going to want to be seen with you. How does a completely fictional show like "Jericho" have to adhere to anything approaching museum quality and how are the producers playing fast and loose with the facts? The show is nothing more than the rather fevered mental ramblings of the writers. It's an outright fantasy. I quit watching "Jericho" after the first two episodes because I thought it wasn't very good even as fantasy.
There are a whole bunch of Oscar winning movies that play fast and loose with the facts because they're all complete fiction. The essential point in drama is human conflict, not the surrounding hardware. Whether it's human conflict with nature or with other humans, it's about how we succeed or fail in our quest to become better. It's how those conflicts are resolved (or not) that is at the heart of drama. Everything else is window dressing and sometimes the window dressing is sub-par (i.e. they show a 737 taking off and a 757 landing). I've seen a couple of absolutely riveting plays where all you see is people interacting on a stage without any props whatsoever. I believe David Barrow is tending towards that school as it pertains to the drama of model railroading (the conflict being getting all your work done before your shift's over).
There's a scene in the Hallmark movie "Skylark" (the second of the "Sara Plain And Tall" trilogy) where Sara and the kids arrive at a railroad station in Maine in a town called Camden. There are no visual giveaways in the scene that it's phonied up other than the fact they detrain from a steel car in a time where wood cars would be more appropriate for a local. In fact, I doubt a lot of model railroaders would catch the actual gaffe because they're unacquainted with Mid-Coast Maine. The actual town of Camden never had rail service. The nearest town with rail service is Rockland, the terminus of what used to be MEC's Rockland branch. The scene was actually shot at Brooks which is inland along the Belfast & Moosehead Railroad. The guys who created this movie had to know that Camden had no rail service. Fer cryin' out loud, Camden's only 30 miles away.
Then there's that old melodrama "Peyton Place". The action takes place in 1941. There's a scene where Lee Philips, driving into Peyton Place, has to wait for a freight train. So far, so good although I think I remember at least one box car with 50's graphics on it. Then the caboose goes by. It's an MEC wooden caboose painted yellow with a green roof. This is OK for 1957, but not for 1941. They had to know better, but screwed it up anyway. Oh well, at least you heard a steam whistle off in the distance. BTW, that sign you see welcoming all and sundry to Peyton Place actually exists. It marks the boundary between Rockport and Camden. It was repainted for the movie. Nonetheless, some of the movie's location shots were in Camden and some were actually in Belfast (about 20 miles up Rte 1). Given that they were supposed to be in a single town called Peyton Place, you'd think that they'd be wise to shoot in a single town, lest someone discover that they've played fast and loose with the facts.
There are always going to be inconsistencies. Sometimes you just need to overlook them. And when you can't, don't watch.
The thing that makes television, movies and live theater work is audience participation via something called "the willing suspension of disbelief." Everyone know that Jericho hasn't really happened, but we "suspend" our disbelief of the events for the duration of the show, for the sake of the entertainment. The problem is that it's a joint effort between the audience and those who put on the show, whatever the media. Small incongruities are "forgiven" by the audience, but when there gets to be too many or they're too big, suddenly the storyline become unacceptable to the audience and people walk out, figuratively or literally. How incongruous something can get depends on the particular genre, and even the individual show. "Lord of the Rings" is acceptable despite being completely at odds with reality because we (the audience) have NO expectation of reality FROM the story. Likewise Star Wars.
But Jericho, based in a supposedly plausible alternate reality, has much stricter rules to follow regarding acceptable incongruities.
What makes a lot of TV and movies work is that only a very small segment of the audience has the specialized knowledge that makes gross incongruities obvious. The non-specialized public goes along with the glaring mistakes out of blissful ignorance, while those with the specialized knowledge scoff at the stupidity of a diesel horn on a steamer (a stupid thing to do, as it's so easily done right), or Bruce Willis flicking his Bic and blowing up an airliner that's already in the air (Die Hard 2 - another movie with so many glaring errors I couldn't enjoy it).
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
I don't mean to be insulting, but this has to be the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time. " border="0" width="15" height="15" /> Are you pulling my leg? If you think the situations are exact analogs of each other, then I can't help you, but I suspect this topic was actually broached as a backhanded attempt to inject the tired old freelancer vs. rivet counter argument into this thread.
