Trains.com

Film crew death

53603 views
495 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Monday, March 3, 2014 2:11 PM

Having read as much of this I can find, in my own mind I am pretty convinced what we had here was an alleged case of  "give an inch, take a mile" mixed with a little guerrilla film-making. This is all my own speculation (allegedly) but it will be very interesting to see how this shakes out (not assuming any out of court settlements) but I suspect a film company may be about to be sued out of existence (allegedly).

IMHO having gotten permission from Rayonier (allegedly) to film on the adjacent property but not from CSX (allegedly) to film on the tracks, this being a small production with limited budget and an on-the-fly film schedule, someone (allegedly) decided 'it won't take that long' to take advantage of the apparent lack of trains and set up and shoot on the bridge on the sly. Hence no flagmen, no fall protection, and none of the safety measures that would be de rigueur on any other major film production. and they (allegedly) got caught unaware because they had no schedule, no CSX flagman, no nothing to tell them another train was approaching, and a young woman payed for someones (allegedly) throwing caution to the wind because (allegedly) 'they just had to get that shot'.

Its not uncommon to have some very bad accidents on smaller productions simply because the film-makers (allegedly) try to cut corners or shoot scenes in places they are not supposed to be anywhere near in the first place. Again this is just my personal perspective but what I'm saying is not unheard of (allegedly).

Sorry for all the (alleged)  use of the word "alleged", but just watch - this is going to get (allegedly) very very ugly (allegedly) very very fast and the number of lawsuits flying around (allegedly) are going to look like a Biblical plague of locust (allegedly). Anyone speculating should protect themselves (allegedly).

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, March 2, 2014 11:01 AM

Looks like the Academy will honor the young woman, who was killed, tonight at the Oscars award ceremony..

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, March 2, 2014 10:15 AM

good to know there are real professionals in the business!

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Sunday, March 2, 2014 9:56 AM

Here is a web  site of a consulting company that helps movies operate on RR property.  enough said

 

http://www.rtms-movietrains.com/

 

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 61 posts
Posted by usmc1401 on Sunday, March 2, 2014 12:52 AM

Back in the Mid 1970's the TV show The Rockford Files had a episode in which one of the characters was removed somehow from the Coast Starlight  near San Luis Obispo CA.  Southern Pacific did allow the scene to be filmed on it's tracks but not the main coast line. Filming was done on the end of a old Pacific Electric branch near Marina Del Rey CA. This shot was less than a hundred yards from the end of the track. I never saw a train ever on this track west of Alla junction. This line at one time went to Redondo Beach Ca and last saw a train to Redondo in late 1940. A very safe location for filming.

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Saturday, March 1, 2014 10:03 PM

oltmannd

Leo_Ames
I'm talking about the subject of the thread which is trespassing on CSX property. Obviously had they restricted their activities to where they actually had permission to be, this would've never happened. 

It certainly appears the film crew did not have permission to be where they were - with terrible, awful results.

I was rather amazed that the early reports totally ignored the issue - not even saying they were unable to determine if there was trespassing or not.

A few years ago the President and CEO of the AAR was addressing a group of us and told the tale of a phone call they received from Time Magazine. They wanted to confirm a rumor they had heard; they had been told that railroads were "private property." AAR confirmed this to the amazement of the magazine. Time went on to poll business leaders as to railroad ownership and the majority believed we were either public property or public/private partnerships. What the American public does not know is what makes them the American public.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
  • 13,757 posts
Posted by cacole on Saturday, March 1, 2014 7:09 PM

The news media and the public in general have an attention span so short that the media folks started looking elsewhere for something to sensationalize within two days of this incident.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:14 PM

"When is the media going to tell us who told the film crew about two trains coming, and maybe a third one, but it will blow the horn so there will be time to get out of its way?"


Don't hold your breath.

Norm


  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,023 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:13 PM

Euclid
From what the media is now reporting, that advice about the two or three trains could not have come from CSX, as originally reported.  Did the film company fabricate that story as an excuse?

I opined earlier that perhaps someone from Rayonier offered that information, based on their experience, not on any actual knowledge of CSX operations.  "Yeah - there's normally only a couple of trains through here about then..."

