The bottom line is that the root cause of the real accident was human failure, a human being intentionally set up a situation that circumvented the rules that, suprise, had a bad outcome.
Dave H.
----------------------------------
Dave,I am sure that is done hundreds of times every day on various railroads while the powers that be looks the other way until something goes wrong.
With today's 2-3 men yard crews-including the engineer I can understand taking a calculated risk that has worked hundreds of times before.
We took calculated risks when I worked on the railroad and yes some times we stood before the man answering up for taking those risks and 90% of the time it was a slap on the wrist with a wink.
Of course that was when railroads had railroaders running the railroad instead of college kids with no train service time.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE Of course that was when railroads had railroaders running the railroad instead of college kids with no train service time.
And a lot fewer people die now than they did back in the "good old days".
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman BRAKIE: Of course that was when railroads had railroaders running the railroad instead of college kids with no train service time. And a lot fewer people die now than they did back in the "good old days". Dave H.
BRAKIE: Of course that was when railroads had railroaders running the railroad instead of college kids with no train service time.
Dave,In 9 1/2 yearsof train service I knew only 3 deaths.A friend who step off a cabin car and into the path of a light engine move,a Chessie engineer and head brakeman that was killed when their locomotive rolled over and down a short embankment after hitting a coal bucket at a crossing.
I do know today they have far move accidents with the remote controlled engines in the yards-including several deaths..
Same goes for The Perfect Storm. I know because I am a commercial fisherman out of Gloucester Ma.
The only thing realistic about the movie is the trains, but alot of the scenes they are used in are pure Hollywood fiction.
Andy Jackson
Bellflower CA
ollevon Same goes for The Perfect Storm. I know because I am a commercial fisherman out of Gloucester Ma.
Maybe Hollywood was confuse?
Those crab fishermen on the Bearing sea face fierce storms every year and many has perish over the years during those storms..
laj200 The only thing realistic about the movie is the trains, but alot of the scenes they are used in are pure Hollywood fiction.
Accually, laj200, Even though Hollywood was wrong on most of the main details, the basic story line of "Engineer sees switch misaligned- Engineer leaves cab with locomotive running - train gets away", as seen in the beginning of the movie, is fairly accurate.
Remember, it's a movie. Unless it's purely a documentary, they'll add explosions and "If it don't go right,..." -type storylines to draw the box-office crowd in. It's purely entertainment.
There was just one thing I think they missed in editing - if you haven't yet seen the move STOP READING NOW!
In the beginning, when the yard guy leaves the cab to get the switch, they show the throttle moving all by itself - what was that all about? But later when confronted by Rosario Dawson, he admits he left the throttle in run 8.
This is a slight difference from the real thing - the real engineer did have the throttle in run 8 but he thought it was maximum dynamic not maximum power.
Like I said, I was more bugged by the subplot of the railroad executive seemingly willing to kill thousands of people just to save a buck. Yes, we get the message already, Hollywood - business executives are all evil people.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
one correction...
a single light loco is limited to 30mph or less because of the signal system. two or more locos or one loco with one or more cars can go at whatever track speed is.
the reason is often a single loco will not trip the signal and the dispatcher will not know what block it's in. it has nothing to do with the locomotive staying on the track...so i don't see how they'd be worried they were going to derail at 65mph. most intermodal trains travel at 60 or better, and amtrack is good for 79mph. on good quality ribbon rail, derailing isn't the issue for light locomotives.
Actually in the use an empty freight car usually weighs about 30-35 tons, depending on the type of car, and this of course excludes articulated cars, or cars of extreme length or such. Most modern cars can hold upwards to 100 tons, especially covered hoppers and open top hoppers.
ok, i will answer BOTH of your questions.
first, each car has a bleed rod so that the air on the brake cylinder can be bled off and release the air brake on that car. in yard switching is is VERY common to switch without air, because many yards are more or less flat, with little or minimal grade. it would not be possible to hump cars or kick cars if you could not bleed the air off the cars. all railroads have rules that state that air must be coupled and the brake pipe charged up to proper pressure on mainlines, and sometimes this is also the case in yards, or certain parts of yards, but in many yards do allow bled off switching. therefore you would not connect the locomotive air hose...in fact, you don't have to worry about connecting the hoses between cars until you've finished assembling the cut. small local yards often leave cars bled off for days at a time. applying a few handbrakes on each track is generally sufficent to hold them still even on a mild grade as long as they're all coupled.
next, you would not want the power to be shut off when applying the independent brake on a locomotive, because often it is required to use both power and braking to spot up cars in industries. many industries require cars to be placed at exact locations, such as a hopper bay on a covered hopper over a small pit in the ground, a boxcar door to line up with a door on the side of the building, or a tank car dome to line up with an overhead walkway. it's a learned skill to jockey the throttle and engine brake to spot in circumstances like these. on the other hand, sometimes if you just get the car close, that's all the customer requires...so it's a little bit of each. it's things like this you learn when you train on the territory.