No, it wasn't. It just struck me as odd that people would defend "anything goes" as long as one labels oneself a model railroader, but if you make movies/televison shows, then you are held to what amounts to a "rivet counter" standard.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against free-lancing per se as long as it's done with the degree of discipline shown by Brooman, McClelland, Darnaby, et. al. What they do, while totally fictional, is at least plausible. It looks like it could have existed. Frank Hodina's planned C&IW as outlined in the article in MRP 2008 looks like it's going to be a free-lanced layout of the first caliber.
SteamFreak wrote:It's a craft as well as a business.
It's a craft as well as a business.
SteamFreak wrote:Satisfying both commercial and artistic needs is a balancing act that is less and less successful these days. Let's face it, entertainment has been aiming at the lowest common denominator for years now; in fact most entertainment has dispensed with script writing altogether in favor of low-rent "reality" programming.
Satisfying both commercial and artistic needs is a balancing act that is less and less successful these days. Let's face it, entertainment has been aiming at the lowest common denominator for years now; in fact most entertainment has dispensed with script writing altogether in favor of low-rent "reality" programming.
Andre is absolutely right about your double standard. You excuse modellers, who ought to know better, for gafffes like this, yet excoriate a TV production company, who have no reason to know or care about accuracy.
SteamFreak wrote:I don't mean to be insulting, but this has to be the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time.
I don't mean to be insulting, but this has to be the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time.
And still the argument goes on. It's HOLLYWOOD PEOPLE, of COURSE they screwed it up! my god in heaven! IT"S A TV FANTASY PROGRAM... TV ... FANTASY? anyone remember what's his name taking a train from Milwaukee to Chicago in "Happy Days" taking a Pennsy GG-1?
Oh, and Patton "accidently' died in a car accident, and Eisenhower had nothing to do with it?
Hey, and that Battleship that the teorrist took over several yaers after the last battleship was (finally, yet unfortunantly) retired? oh yea, that WAS SOOOO REAL! and so was that train he was on just a couple of years later with his duaghter..... SOOO REAL! Runaway Train, Nuclear train, The Silver Streak, The one in Mexico where John Wayne tried to find a train buried in the sands of Mexico... Suckass and Fruity kidd... OH My God.. The General..HAHAHAHAHA...yada..yada..yada
It's possible that the L.A. Live Steamers didn't have a large enough loco available except the K4 (K5?) for the shoot, which would explain it's unlikely appearance in the show.
marknewton wrote:Television exists for one purpose - to sell product. The TV networks deliver an audience to the advertisers so they can flog some more heartburn pills, dog food and tampons.
It's a craft as well as a business. Satisfying both commercial and artistic needs is a balancing act that is less and less successful these days. Let's face it, entertainment has been aiming at the lowest common denominator for years now; in fact most entertainment has dispensed with script writing altogether in favor of low-rent "reality" programming. I think Jericho is an example of a show that has stuck to its guns creatively, in spite of faltering ratings and ultimately a network cancellation. It was only rescued because of their devoted cult following, something that doesn't happen very often.
I don't mean to be insulting, but this has to be the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time. Are you pulling my leg? If you think the situations are exact analogs of each other, then I can't help you, but I suspect this topic was actually broached as a backhanded attempt to inject the tired old freelancer vs. rivet counter argument into this thread.
And that's it from me. There's been far too many fractious debates on the forum of late, and I probably shouldn't have helped start this one.
Nelson
Ex-Southern 385 Being Hoisted
but,I been around long enough to know those tubes are called flues and that includes both types(heat and gasses)How long you've been around isn't relevant. What you were doing is, however. Were you a fireman, boilermaker or inspector? If so, then you could just consult your copy of the ASME boiler code and see what it says on the subject...
but,I been around long enough to know those tubes are called flues and that includes both types(heat and gasses)
Flues versus Tubes? I had always heard them interchanged without distinction, but I come from a traction engine background, cutting my teeth on a saturated steam, balanced slide valve 1914 Case. I unfortunately do not have my copy of Section 1 of the ASME code here, but I did look in some other vintage books I have on hand to see how they treated the subject. The first book I picked up was "Steam Power Stations" (1946, Gaffert) - lo and behold, all references (regarding firetube boilers) were to tubes, although curiously, their job was to carry "flue gasses". Just when I was thinking this old dog was about to learn a new trick, I opened up "The Steam Locomotive" (1942, Johnson, Chief Engineer of BLW) and it interchanged the terms without any distinction! ARRRGH... on to the "Locomotive Catechism" (1923, Grimshaw) and "The Locomotive Up To Date" (1920, McShane) both of which used "tubes" and "flues" without any reservation or distinction. I can only assume that since these last three books came from the steam era and were written and used by railroad men of that era, that it was appropriate during that time frame to use both terms equally. As for the present day, I can't wait to open up Section I to refresh my memory on it...