Too, we don't know how long they had been shooting at that site - if it was several days, they may have gotten an idea of what they thought "normal" rail traffic on the line is on their own. 

Of course we know there is no such thing as "normal" rail traffic, but if you're trying to meet a deadline, you'll believe just about anything that furthers your cause.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:07 PM

ACY
Several days ago, it was reported in the media that a sergeant in the Sheriff's department questioned a Producer (or Producer's representative) on the question of permission from CSX. The reply: "It's complicated". To say "Yes, we had permission" is a clear statement. To say "It's complicated" is suggestive of something else. It's about a half inch short of an admission that they didn't have permission.

I read that too.  I want to know why we are not told what the sheriff said in reply to the person who said the question of permission is complicated. 

The news coverage of this whole indicident seems to be really dancing around the issue of blame.  Lately, they have reported that the film crew was just in too much of a hurry with too much pressure to get the job done. 

When is the media going to tell us who told the film crew about two trains coming, and maybe a third one, but it will blow the horn so there will be time to get out of its way?

From what the media is now reporting, that advice about the two or three trains could not have come from CSX, as originally reported.  Did the film company fabricate that story as an excuse?

 

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Thursday, February 27, 2014 3:39 PM
Several days ago, it was reported in the media that a sergeant in the Sheriff's department questioned a Producer (or Producer's representative) on the question of permission from CSX. The reply: "It's complicated". To say "Yes, we had permission" is a clear statement. To say "It's complicated" is suggestive of something else. It's about a half inch short of an admission that they didn't have permission.
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, February 27, 2014 11:24 AM

Leo_Ames
I'm talking about the subject of the thread which is trespassing on CSX property. Obviously had they restricted their activities to where they actually had permission to be, this would've never happened. 

It certainly appears the film crew did not have permission to be where they were - with terrible, awful results.

I was rather amazed that the early reports totally ignored the issue - not even saying they were unable to determine if there was trespassing or not.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • 104 posts
Posted by railfanjohn on Thursday, February 27, 2014 6:47 AM

This article was in today's (2-27-14) The State newspaper;  on the front page!

 

http://www.thestate.com/2014/02/26/3293332/west-columbia-native-killed-while.html

 

Notice the 2 paragraphs that begin with "An investigator with the Wayne County (Ga.) Sheriff's Department said ........."

railfanjohn
  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,881 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Wednesday, February 26, 2014 8:42 PM

erikem

Leo_Ames

Frankly, it was obvious that they didn't have permission as the several explanations in this thread attest to by people in this industry.

An article on Eonline (Entertainment on line?) about the remembrance gestures for the young woman who died, stated that the film crew had permission to film near the tracks but not on the tracks. 

I'm talking about the subject of the thread which is trespassing on CSX property. Obviously had they restricted their activities to where they actually had permission to be, this would've never happened. 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Wednesday, February 26, 2014 8:28 PM

36,264 Likes and counting.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • 104 posts
Posted by railfanjohn on Wednesday, February 26, 2014 6:19 PM

See also the following link:

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2014/02/slates-for-sarah-campaigning-to-honor-sarah-jones-vampire-diaries-crew-member-during-2014-oscars-in.html

 

The "Slates for Sarah" Facebook page has more than 27,500 likes. People have posted photos of movie slates filled out as a tribute to Sarah Jones, a West Columbia camera operator who was killed while  filming a movie in South Georgia.

 

Slates for Sarah. 13,482 likes. In lieu of flowers, the family is requesting that donations be made to: BC Education Foundation Sarah Jones Scholarship Fund c/o Brookland-Cayce High School 1300 State Street, Cayce, SC 29033 A memorial will be held at 4 p.m.

 

railfanjohn
  • Member since
    October 2008
  • 104 posts
Posted by railfanjohn on Wednesday, February 26, 2014 6:14 PM

This article was in The State newspaper, Columbia, SC today (6-26-14)

 

"— A memorial service for a West Columbia camera operator who was killed while filming a movie in south Georgia is scheduled for Wednesday.

The memorial for 27-year-old Sarah Elizabeth Jones is planned for 4 p.m. Wednesday at Ashland United Methodist Church in Columbia, followed by a celebration of her life at 5 p.m. at Saluda River Club in Lexington.

