tree68We do this every day when we drive. There's a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Are they going to be clear by the time I get there? We don't do a panic stop immediately when we see them - we take our foot off the gas, and if needed, put our foot on the brake. If they're still in our way, we'll stop.
But compare this with the situation with the casino bus collision recently, where I understand there was considerable time, at comparatively slow speed, for the crew to get way off the train.
In any case, I see this whole somewhat ridiculous argument as peripheral to what is actually going on ... the deep-pockets legal crew trying to pin some percentage of responsibility/liability, no matter how small, on CSX in order to recover their percentage of large money damages. In order to do that, all they probably have to do is establish some cold-blooded property-saving action on the part of the engineer that would keep him from the "common-sense" (in the eyes of almost any 'jury of peers' as finally selected) action of trying to stop the train as quickly as possible once he recognized the situation. And that is what I think they have done, rather effectively, given the snippets of testimony that have been reported.
It is abundantly clear to me that in the situation involved, by the time the engineer realized the situation, no amount of emergency braking would have prevented running down the film-crew people, nor would it have slowed the train enough -- specifically -- to allow the poor girl to have escaped having the bed thrown into her. In that situation, a trained engineer, knowing full emergency isn't going to do any real good, would do something like reasonable full service, blowing the horn, etc., minimizing the danger from problems with train handling. In other words, a procedure that would be followed after any substantial crossing collision. In a sense, it's like proactive triage.
But that's not how it will look to a typical jury, probably carefully coached into exactly the sort of analogy to familiar scale and momentum that tree68 just provided. They're going to say 'why didn't the engineer take every human effort possible to stop that train' ... and there, wagging its tail for them, is that weasel-word provision in the rules that says that any engineer can use full emergency at any time, a provision largely put there, in my own perhaps-mistaken opinion, precisely for legal situations like this one.
I won't pretend to claim I "know what I'd do" in that seat, seeing what was unfolding. Nor will I pretend to speculate on whether I 'should' or 'shouldn't' have been watching out for a bunch of lawbreaking Hollywood trespassers who had been told not to be there but, according to radio traffic, were milling around the general area they'd asked permission for ... but a jury can easily be induced into asking 'if you suspected they would be trespassing why didn't you approach at a restricted speed?'
And it only takes 1% for CSX to be happily and easily put in 'settlement city' while the producers gleefully go back to their weaselry as soon as they get out as early as they can wangle something. What a fine system this is!
Euclid...And yet the point of the emergency application is also to protect people other than the engineer and conductor...
Speaking purely as a "civilian," I have to wonder what the condition of the crowd along the track might have been, had the train derailed on top of them.
WDGFSpeaking purely as a "civilian," I have to wonder what the condition of the crowd along the track might have been, had the train derailed on top of them.
Very unlikely any derailment would have taken place at or past the end of that bridge. Derailment further back on the bridge itself would likely have resulted either in full pileup there or perhaps in some of the bridge structure failing (which might have had its own collateral casualties among the film crew). Much more likely that derailment would be back along the curve, and a subsequent pileup unlikely to send debris across the river.
Euclid We discussed this in an earlier thread and I sought out some independent experts to get their take on it.
We discussed this in an earlier thread and I sought out some independent experts to get their take on it.
So, how many "independent experts" did you have to ask until you got the answer you were looking for?
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 Euclid We discussed this in an earlier thread and I sought out some independent experts to get their take on it. So, how many "independent experts" did you have to ask until you got the answer you were looking for?
Two out of two.
RMEIt is abundantly clear to me that in the situation involved, by the time the engineer realized the situation, no amount of emergency braking would have prevented running down the film-crew people, nor would it have slowed the train enough -- specifically -- to allow the poor girl to have escaped having the bed thrown into her.
How many seconds do you estimate that Sarah would have needed to get clear of being hit by the bed or the train? My impression is that she was on the walkway, in the clear of the train, but on the trailing side of the bed. And the bed was getting hung up on all of the nooks and crannies of the track and bridge. So the bed did not get into the clear in time to avoid getting hit. Then when it got hit, it hit Sarah and propelled her into the train. The natural escape route was forward on the walkway toward the train, but the bed was blocking that escape.