Eddie_walters wrote:It was a K5 though... not a K4! ENTIRELY plausible! Ahem.
It was a K5 though... not a K4! ENTIRELY plausible! Ahem.
and not a K-4? Totaly plausible, then.
I guess the tank wasn't an A-1 Abrams either, but this
Interesting. And then
Why not just use something like this They'd be easy to find in Kansas, wouldn't they?
Wow, this is an amzing thread. The producers of this show can't even get it right about the fact that anysurviors of a nuclear war would have no teeth, no hair, growing third appendages, throw up their insides every half hour, and generally make a crack addict look absolutley stunning and in perfect health. And your all arguing that they didn't research a pennsy K-4 in Kansas? And where did they get fuel and oil to run that tank, anyway? In a post- nuked world, I would think a coal or, more likely, wood burning steam engines and generators would be the norm, anyhow. Any of you know how to drill and distill crude into oil and gas and plastic?
Well, one thing I have learned from the show is if we ever do get into a nuclaer war, I'll be surrounded by beautifull people in perfect health, with gas and electricity and food that's not polluted. And I'll have my very own K-4 and Abrams A-1 tp play with, too! Woo-hoo
SteamFreak wrote:...I were building a historical layout for a museum, or large scale models for use in a serious drama, then I'd be darn sure to get the details right.
...I were building a historical layout for a museum, or large scale models for use in a serious drama, then I'd be darn sure to get the details right.
Movies or shows that play fast and loose with the facts are considered poor, because they insult the intelligence of the viewer.
When you're making a fairly serious drama that has fantasy elements to it, it makes it all the more important to get the little details right to lend it an air of credibility...
SteamFreak wrote:No there isn't. One is a hobby -- a personal pastime for one's own enjoyment -- and the other is a business that ostensibly wants to recreate reality convincingly enough to allow the audience to suspend their disbelief...
No there isn't. One is a hobby -- a personal pastime for one's own enjoyment -- and the other is a business that ostensibly wants to recreate reality convincingly enough to allow the audience to suspend their disbelief...
Using an air horn sound effect for the K4 wasn't even artist's license for the sake of the story, it was just utter cluelessness on the part of the show's creators that had to elicit a chuckle from anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with trains...
andrechapelon wrote:So what you're saying is that it's OK for a Pennsy K-4 to have an air horn if it's on someone's layout, but not if Hollywood makes the same gaffe? Or more generally, that it's OK for someone to label himself a model railroader and then create what amounts to a 3 dimensional cartoon whereas if Hollywood does it, they're just ignorant money grubbers? The funny thing is that you're objecting to an air horn and not the spectacle of a K-4 in Kansas. Seems to me a K-4 in Kansas is the bigger faux pas. Then there's the little matter of resurrecting an 80+ year old steam locomotive AFTER a nuclear attack when, presumably, most of the infrastructure in the country has been damaged or destroyed and obtaining parts for the restoration would be virtually impossible. And why a steam locomotive? In outlying areas, there should be some surviving operable diesels. Why restore a steamer when a perfectly serviceable diesel is available? But that's me.As for recreating "reality" on film, have you ever seen a flick that purports to be "action adventure" where all the laws of physics are magically suspended for the sake of entertainment? Then, of course, there are the movies where all the cockpit crew on a transcontinental flight gets disabled and a flight attendant lands the plane safely. And if I see another movie where a supposedly professional cop of 25+ years experience goes to rescue someone in mortal danger without calling for backup, I think I will puke. Andre
As for recreating "reality" on film, have you ever seen a flick that purports to be "action adventure" where all the laws of physics are magically suspended for the sake of entertainment? Then, of course, there are the movies where all the cockpit crew on a transcontinental flight gets disabled and a flight attendant lands the plane safely. And if I see another movie where a supposedly professional cop of 25+ years experience goes to rescue someone in mortal danger without calling for backup, I think I will puke.
As far as a the K4 being a fish out of water in Kansas, that only furthers my point that the producers didn't think this through very well. Neither mistake would have been difficult to correct, particularly when you're working closely with the LA Live Steamers, who could have easily fact-checked for them. The fact that they didn't has me scratching my head.