Jones, who lived in Atlanta, was hit by a train Thursday while she and crew members were filming a portion of "Midnight Rider." The film is based on the life of musician Gregg Allman. Several other crew members were injured.

Jones was a graduate of Brookland-Cayce High School and the College of Charleston.

A petition will be forward to Academy Award officials Friday asking that Sarah Elizabeth Jones’ name be added to the Oscars’ “in memoriam” reel during the awards telecast.

Supporters of the online petition reached their goal of getting 24,000 signatures to submit the request to the academy.

The awards will be broadcast Sunday."

 

The above is from the newspaper's Website

The following three paragraphs were in the actual newspaper article, following the College of Charleston sentance.

 

"The Atlanta Journal Constitution has reported the Savannah - based film crew Jones had been working on had discussed safety, a member of the crew said.

"It was explained that trains come by," camera assistant Tony Summerlin said during an interview with the newspaper.  "A couple did come by. ..."

He was working as first camera assistant and Jones was working as second camera assistant."

 

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2014/02/25/3291609/memorial-service-is-wednesday.html#storylink=cpy
railfanjohn
  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:53 PM

Leo_Ames

Frankly, it was obvious that they didn't have permission as the several explanations in this thread attest to by people in this industry.

An article on Eonline (Entertainment on line?) about the remembrance gestures for the young woman who died, stated that the film crew had permission to film near the tracks but not on the tracks. While not an irrefutable source, it is interesting that the media with close ties to the entertainment industry has acknowledged that the production company needed explicit permission from the CSX to film on the track and that it in their understanding that no such permission was granted.

- Erik

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:12 PM

 
Remember: "Never feel the need to explain yourself. You friends won't need it and your enemies won't believe you anyway."

There are people who are neither your friend nor you enemy.  Those are the ones you try to influence.  So explaining often goes a long way.

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 9:11 PM

Semper Vaporo

D.Carleton

Semper Vaporo

That is just an attempt to thwart the plethora of replies complaining about how the photo was taken without permission.

Again, that's between the railroad and the photographer. If the railroad chooses to (or not) prosecute that is their prerogative. Just because a fan claims to have permission does not make it so.

 
The 'notice' has nothing to do with the RR... it is a comment to tell the readers of the forum that the photographer had permission to take the photo, and if someone else wants to duplicate the shot (not copy the image) for their own collection, they need to obtain the same permission from the RR.  Also to tell the readers of the forum to lay off the complaints about "How'd you get that shot? You must have been trespassing!".
 

Remember: "Never feel the need to explain yourself. You friends won't need it and your enemies won't believe you anyway."

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • 964 posts
Posted by gardendance on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 8:51 PM

I've seen 'you must have been trespassing' comments on photos that were obviously taken from the sidewalk at a public grade crossing, so I can believe that some photographers might worry that internet posters will try to unjustly complain about how they got their photos.

Patrick Boylan

Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Iowa
  • 3,293 posts
Posted by Semper Vaporo on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 4:31 PM

D.Carleton

Semper Vaporo

That is just an attempt to thwart the plethora of replies complaining about how the photo was taken without permission.

Again, that's between the railroad and the photographer. If the railroad chooses to (or not) prosecute that is their prerogative. Just because a fan claims to have permission does not make it so.

 
The 'notice' has nothing to do with the RR... it is a comment to tell the readers of the forum that the photographer had permission to take the photo, and if someone else wants to duplicate the shot (not copy the image) for their own collection, they need to obtain the same permission from the RR.  Also to tell the readers of the forum to lay off the complaints about "How'd you get that shot? You must have been trespassing!".
 

Semper Vaporo

Pkgs.