I'm glad to know someone besides me noticed the switch was already lined right.
according to what i read he THOUGHT he had it in dynamic braking, but actually had it in full power. it was an old SD40-2 (just a single unit) in the real incident, and I suspect it may have been a model that has a control stand similar to some of the Southern GP38-2's. On the Southern's some of the control stands do not have a seperate handle for throttle and dynamic braking, but rather it is a combined handle, and there is a selector handle above it to switch back and forth from dynamic to idle to power.
you use the same handle to apply the "notches" of power or braking, and it moves in the same direction, whereas on a regular setup the dynamic brake handle moves toward the right (facing the control stand) and the throttle moves toward the left (facing the control stand). of course in the movie they show a desktop locomotove (an AC4400CW I believe it was...not to mention two units in the consist). The movie also shows the handle advancing the trottle mysteriously by itself after the engineer got off to line the switch (or in reality to mis-align the switch, since we've all established that it wasn't against his movement to start with). If the SD40-2 were of the design I mention above, then I could potentially see how the real engineer might have thought it was in dynamic if he was panicking about getting a switch lined before he ran through it. Otherwise, I don't know how he missed, it because on the dual handle control stands, the throttle handle has defined "clicks" or detents for each notch, whereas the dynamic handle is fluid and moves like any other type of rheostat control, also the "shape" of the handles are different as well, and sometimes the feel of the handles are different, as throttles will often have ridges in them whereas the dynamic handle is often smooth. I honestly believe the manufacturers do this so that you can "feel" your controls better in the dark.
one other t hing i noticed in the movie.
they were saying there were 30,000 gallons of hazmats in the tank cars, but there were supposedly 10 tank cars in that train. apparently they must have been all or mostly empty.
in todays world most tank cars loaded hold close to 30,000 gallons. LPG cars in the US generally carry 33,000 gallons, other types of hoppers carry close to 30,000. There are some that carry less than 20,000, but I don't really know of many if any that carry less than about 10 or 12,000. But if all the cars were "empty residue" cars, then perhaps that 30,000 gallon would have been close, or maybe one or two tanks with 15-20,000 and the rest empty residue cars.
The turnout: in the move he wasn;t worried that he was runnign an open switch, he was worried it was lined for the wrong choice of two tracks, meaning yet ANOTHER delay stopping and reversing the train and yet ANOTHER harranguing from the yardmaster.
The tank cars: Perhaps - it's one thing to show a certain car and another for it to be exactly which type of car. Depending on the material density the larger capacity cars might not be usable due to weight limits. It wasn't LPG they were worried about. Or maybe someone misread a line and rather than reshoot the whole scene they just left it stand figuring who's gonna count.
Again - I still stand by my opionion that thre are far better reasons if you dislike this movie than these minor little nits. The self-moving throttle handle I am convinced is an editor flub, since there is a later scene (but maybe filmed first) where the yard guy admitted he had it in Run 8. Not to mention the likelyhood of the throttle lever vibrating itself into a higher notch is just about nil.
The mistakes and exaggerations in this movie are no worse than just about any movie in which guns are used - always seems the hero has a magic pistol with a 40 shot magazine. Reloads? Who needs to reload! Infinite ammo cheat enabled!