When you're making a fairly serious drama that has fantasy elements to it, it makes it all the more important to get the little details right to lend it an air of credibility, not to mention that the scream of a steam whistle would have heightened the tension in the scene. They really fell down on this one.
My guess is that they chose a steam loco because they're far more impressive visually, and whether an EMP attack would spare any electronics is debatable.
They could have created a backstory that 4449 had traveled to Kansas at the time of the attack, and then they could have used it for the tank scene and utilized their precious air horn sound effect as well.
SteamFreak wrote: andrechapelon wrote:I hadn't thought about it until I saw this thread juxtaposed with an old thread about free-lancing that somehow got revived, but there is a certain irony in people getting all hot and bothered about how Hollywood depicts railroading and in the next breath defending, say, the practice of running SD70MAC's and steam locomotives on the same layout as if it were common practice. No there isn't. One is a hobby -- a personal pastime for one's own enjoyment -- and the other is a business that ostensibly wants to recreate reality convincingly enough to allow the audience to suspend their disbelief, which is why they're not working with Tycos. Using an air horn sound effect for the K4 wasn't even artist's license for the sake of the story, it was just utter cluelessness on the part of the show's creators that had to elicit a chuckle from anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with trains. I doubt that's the reaction they were looking for with that scene.
andrechapelon wrote:I hadn't thought about it until I saw this thread juxtaposed with an old thread about free-lancing that somehow got revived, but there is a certain irony in people getting all hot and bothered about how Hollywood depicts railroading and in the next breath defending, say, the practice of running SD70MAC's and steam locomotives on the same layout as if it were common practice.
No there isn't. One is a hobby -- a personal pastime for one's own enjoyment -- and the other is a business that ostensibly wants to recreate reality convincingly enough to allow the audience to suspend their disbelief, which is why they're not working with Tycos. Using an air horn sound effect for the K4 wasn't even artist's license for the sake of the story, it was just utter cluelessness on the part of the show's creators that had to elicit a chuckle from anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with trains. I doubt that's the reaction they were looking for with that scene.
So what you're saying is that it's OK for a Pennsy K-4 to have an air horn if it's on someone's layout, but not if Hollywood makes the same gaffe? Or more generally, that it's OK for someone to label himself a model railroader and then create what amounts to a 3 dimensional cartoon whereas if Hollywood does it, they're just ignorant money grubbers? The funny thing is that you're objecting to an air horn and not the spectacle of a K-4 in Kansas. Seems to me a K-4 in Kansas is the bigger faux pas. Then there's the little matter of resurrecting an 80+ year old steam locomotive AFTER a nuclear attack when, presumably, most of the infrastructure in the country has been damaged or destroyed and obtaining parts for the restoration would be virtually impossible. And why a steam locomotive? In outlying areas, there should be some surviving operable diesels. Why restore a steamer when a perfectly serviceable diesel is available? But that's me.
Ahem...
Although the K-4 wasn't one of them, some steamers did sport air horns.
Look just in front of and to the left of the number board.
George
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."
I hadn't thought about it until I saw this thread juxtaposed with an old thread about free-lancing that somehow got revived, but there is a certain irony in people getting all hot and bothered about how Hollywood depicts railroading and in the next breath defending, say, the practice of running SD70MAC's and steam locomotives on the same layout as if it were common practice.
The former will invoke loud protests of outrage at Hollywood's ignorance of things rail related while criticism of the latter will get outraged responses about "rivet counters" and "scale rule Richard's" and how a self-appointed band of snobby elitists bids fair to ruin the hobby for everyone else.
Well, folks, it's Hollywood's movie. They're footing the bill for the filming and they can film any way their little hearts desire. Isn't it time to stop being such stick-in-the-mud "rivet counters" and let Hollywood "free-lance" as they see fit? After all, what's sauce for the free-lance goose ought also to be sauce for the Hollywood gander.
P.S. Here's a link to an explanation of pressure vessel explosions. Unfortunately, the illustrations at the bottom resemble a propane tank rather than a boiler and there are differences (i.e. there's no tube sheets, crown sheets and side sheets in a propane tank to fail thus saving the shell of the pressure vessel), but the explanation's pretty good and the guy is a professional. http://www.hsengco.com/nbexplosion/nbx.htm
BRAKIE wrote:I don't know what they are called in Austria
even by 2 license steam boiler operators I know.