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 3:40 PM
Just back from a trip down south. While there I had a chance to get some info from railroaders who work that area. This is supplemented with some comments from members of the film industry in a VARIETY online discussion (can't vouch for the accuracy of that), plus a report in bryancountynews.net this afternoon. I understand Trains has an item posted but I can't get it because I buy the mag over the counter & don't subscribe. The bridge in question used to be a drawbridge, but now spans a dry area at the edge of the Altamaha River. Railroaders estimate the height of tracks to be about 30' above the ground. On maps, the approach appears to be straight when approached from the south, but this is not quite correct. There is a very slight curve where the double track main merges into one to cross the single-track bridge. This is near the point where Rayonier's tracks split off from the mainline. If you pull up the map and lay a straightedge on it with one end at the point where the track comes onto the map on the NE side, and the other end where the track comes in from the SW, you can see this very slight curve. Authorized speed for intermodal freight trains is 60 mph, and there is no reason to think the train wasn't doing 60, or nearly that speed. One or more articles have said the film crew had about 15 seconds' warning, although I doubt anybody was measuring the time (unless some of the film crew's sound eqpt. was running). If these numbers are correct, the train was about 1/4 mile away when they first heard the horn What follows is my speculation: The film crew was on the bridge with a bed or mattress or both between themselves and their escape route. The T&E crew may not have been able to see into and through the truss drawspan because they were approaching at a slightly oblique angle, and possibly because of shadows, so they may not have had any hint that the bridge was occupied until they were 1/4 mile or less from the point of impact. As I said, this is a theory, but I think it's plausible. As for permission, etc., I'll let the lawyers fight that out.
  • Member since
    January 2008
  • 1,243 posts
Posted by Sunnyland on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 2:40 PM

very sad situation, especially with young woman being killed.  But I'd be inclined to think that the film crew did not have permission to be on CSX bridge and property. If the railroad had known, they would  have used caution.  People are way too lax around RR property, our local paper has done stories about kids being killed while walking down tracks with earbuds on and not hearing the diesel horns.  Or cutting across tracks without looking, happens a lot around Kirkwood Station, which is very busy with UP trains passing and even Amtrak.  The volunteers are always chasing someone away when they can.  

My cousin in CA who is involved in the film industry sent me the initial link on the story and I shared with her what the variety article said.  Just having permission from the forestry company does NOT  include CSX property.  

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,023 posts
Posted by tree68 on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 2:35 PM

D.Carleton
Just because a fan claims to have permission does not make it so.

And there may lie the confusion sometimes...  What you tell me and how I interpret it may be two completely different things.  Ie, you say "here" to mean exactly where we're standing.  I interpret "here" to be the general area.

Too, as Mudchicken can tell you (and has been discussed on the forum in the past), things are not always what they seem when it comes to property lines.  That "public" parking lot you're standing in may, in fact, be railroad property. 

I know that from seeing the valuation maps of our line that the actual property lines may differ from what appears to be the case.

And we're all opportunists.  If someone who appears to be in authority says something is OK, we tend to take their word for it if it benefits us.  Subject to interpretation, as noted above.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:06 PM

Semper Vaporo

That is just an attempt to thwart the plethora of replies complaining about how the photo was taken without permission.

Again, that's between the railroad and the photographer. If the railroad chooses to (or not) prosecute that is their prerogative. Just because a fan claims to have permission does not make it so.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Iowa
  • 3,293 posts
Posted by Semper Vaporo on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 12:48 PM

That is just an attempt to thwart the plethora of replies complaining about how the photo was taken without permission.

Semper Vaporo

Pkgs.

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 12:11 PM

(Slightly off topic so take it for what it's worth.) One of my pet peeves is fans posting photos with a caveat reading like 'photo taken with permission.' The previous pages of this thread have illuminated rather well the steps necessary for actual permission. If you have not taken those steps you do NOT have permission. If you have then that is between you and the railroad and it ends there. Don't attempt to answer the question that has not been asked.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 11:22 AM

But that is NOT jumping to "the"  conclusion.   Thaf is simply stating a known fact about the industry.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:31 AM

Leo_Ames

Frankly, it was obvious that they didn't have permission as the several explanations in this thread attest to by people in this industry. Only the type that automatically jumps to whatever conclusion is against the rail company in question would ever think that there was a reasonable chance that they did have permission, were out there without supervision and protection with CSX's blessing, were allowed on a trestle, etc. 

I don’t recall anybody jumping to the conclusion that the railroad gave them permission.  The news media reported it both ways.  I do recall people jumping to the conclusion that the railroad did not give permission. 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy