Watching the previews on TV there is a shot of the engine rounding a curve. The wheels on the inside rail lift up, not a little but a lot.
I do not know, hence this question, but would think a loco is very heavy and would not lift.
I would also think the outside rail would be pushed away by the weight.
Not that I will not see the movie, I just wonder if there isn't a little artistic license. The wife and I are going on opening day.
Bob
Photobucket Albums:NPBL - 2008 The BeginningNPBL - 2009 Phase INPBL - 2010 Downtown
Artistic license for sure. Hollywood at its worst. First off a runaway under power is highly unlikely. Without hitting the alerter button the brake pipe would be dumped and the engines cut out. A string of cars could runaway plus a locomotive sitting idle could take off also.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
It's a movie for entertainment purposes. Go see it and have fun, and don't sit there saying "oh no way that could never happen that's fake". It will ruin the experience.
It is based on a true story of events that happened. So it's not just some wild story they made up.
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
Motley It is based on a true story of events that happened. So it's not just some wild story they made up.
A real train that did run away and another engine did chase it down and "catch it". Everything beyond those two facts is 100% fiction.
Not every engine has an alertor or deadman's pedal.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
An article I found on Google: Runaway train stopped....
The premise is realistic, their details are not. But I did like Star Wars and Jurrasic Park.
A steam locomotive could roll over if they entered a speed restricted curve above the restricted speed due to the center of gravity.-The 611 landed in the Tug Fork due to excessive speed according to a article I read in Trains magazine.
I'm sure a diesel would roll just as easily.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Au contrare. The wreck of the Red Arrow on Bennington Curve above Horseshoe Curve on the PRR was due to excessive speed coming downhill. When the K4s steam engine left the rails on the outside downhill track it cleared the other three tracks before coming down on the embankment on the uphill side. So it is possible but rare.
rclanger Watching the previews on TV there is a shot of the engine rounding a curve. The wheels on the inside rail lift up, not a little but a lot. I do not know, hence this question, but would think a loco is very heavy and would not lift. I would also think the outside rail would be pushed away by the weight. Not that I will not see the movie, I just wonder if there isn't a little artistic license. The wife and I are going on opening day.
It's "artistic license". In this case, I'd call it more license than artistic since the locomotive would have derailed.
While the movie is based on an actual happening, that's all that can be said for it. All the rest of it is hype. I won't be going to see it as I won't pay good money to see such garbage.
You gotta question the knowledge of the people who made the movie when part of the blurb for it contains the words "a million tons". A million ton train would be heavier than any ship ever built by a factor of almost 2. Such a train (assuming each car had a tare weight of 20 tons and loaded with 70 tons of cargo) would contain over 11000 cars and probably exceed 100 miles in length. IOW, if the last car in the train were in UP's Fresno yard, the head end would be about 10 miles from Bakersfield. If the rear end were in Bakersfield (and this were a BNSF train), the head end would be 10 miles east of Boron.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of a story?
Andre
Keep in mind a Hollywood movie can be 90% fiction but still be "based on a true story". The movies "Ty Cobb" and "The Buddy Holly Story" are good examples of movies that are overwhelmingly more fiction than fact.
wjstix Keep in mind a Hollywood movie can be 90% fiction but still be "based on a true story". The movies "Ty Cobb" and "The Buddy Holly Story" are good examples of movies that are overwhelmingly more fiction than fact.
"In Harm's Way" with John Wayne, "The Battle of the Bulge" with Henry Fonda.
I like trains a lot but this movie is typical Hollywood garbage.
I cannot suspend disbelief long enough for even the trailer film.
I have read the real story as it happened.
I bet the original crew who stopped the runaway freight in real life laugh at this movie.
It is good for children though.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
Motley It's a movie for entertainment purposes. Go see it and have fun, and don't sit there saying "oh no way that could never happen that's fake". It will ruin the experience. It is based on a true story of events that happened. So it's not just some wild story they made up.