Maybe betwixt me and thee there's a term difference.Reckon?
Eddie_walters wrote:Mark - my impression was that there isn't enough heat in the boiler for all the hot water to flash to steam.
Like you, I've been lucky enough to avoid encounters with boiler explosions - the worst thing I have seen is a fusible plug dropping (fortunately not on an engine I was running, although I'm embarrassed to admit I got too close for comfort once!).
As an aside, I'm sure you would agree that boiler safety should be foremost in any operator's mind - having read through the NTSB report on the firebox collapse of 1278 at Gettysburg, and while I believe the operating practices I use and am familiar with are a lot better than theirs, it is well worth reading, just to remind you WHY it is so important to blow down that gauge glass at least every day (and a multitude of other things they failed to do!).
SteamFreak wrote: Lillen wrote: My guess is that at the time of that movie being produced there was more old junk steamers around that could possibly be saved. Lets not forget that old steamers where junk to be sold as scrap during the time when they where replaced my diesels and for that part new steamers.I think it's a bit like that we can not save every rusty Chevy from 1992 since they fifty years from now will be rare and called vintage. By the time the movie was made in 1952, these engines were already vintage. When I think of the rusted-out hulks many museums or tourist lines have to work with for restoration projects, these were hardly junk by comparison. If they were junk, then what would you consider what remains of MCRR 385 that I just photographed being hoisted for its return to the Whippany RR Museum?http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1352504/ShowPost.aspxI realize there was less of a preservation movement in '52, but it's still hard to watch.
Lillen wrote: My guess is that at the time of that movie being produced there was more old junk steamers around that could possibly be saved. Lets not forget that old steamers where junk to be sold as scrap during the time when they where replaced my diesels and for that part new steamers.I think it's a bit like that we can not save every rusty Chevy from 1992 since they fifty years from now will be rare and called vintage.
My guess is that at the time of that movie being produced there was more old junk steamers around that could possibly be saved. Lets not forget that old steamers where junk to be sold as scrap during the time when they where replaced my diesels and for that part new steamers.
I think it's a bit like that we can not save every rusty Chevy from 1992 since they fifty years from now will be rare and called vintage.
By the time the movie was made in 1952, these engines were already vintage. When I think of the rusted-out hulks many museums or tourist lines have to work with for restoration projects, these were hardly junk by comparison. If they were junk, then what would you consider what remains of MCRR 385 that I just photographed being hoisted for its return to the Whippany RR Museum?
http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1352504/ShowPost.aspx
I realize there was less of a preservation movement in '52, but it's still hard to watch.
Actually, at the time DENVER AND RIO GRANDE was filmed in 1952, there was a movement afoot to save the two locomotives used in the wreck scene as there were very few of the original 1880-period D&RGW narrow-gauge 2-8-0's being marked for preservation. Lucius Beebe, Charles Clegg and the RLHS society tried unsuccessfully to purchase the locomotives from the Rio Grande (and persuade Paramount to use miniatures for the wreck sequence itself), but to no avail. It caused quite a minor stir in railroad historical circles at the time.
The scene itself was accomplished by using explosives in the freight cars, and a great deal of flash-powder packed around the boilers to augment what Paramount assumed would be a boiler explosion when the two locomotives collided at a total impact of 70mph (the locos were traveling at 35mph toward each other for the sequence). As I said in my previous post concerning this wreck sequence, not only did the boilers NOT explode, the only damage to the locomotives were crumpled pilots and smashed fake balloon stacks. The rest of the damage shown in subsequent close-ups had to be done by the studio itself off-camera. Quite an ignominious end for such handsome little narrow-gauge 2-8-0's, when they could have been saved and more controllable miniatures used, instead.
PAERR wrote:BTW, I'm no Gomez Addams. Like everyone else, I detest the lose of classic steamers simply for the sake of "entertainment". I'm just trying to add to the discussion. -George
BTW, I'm no Gomez Addams. Like everyone else, I detest the lose of classic steamers simply for the sake of "entertainment". I'm just trying to add to the discussion.
-George
I wasn't trying to scold anyone. I don't mind these older staged wrecks, because the locos would have been scrapped anyway, and there were new ones to replace them. In 1952, however, the handwriting was on the wall that there wasn't going to be any more of these made.
Here is one from the 1913 State Fair in California. Another head on (no pyros this time!) and yet, again, no boiler "explosion".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUc3wd4It8g