If I remember from the movie, I beleave they said the chemical was some sort of highly toxic chemical used in cleaning agents and fertilizer, and other nice, toxic, explosive products (I forgot hte name, but it was long and hard to say) but I can't remember exactly.
rrinker The mistakes and exaggerations in this movie are no worse than just about any movie in which guns are used - always seems the hero has a magic pistol with a 40 shot magazine. Reloads? Who needs to reload! Infinite ammo cheat enabled! --Randy
Acually, in the scene, the police officers were using AR-15 assault rifles. The AR-15 has a 30-round ammo magazine , and given the number of officers in the scene, the shooting seemed about right, except that what they said about the diesel fuel being explosive isn't completely true (higher flashpoint, meaning that it has to be an incindiary or explosive round to have real fear of fire/explosion)
Also, with that scene, I saw rounds hitting the whole side of the fuel tank. The ammunition should have made swiss cheese out of the tank, which would have eventually draned the fuel from the tank (although, fairly slowly)
All aside, I still stand strong on my view that it's a Hollywood action movie. Not completely accurate, but good for excitement.
bladeslinger you would not want the power to be shut off when applying the independent brake on a locomotive, because often it is required to use both power and braking to spot up cars in industries.
you would not want the power to be shut off when applying the independent brake on a locomotive, because often it is required to use both power and braking to spot up cars in industries.
I agree that using train brakes and power together makes sense to manage the play in the couplings, etc. I guess my question is more one of why doesn't the alerter ALWAYS engage if the power is on. The issue in the real-world scenario wasn't brakes engaged or power engaged or anything like that - the problem was that the engine was able to apply power while completely unattended and uncontrolled.
If the alerter always engaged when the power was applied, brakes or not, then a human would have to be at the controls, or the train would stop. Also, the alerter should not merely engage the train brakes, but it should also disengage the engine power.
I've always been impressed with the number of fail-safe features that are built into train systems (like the old switches where the indicator was coupled to the tracks and not to the switch lever). It just seems strange to me that a gap like this one was left open. Or, that having had this incident that the NTSB or whatever didn't recommend changes to alerter design.
the North East Rail Modeler If I remember from the movie, I beleave they said the chemical was some sort of highly toxic chemical used in cleaning agents and fertilizer, and other nice, toxic, explosive products (I forgot hte name, but it was long and hard to say) but I can't remember exactly.
In the movie the chemical was molten phenol. While I'm little more than a transportation enthusiast when it comes to trains, I am a chemist so I can say a thing or two about phenol.
Phenol is pretty nasty stuff. It burns skin on contact, and being a fairly simple molecule it has a lot of uses for making more complicated compounds. Tanks of molten phenol spilling their contents is no small matter - it would definitely require serious cleanup and there would be considerable danger for anybody in the immediate vicinity. It could take quite a while to fully clean up safely.
That said, the stuff isn't nerve gas or anything like that. Most likely anybody more than a block from the spill would be completely unaffected. There is a lot of stuff carried by trains that is a lot more dangerous. You wouldn't need to evacuate an entire city, though certainly steps would be taken to evacuate a fairly large area just in case.
A tank of liquid ammonia (concentrated) or something else that is volatile would be much more dangerous, as a fairly large downwind area would be affected. Since you can't count on the wind direction that means evacuating a huge area in all directions, although strictly speaking somebody in the evacuation zone not immediately next to the accident would have a good chance of escaping unharmed if winds are favorable for them.
the North East Rail Modeler If I remember from the movie, I beleave they said the chemical was some sort of highly toxic chemical used in cleaning agents and fertilizer, and other nice, toxic, explosive products (I forgot hte name, but it was long and hard to say) but I can't remember exactly. rrinker: The mistakes and exaggerations in this movie are no worse than just about any movie in which guns are used - always seems the hero has a magic pistol with a 40 shot magazine. Reloads? Who needs to reload! Infinite ammo cheat enabled! --Randy Acually, in the scene, the police officers were using AR-15 assault rifles. The AR-15 has a 30-round ammo magazine , and given the number of officers in the scene, the shooting seemed about right, except that what they said about the diesel fuel being explosive isn't completely true (higher flashpoint, meaning that it has to be an incindiary or explosive round to have real fear of fire/explosion) Also, with that scene, I saw rounds hitting the whole side of the fuel tank. The ammunition should have made swiss cheese out of the tank, which would have eventually draned the fuel from the tank (although, fairly slowly) All aside, I still stand strong on my view that it's a Hollywood action movie. Not completely accurate, but good for excitement.
rrinker: The mistakes and exaggerations in this movie are no worse than just about any movie in which guns are used - always seems the hero has a magic pistol with a 40 shot magazine. Reloads? Who needs to reload! Infinite ammo cheat enabled! --Randy
I meant just about any OTHER movie where guns are involved Like many other scenes in Unstoppable, that one was just exaggerated to make it more interesting to the average Joe. They really DID try to shoot the fuel cutoff, but it wasn't via the spray and pray method, no team of a half dozen guys just cutting loose with AR15's. As close as those guys were standing, they probably would have all taken themselves out with richochets. Those fuel tanks aren't paper thin, and the frame rail just above it should stop an AR15 round with no problem.
rich0 bladeslinger: you would not want the power to be shut off when applying the independent brake on a locomotive, because often it is required to use both power and braking to spot up cars in industries. I agree that using train brakes and power together makes sense to manage the play in the couplings, etc. I guess my question is more one of why doesn't the alerter ALWAYS engage if the power is on. The issue in the real-world scenario wasn't brakes engaged or power engaged or anything like that - the problem was that the engine was able to apply power while completely unattended and uncontrolled. If the alerter always engaged when the power was applied, brakes or not, then a human would have to be at the controls, or the train would stop. Also, the alerter should not merely engage the train brakes, but it should also disengage the engine power. I've always been impressed with the number of fail-safe features that are built into train systems (like the old switches where the indicator was coupled to the tracks and not to the switch lever). It just seems strange to me that a gap like this one was left open. Or, that having had this incident that the NTSB or whatever didn't recommend changes to alerter design.
bladeslinger: you would not want the power to be shut off when applying the independent brake on a locomotive, because often it is required to use both power and braking to spot up cars in industries.
All the alerters that I've come across do disengage the engine power, in addition to giving a penalty brake application.
There have been alerters that remained active as long as the reverser wasn't centered, even stopped with both auto and independent applied. I haven't seen one in quite a while. It seems that those were also add-on systems, not original to the locomotive.
Jeff
Of course go see it. My wife and I went and found it to be an enjoyable departure from reality. Sure, it is Hollywood and full of things that could not possibly be true - so what? Would 2 hours of historical file film from the Armenian genocide be better?
I don't know about a diesel loco moving over 60 mph to catch a train moving or accelerating to 51 mph lifting wheels off the track on curves, but in a number of Trains magazine reports, some steam locos at speed would kind of "walk" down the track, with the drivers first on one side then the other actually lifting some small amount off the rail. Apparently some kind of dynamic force resulting from the heavy counterweigts or crankpins changing direction. Could beat the H out of track, ties, and roadbed, as well as loco bearings.
As far as the rest of the movie, accuracy has never been a priority in Hollywood. Like when I mentioned to my son in one of the Rambo movies where Rambo has an M-60 MG with about a 60 or 70 round belt, someone wrote a blip in a Movie mag that with that short a belt, Rambo was so good, a count of the bullet strikes showed he was able to fire over 350 rounds. Kind of like the old Westerns where the cowboys shot 20 or more times from a 6-shooter, or in one of the old Robin Hood movies, Robin shooting something like 18 arrows, even though I don't recall seeing more than 3 or 4 arrows in his quiver. My son's response? Dad, it's just a movie.
Somewhere there's a website concerning movie physics. They find that the movie makers almost never let reality get in the way of excitement.
EM-1 wroteI don't know about a diesel loco moving over 60 mph to catch a train moving or accelerating to 51 mph lifting wheels off the track on curves, but in a number of Trains magazine reports, some steam locos at speed would kind of "walk" down the track, with the drivers first on one side then the other actually lifting some small amount off the rail. Apparently some kind of dynamic force resulting from the heavy counterweigts or crankpins changing direction. Could beat the H out of track, ties, and roadbed, as well as loco bearings.
-------------------------------------------
A steam engine was shelf destructing with each turn of the drivers..It also beat and pounded the roadbed,rail,switch frogs and engine crew.
rich0 If the alerter always engaged when the power was applied, brakes or not, then a human would have to be at the controls, or the train would stop. Also, the alerter should not merely engage the train brakes, but it should also disengage the engine power.
NONE of the alertors I am familiar with require a human at the controls all the time. That is not their purpose. The concept, as the name implies is to keep the engineer alert. They activate if something hasn't happened after a certain period, so if the engineer hasn't changed a setting, touched the controls, etc, etc the alertor applies a penalty application.
Remember nothing in a commercial airplane requires the pilot to be at the controls all the time, on the contrary, the airplane is set up to fly all by itself.
I watched the live Toledo TV coverage the day of the CSX runaway. I've not seen the film, but the live TV coveage was pretty exciting. Either a Detroit or Columbus TV station sent their helicopter and provided a feed for good part of the run. Unfortunately the helicopter focused on the front the train and there was no explanation of why the train slowed down. There was a shot of a Highway Patrol officer with a rifle (shotgun) at a grade crossing, but I don't recall that he was aiming at the locomotive.
jeffhergert rich0: bladeslinger: you would not want the power to be shut off when applying the independent brake on a locomotive, because often it is required to use both power and braking to spot up cars in industries. I agree that using train brakes and power together makes sense to manage the play in the couplings, etc. I guess my question is more one of why doesn't the alerter ALWAYS engage if the power is on. The issue in the real-world scenario wasn't brakes engaged or power engaged or anything like that - the problem was that the engine was able to apply power while completely unattended and uncontrolled. If the alerter always engaged when the power was applied, brakes or not, then a human would have to be at the controls, or the train would stop. Also, the alerter should not merely engage the train brakes, but it should also disengage the engine power. I've always been impressed with the number of fail-safe features that are built into train systems (like the old switches where the indicator was coupled to the tracks and not to the switch lever). It just seems strange to me that a gap like this one was left open. Or, that having had this incident that the NTSB or whatever didn't recommend changes to alerter design. All the alerters that I've come across do disengage the engine power, in addition to giving a penalty brake application. There have been alerters that remained active as long as the reverser wasn't centered, even stopped with both auto and independent applied. I haven't seen one in quite a while. It seems that those were also add-on systems, not original to the locomotive. Jeff
rich0: bladeslinger: you would not want the power to be shut off when applying the independent brake on a locomotive, because often it is required to use both power and braking to spot up cars in industries. I agree that using train brakes and power together makes sense to manage the play in the couplings, etc. I guess my question is more one of why doesn't the alerter ALWAYS engage if the power is on. The issue in the real-world scenario wasn't brakes engaged or power engaged or anything like that - the problem was that the engine was able to apply power while completely unattended and uncontrolled. If the alerter always engaged when the power was applied, brakes or not, then a human would have to be at the controls, or the train would stop. Also, the alerter should not merely engage the train brakes, but it should also disengage the engine power. I've always been impressed with the number of fail-safe features that are built into train systems (like the old switches where the indicator was coupled to the tracks and not to the switch lever). It just seems strange to me that a gap like this one was left open. Or, that having had this incident that the NTSB or whatever didn't recommend changes to alerter design.
Right. The alerter on the CSX engine was working properly, however an override in it prevented it from kicking off, BECAUSE the brakes were full on. it seems like someone told me that if the engineer hadn't set the brake on the loco as well as the independent, or not put the independent in full, the alerter would've tripped. But becauser the brakes were already on, the alerter saw no reason to try to stop a train it thought was already going to stop. It's not tied into the accelerometer.
-Morgan
There are certainly many howlers for the railroader or railfan to make fun of -- such as the constant emphasis that the engines chasing the train are running in reverse as if that makes them track worse or go slower. There are also howlers for anyone who works in business such as the calculation of impact on stock price -- for the benefit of the CEO on a golf course in a dorky outfit naturally. I can imagine someone totaling up the asset loss but the stock price discussion is hilarious.
What I found more funny is that even though everyone was getting hysterical about the potential spilled diesel fuel and the potential derailment disaster plus dangerous chemical loads, everybody was constantly gathered real close to the tracks -- firemen, civilians, news reporters. Folks were being evacuated but it was almost like they were being evacuated from their houses just so they could stand closer to the tracks.
One scene is where a diesel is attempting to stop the train from the front - this was the railroad's improbable plan to stop the train -- yet it didn't occur to them to have a second guy on the engine who could jump on to the runaway locomotive and just shut down the throttle. But that would have ended the film very early.
Maybe the biggest fiction in the film is the notion that throughout the event "Fox News" is obviously being kept totally informed each and every second by the railroad's PR department, with official photos of the crew and information about their names and seniority and background, as well as data about the train equipment and location. Of course that is the way PR departments work.
Can we at least all admit that the young actresses who played Denzel Washington's daughters, Elizabeth Mathis and Meagan Tandy, looked very nice in their Hooter's outfits?
Dave Nelson