I completely agree. THe stuff Hollywood comes up with is most often fake, but it's entertaining (like the 1980's hit TV show, and recently released movie, The A-TEAM)
The story line is loosely-based on the CSX Crazy-8s incident, where a train really did leave the yard on it's own, with no one on board. However, insted of the Hollywood men-jumping-on-speeding-train stop, they were able to catch it with several locomotives coupling onto the back of the train, slowing it down enough (about 10 MPH) for a brake man to jump on at a grade crossing.
Dispite any inaccuracies, I'm going to see it.
Well, I look at it this way. If I want to see REAL trains and REAL railroading, I'll just saunter over to the nearby Roseville yards and lean against a building off the railroad property and spend the day watching stuff happen. 60-odd trains a day coming in, passing through or getting broken up and re-assembled. All the REAL railroad action I need.
If I want to see an action movie involving trains, realistic or not, I'll go see UNSTOPPABLE, just as I went to see UNION PACIFIC, DENVER AND RIO GRANDE, THE TRAIN, RUNAWAY TRAIN, BREAKHEART PASS or any of a hundred other action movies that involved steel wheels and steel wheels and had a Heck of a lot of fun with.
Helloo, the film has not even come OUT yet, fellas. We're watching a TRAILER. And I'm sure that there's going to be a lot more in the film than just the 'smash-em' 'bash-em' stuff shown. It's a TRAILER. Hollywood 'trailers' are by necessity pumped up with action to get you to go see the movie. The film also has actors. Darned good ones, in this case, at least IMO. Which means hopefully we'll get human interest in the midst of all the flash and dash. If it melds together, then I can overlook the lack of 'realism'. If it doesn't--oh well.
We can always watch those nifty documentaries on RFD-TV if we want 'actual' trains. And I love 'em as much as anyone. But after a while, there's not much drama in those 3/4 views of trains comin' at ya. I'd like a little character development in my movies. UNSTOPPABLE looks as if it might have some.
So I'll reserve judgement until after I see it.
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!
I guess you guys that seem to think Hollywood puts out nothing but "Garbage" sit there and watch the Discovery or History channel all day long? Booooooooring...
I'd rather be entertained. That's what movies are all about.
Chill out and have some fun already, good lord....
This part of the movie is based off of a true incident with CSX. Two ex-Conrail SD40-2s under remote control got out on to the main and somehow opened their throttles wide. Now a simpler solution to solving the problem in the movie (since they have cars unlike the "prototype", would be to uncouple one of them which should, in theory, engage the air brakes in all cars and engines.
TrainsRock This part of the movie is based off of a true incident with CSX. Two ex-Conrail SD40-2s under remote control got out on to the main and somehow opened their throttles wide. Now a simpler solution to solving the problem in the movie (since they have cars unlike the "prototype", would be to uncouple one of them which should, in theory, engage the air brakes in all cars and engines.
There was only one SD40-2, and it was not under remote control. The engineer was coming up on an improperly lined trailing switch too fast in Stanley Yard in Toledo. He hit the independent and air brakes. He then attempted to apply the dynamic brakes but instead opened up the throttle. He then got off the train to line the switch, and the train took off.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
trouble is, you can't uncouple railroad cars when there's tension between them (it locks the pin in place).
Also, the "real life" incident, they were switching cars, and the air hoses were not connected.
This is the full report of the incident ... http://kohlin.com/CSX8888/z-final-report.htm
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
Nice! Way to be positive. I'm going with one of my train buddies and we're going to do that!
The real story is quite different. I found the March 2002 Reader's Digest article on this issue. The chase loco was Q636, CSX 6462, with engineer Jess Knowlton and conductor Terry Folson. They were pulling a freight directly toward the runaway freight and were told to get off at the next siding, ASAP. They came into the siding 15mph over the speed limit for taking a siding. After they pulled in, the freight went by. They were then told to catch the freight. Obviously the CSX could not let the freight derail at that point with a closed turnout. The freight was running at least 50 mph at times. By the way, they were running “backwards” in this chase at speeds approaching 65 mph and the max speed for that loco unloaded is 30 mph. They wondered how they ever stayed on the track. The point they caught the freight was climbing a hill toward Kenton, OH and a downgrade into the town is where they freight was eventually brought under control and stopped. The loco was doing about 12 mph and the worker who hopped on was 52 years old, Jon Hosfield. The article says the freight was directed through three slow speed sidings in hope it would derail but no such luck. They tried a 50 lb portable derailing device but it was kicked aside by the loco. The chase loco crew had quite a ride. When the chase loco was chasing the freight, the engineer was pressing so hard on the horn control that he broke off the lever. There are a couple good photos of the chase loco and crew, plus the man who jumped on the lead loco.
With the chase loco running backward, the conductor hung on up "front" signaling the engineer who was blind on right hand turns as he was now sitting at the drivers seat but on the left side and in the "rear" of the loco. The conductor up "front" was swaying at least 18 inches side to side.
You can probably find the back issue at Amazon.com if interested in what really happened.
Of course if you like watching people killed, have at it.Rich
I found the below link about this incident some time ago and waiting for this movie info to be posted on train groups as many like fantasy rather than reality. Model railroaders are like that.
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=511832&nav=0Re55IAR5HXY
The chase crew knew they had to catch the freight or possibly die trying. The conductor heard the flanges grinding as the loco rolled from side to side being unloaded. If the loco left the tracks, for sure the conductor would have not lived.
andrechapelon rclanger: Watching the previews on TV there is a shot of the engine rounding a curve. The wheels on the inside rail lift up, not a little but a lot. I do not know, hence this question, but would think a loco is very heavy and would not lift. I would also think the outside rail would be pushed away by the weight. Not that I will not see the movie, I just wonder if there isn't a little artistic license. The wife and I are going on opening day. It's "artistic license". In this case, I'd call it more license than artistic since the locomotive would have derailed. While the movie is based on an actual happening, that's all that can be said for it. All the rest of it is hype. I won't be going to see it as I won't pay good money to see such garbage. You gotta question the knowledge of the people who made the movie when part of the blurb for it contains the words "a million tons". A million ton train would be heavier than any ship ever built by a factor of almost 2. Such a train (assuming each car had a tare weight of 20 tons and loaded with 70 tons of cargo) would contain over 11000 cars and probably exceed 100 miles in length. IOW, if the last car in the train were in UP's Fresno yard, the head end would be about 10 miles from Bakersfield. If the rear end were in Bakersfield (and this were a BNSF train), the head end would be 10 miles east of Boron. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a story? Andre
rclanger: Watching the previews on TV there is a shot of the engine rounding a curve. The wheels on the inside rail lift up, not a little but a lot. I do not know, hence this question, but would think a loco is very heavy and would not lift. I would also think the outside rail would be pushed away by the weight. Not that I will not see the movie, I just wonder if there isn't a little artistic license. The wife and I are going on opening day.
Just random trivia, but your estimate for an empty car is a bit on the low side. A 77ft coach is 60tons (20ton per truck and 20 for the body), so a better base weight for freight is around 50. Yeah, 1 mil is a bit high, but it's only 6000 cars...
-Morgan
1. I thought the principle behind air brakes was that without pressure in the pipe the brakes were engaged. If that is the case, wouldn't failing to couple the brake line to the engine cause the cars to have their brakes set, thus making it impossible to pull them? If not, why isn't this the design - it seems a whole lot safer
---------------------------------
We seldom use air while switching cars-even today air is bled off before a car is hump.
Why?
It would be impractical to flat switch or hump cars with air.
------------------------
2. In the wake of the real-world incident has any thought been given to changing the brake design, so that if the independent brake is applied the engine stops applying power, or perhaps also applies dynamic braking as well?