So it seems likely that if they had managed to get the bed into the clear, the train would not have it it, and it would not have hit Sarah. It also appears to me that the bed is very close to being completely clear of the track. And when using substantial force, with multiple people lunging the bed to get it moving over hangups and snags, and maybe 75% in the clear; it seems to me that as little as 1 second more time might have made the difference between life and death.
What is your estimate?
I had thought that th eleather from the horse had been put to use by now. I see that I was mistaken.
Johnny
Euclidit seems to me that as little as 1 second more time might have made the difference between life and death.
Let's go to the video:
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/watch-midnight-rider-crew-flees-tracks-train-crash-article-1.2145172
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/video-shows-train-involved-death-midnight-rider-crewmember-29804691
Based on the video from the locomotive at the end of the second video, five to ten seconds was more like it.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
DeggestyI had thought that the leather from the horse had been put to use by now. I see that I was mistaken.
Nah - not as long as someone insists on - well, never mind.
I think many of us were hoping that the opinions and judgements of engineers and other railroaders would be the authorities we would defer to on the thread. Wrong again.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
tree68 Euclid it seems to me that as little as 1 second more time might have made the difference between life and death. Let's go to the video: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/watch-midnight-rider-crew-flees-tracks-train-crash-article-1.2145172 http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/video-shows-train-involved-death-midnight-rider-crewmember-29804691 Based on the video from the locomotive at the end of the second video, five to ten seconds was more like it.
Euclid it seems to me that as little as 1 second more time might have made the difference between life and death.
The video shot first shows a flury of activity with the bed moving fast, but it almost looks like they just froze at the end for the last several seconds. It looks like they just gave up on moving the bed, got into the clear, and assumed they would be okay. In a way, it looks like they had plenty of time to move the bed the small distance it needed to clear, but maybe it was hoplessly jammed, so they just gave it up. Once they were in the clear on the walkway, the next issue would have been to get over the bed to the side nearer the train approach. I don't know what prevented that. They might not have considered it to be an issue.
Their mistake was trying to do anything other than pitching the bed into the river and getting themselves clear of the track. Their trying to 'save the bed' is what caused the death.
CSX did not tell them to suspend their self preservation instincts to save the bed. The bed was what caused the death.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
My experience in running trains is limited. I have operated a 44 ton switcher and an old Whitcomb switcher plus CTA cars but none at speeds over 20 mph. At slow slow speed, with no train, emergency does stop you fast. But even on Amtrak, I have been on a couple of trains that went into emergency and you don't stop on a dime. Unlike an auto where a panic stop is fast. Not so for trains. When working on the PRR and riding in the cab of the E8's I observed many grade crossings where it appeared the autos on the roads appeared to not be going to stop at the crossing. Always had an urge to want to brake even when I couldn't as I wasn't operating. Fortunatly, when I was in the cab the cars always did stop in time. In my conversations with engineers, I asked a number what they would do if the saw a car on the tracks, to a one, they all said they would apply power to hopefully knock the car off the track and not brake and have it get lodged under the locomotive and derail them. Don't know if true but thats what they told me.
On one time when I was riding in coach, we did hit a car and I walked up to the front of the train. A car had been hit (in front of its front tire) and knocked into a field. Two young men taken to the hospital. The three mu hoses had been broken off of the pilot and the pilot was bent down to within about an 1/8 of an inch of the rail. It bent but didn't buckle. So we waited for a welder to come and cut off part of the pilot. It took him about an hour to cut through that thick steel. He just sat on his little seat on the rail and took pass after pass cutting that steel.
As far as EUCLID saying he would have big holed it, I am reminded of back in 1963, when I was living in multiunit rental townhouse complex with my wife and new baby son and there was another childless couple that lived in the adjacent building and they knew exactly how they would raise their child when they had it. When they did have it they quickly realized they were not the experts they thought they were. Its very easy to say what you would do until when you have to do it. As was said earlier, Sully did what he needed to do because he knew from experience what to do. I know I don't know how to fly a plane. Nor do I want to claim what I would do in the engineers position. That would be overreaching.