-----------------------------
I don't think so..
You would want both power and then brake while kicking cars.
I'll let a engine man fill in the blanks since I was a brakeman.
-------------------------------------------
This I recall I seen older ex-steam locomotive engineers on the PRR apply light train brake while opening the throttle..It slips my mind why they did that.
I was kinda surprised by how much stuff they got right, but when the engineer left the cab to throw throw the trailing-point switch, it was actually properly lined. No excuse for that. They should have known better, since this was the one thing that triggered the whole incident.
Dave
Just be glad you don't have to press "2" for English.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ_ALEdDUB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hqFS1GZL4s
http://s73.photobucket.com/user/steemtrayn/media/MovingcoalontheDCM.mp4.html?sort=3&o=27
steemtrayn I was kinda surprised by how much stuff they got right, but when the engineer left the cab to throw throw the trailing-point switch, it was actually properly lined. No excuse for that. They should have known better, since this was the one thing that triggered the whole incident.
That 'POOF" you just heard was my suspension of disbelief doing a vanishing act.
As for the old-timer applying power against light train brakes - probably to prevent slack action causing cars to surge back and forth.
And the example of In Harm's Way as a movie based on real life - no way. The only thing even quasi-real about the novel of the same title was that Pearl Harbor was attacked. The crucial final action was purely fiction, supposedly taking place off a chain of islands that can't be found on a map of the Pacific Ocean. (The novel was a good read - as fiction. The movie???)
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I guess I could think of some cases where you'd want to apply the brakes on the cars while applying power, but why the engine?
In any case, problems like this could still be prevented if the alerter is triggered ANYTIME the engine is applying power. Why would you want to just park the engine straining against its brakes anyway?
I hadn't realized that cars were sorted using gravity - it would make sense in that case to disengage the air brakes.
rich0 1. I thought the principle behind air brakes was that without pressure in the pipe the brakes were engaged. If that is the case, wouldn't failing to couple the brake line to the engine cause the cars to have their brakes set, thus making it impossible to pull them? If not, why isn't this the design - it seems a whole lot safer since I'd think that you'd want cars to ALWAYS have their brakes set if they aren't coupled to an engine. In the real life story, my understanding is that the brake hoses were coupled, but that the alerter didn't engage since the independent brake was set.
2. In the wake of the real-world incident has any thought been given to changing the brake design, so that if the independent brake is applied the engine stops applying power, or perhaps also applies dynamic braking as well? It seems to be bad design to allow the engine to apply power and brakes at the same time, or that the alerter should ever be disengaged if the engine is applying power.
I just saw it Sunday afternoon. Sure there are goofs, factual errors, and a few other things. But to be honest, I was more annoyed with the subplot of the executive then witht he factual errors witht he train operation. It was quite entertaining. The big glaring error I MOST noticed? It was supposed to be in PA, well those State Police cars were NOT PA State Police, ours are white. LOL.
I will definitely pick this up when the DVD comes out, I'd watch it again. The previews made me think it was goign t be tons of typical Hollywood screwups but it wasn't that bad at all. I know I wasn;t the only one in the theater who knew something about trains, I heard a guy in the row behind me make a few comments as well.
Watching it made me realize what probably happened on the real thing - as far as I know, there is a setup time from when you move the handle to the dynamic brake position, it's NOT instant. SO I suspect in the real event the engineer did not allow enough time for the setup because he was in a rush to get out and line the switch.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Flashwave Just random trivia, but your estimate for an empty car is a bit on the low side. A 77ft coach is 60tons (20ton per truck and 20 for the body), so a better base weight for freight is around 50. Yeah, 1 mil is a bit high, but it's only 6000 cars...
Just random trivia but your estimate of a freight cars is a bit on the high side. Checking several boxcars, hopper and gons, they end up being about 30 tons empty.
1 Million tons of empty cars would be 33,333 cars.