Here is some coverage of the trial: http://wsav.com/2017/07/11/day-one-underway-for-the-civil-trial-against-csx-transportation/
These two comments quoted from the story above were made apparently by CSX representatives:
“They also said that if the train were to use an emergency brake, it would have derailed.
According to the defense’s research, if the train braked regularly, it would have stopped two seconds after the point of impact.”
*****************************************************
Nobody can say for sure that an emergency application would have derailed the train as the first comment asserts.
But the second comment is a real puzzler. I interpret it to mean that CSX has done technical research that determined that the heaviest service application of brakes would have stopped the train two seconds after the point of impact.
This seems bizarre in many ways including the motive for saying it. It seems that the intent is to be understood from the two comments taken together as the article states them. They seem intended to to convey the idea that no braking would have helped, and that therefore justifies and defends the engineer’s decision to not apply any braking prior to impact.
Obviously the first comment rules out an emergency application by saying it would have derailed the train. However, the overall conclusion for these two comments has to be that an emergency application would have stopped the train well short of impact. This has to be the conclusion base on the second comment which says that the service application (which would take far longer to stop than an emergency application) would have almost stopped the train short of impact.
But the really bizarre thing about this second comment is that it apparently intends to convince us that, after ruling out an emergency application, a service application too would have failed to prevent the tragedy because it would have missed the stopping goal by two seconds. This seems like childhood reasoning to me.
In their zeal to come up with an airtight case for not applying any braking, these experts apparently have completely overlooked the following:
After about 33 seconds of warning, the train came upon the film crew at 54 mph. The 33 seconds was not enough time for the film crew to get clear. If the train had made a service application of brakes, it would have arrived at the film crew traveling maybe ½ mph. In that final two seconds of travel past the film crew, the train would have only passed them by a matter a few yards before stopping.
So yes, two seconds would have been plenty of time to get killed if the train were traveling at 54 mph. But the main point is that the slowing train would have used more and more time to reach the bridge compared to a train traveling a constant 54 mph. So even though a slowing train would not have not have completely stopped before reaching the bridge, it would have given the film crew MUCH MORE TIME TO GET CLEAR compared to the train that applied no braking at all.
If the train had only made a service application, the film crew could have probably finished their shoot and gotten off the bridge before the train arrived.
EuclidIf the train had only made a service application, the film crew could have probably finished their shoot and gotten off the bridge before the train arrived.
And if the film crew would have kept their asses off the bridge, that young woman would probably be alive today.
I know some people in this thread pretend to have ultimate knowledge and would know exactly what they would have done, even though thtey nevewr laid a hand on the automatic handle. But most of us are human and do the best we can.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
"And if the film crew would have kept their asses off the bridge, that young woman would probably be alive today."
Zug, your cmment is excellent.
Euclid n012944 Euclid We discussed this in an earlier thread and I sought out some independent experts to get their take on it. So, how many "independent experts" did you have to ask until you got the answer you were looking for? Two out of two.
Well, isn't that just convenient....
Wouldn't the only fair way to solve the derailment question be to re-enact the accident? To be fair, I think you'd want the attorneys and experts who think it wouldn't derail to be riding the train. If they are sure in their theories, they should have no qualms about it. Maybe for their comfort they could ride at the end boxcar or something.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
zugmann Euclid If the train had only made a service application, the film crew could have probably finished their shoot and gotten off the bridge before the train arrived. And if the film crew would have kept their asses off the bridge, that young woman would probably be alive today. I know some people in this thread pretend to have ultimate knowledge and would know exactly what they would have done, even though thtey nevewr laid a hand on the automatic handle. But most of us are human and do the best we can.
Euclid If the train had only made a service application, the film crew could have probably finished their shoot and gotten off the bridge before the train arrived.
But, Zug,
Bucky has "experience" and knows the answers to everything.
Don't believe me? Just ask him.
Norm
Perhaps the attorneys should replace the film crew on the reinnactment.
diningcar Perhaps the attorneys should replace the film crew on the reinnactment.
Has there been a previous post noting that Emergency braking starts at the front of the train ? Even if the EOT also works there is what a 15 second lag for all cars to be in emergency ? If ? the train had a bunch of empty cars in front they might be less effective. All our engineers probably will say train dynamics too complicated to predict ?T
ChuckCobleigh diningcar Perhaps the attorneys should replace the film crew on the reinnactment.
mudchicken ChuckCobleigh diningcar Perhaps the attorneys should replace the film crew on the reinnactment.
Remember in the reinactment - save the bed at all costs!
If they had pitched the bed in the ditch, everyone would be breathing and talking today!
Would we be having this discussion if they had set up the bed and movie equipment up in the middle of an interstate highway?
Murphy Siding Would we be having this discussion if they had set up the bed and movie equipment up in the middle of an interstate highway?
No, it'd be the same case of placing your person in the "danger zone" of moving objects. I have about as much sympathy (hint: none at all) for protestors hit on freeways as I do for pedestrians hit and killed walking on the tracks.
There is ZERO excuse for being hit by a train when you're on the track, end of story.
There should be no debate. There should be no fault laid upon the train crew. There should be no fault found to the railroad.
If you jump off a cliff, you should expect an impact at the bottom. If you drink spoiled milk, you should expect to get sick. And if you occupy the railroad tracks, you should expect to get hit by a train.
Now I know you all know this, and probably agree, but I don't think this thread is long enough yet ;)
Saturnalia I have about as much sympathy (hint: none at all) for protestors hit on freeways as I do for pedestrians hit and killed walking on the tracks.
With a reasonable human being, it is possible to assign blame correctly yet simultaneously still have some sympathy for people close to the victim of a fatal accident.
According to this legal principle, the first two trains that passed the film crew observed them trespassing, so the film crew would be classified as “discovered trespassers.” This is why the plaintiff attorneys wanted the video recordings for the first two trains. They would prove that the members of the film crew were “discovered trespassers,” and thus place a burden on CSX to warn them of danger.
https://premisesliability.uslegal.com/duty-owed-trespassers/
“Trespassers may be classified either as discovered or undiscovered. If a person is an undiscovered trespasser, then the landowner has a duty to refrain from willful or wanton misconduct. Whereas, if a landowner knows that trespassers have been on his/her land, then these persons are discovered trespassers to whom the landowner owes the duty of ordinary care to warn of danger.”
EuclidAccording to this legal principle, the first two trains that passed the film crew observed them trespassing, so the film crew would be classified as “discovered trespassers.” This is why the plaintiff attorneys wanted the video recordings for the first two trains. They would prove that the members of the film crew were “discovered trespassers,” and thus place a burden on CSX to warn them of danger.
The problem is, the folks who were in charge of the film crew knew that two trains would be going through and likely remained clear of the tracks - especially knowing they didn't have permission to be there. If they were clear of the CSX ROW when those two trains passed, then CSX had no legal responsibility to do anything.
Most people, if they are going to do something wrong, will try to attract as little attention as possible. In all likelihood, they were nowhere near the bridge, and may have still been in their vehicles when the previous trains passed.
CSX also has no obligation to police the adjacent landowner's property. Even if the crew saw them on the adjacent property, clear of the ROW, they had no reason to suspect any wrongdoing. I seriously doubt that the crews knew anything about the requests for access to the bridge, and they likewise would have no idea whether the film crew had permission to be on Rayonier's property.
In addition, people adjacent to the tracks is hardly an unusual circumstance. A crew would have to had some indication that said potential trespassers would even be there by the time the next train came through.
That said, if the last crew through saw a crowd of people at the end of the bridge, with all of their equipment, then, sure, an advisory should have been issued. We'll have to see what develops.
Euclid According to this legal principle, the first two trains that passed the film crew observed them trespassing,
According to this legal principle, the first two trains that passed the film crew observed them trespassing,
They did?
"Court filings by CSX attorneys say operators of the two trains that passed the crew before the crash had no legal obligation to alert anyone else. The video shows filmmakers weren't on the tracks or the bridge, but stood on property that doesn't belong to the railroad. "
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/07/08/trial-to-decide-if-railroad-shares-blame-in-movie-crew-death.html
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.