daveklepper Again, if a certain politician had not started the lieing cycle in high places
Again, if a certain politician had not started the lieing cycle in high places
But Dave, it was only 2014. He hadn’t even insulted John McCain yet.
I read, that the train had 26 sec to stop but would have needed 2 more. To stop from 56 mph in 28 sec the train needed a constant decaleration of 2.93 ft/sec² if my physics are still correct. Regarding delay and build-up of brake power the required maximum might be more.
Are freight train brakes good enough in a service application to reach this?
As comparison ICE 3 brakes allow 3.6 ft/sec² in service and 6.0 ft/sec² in emergency application.
Following a quote from the NTSB report:
While filming on the bridge, the film crew heard an announcement saying “Train!” over the two-way radio. Some crewmembers ran off the bridge, while others took shelter on the bridge walkway. As the train approached, one or more crewmembers lifted the prop from the tracks by up righting one end and standing the prop next to the tracks. The forward-facing camera on the train recorded the accident. As the train approached the highway-rail crossing, its horn and bell were activated. After the crossing became visible in the video, people were discernable on and next to the tracks. As the train entered the crossing, the bed prop fell onto the tracks. End of Quote
Perhaps the engineer realized the danger from the bed much later than discussed here.Regards, Volker
Edit: I think my above calculation is wrong. I'll redo it in a new post.
VOLKER LANDWEHRI read, that the train had 26 sec to stop but would have needed 2 more. To stop from 56 mph in 28 sec the train needed a constant decaleration of 2.93 ft/sec² if my physics are still correct. Regarding delay and build-up of brake power the required maximum might be more. Are freight train brakes good enough in a service application to reach this? As comparison ICE 3 brakes allow 3.6 ft/sec² in service and 6.0 ft/sec² in emergency application. Following a quote from the NTSB report: While filming on the bridge, the film crew heard an announcement saying “Train!” over the two-way radio. Some crewmembers ran off the bridge, while others took shelter on the bridge walkway. As the train approached, one or more crewmembers lifted the prop from the tracks by up righting one end and standing the prop next to the tracks. The forward-facing camera on the train recorded the accident. As the train approached the highway-rail crossing, its horn and bell were activated. After the crossing became visible in the video, people were discernable on and next to the tracks. As the train entered the crossing, the bed prop fell onto the tracks. End of Quote Perhaps the engineer realized the danger from the bed much later than discussed here.Regards, Volker
I reiterate - ditch the bed - save yourself! Film crew valued their lives $100 each or less.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDI reiterate - ditch the bed - save yourself! Film crew valued their lives $100 each or less.
I don't question this.
I asked for the freight train deceleration. If 2.93 ft/sec² are not possible in a service application the 28 sec stopping time might have been for an emergency application. I just try to understand. Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR BaltACD I reiterate - ditch the bed - save yourself! Film crew valued their lives $100 each or less. I don't question this. I asked for the freight train deceleration. If 2.93 ft/sec² are not possible in a service application the 28 sec stopping time might have been for an emergency application. I just try to understand. Regards, Volker
BaltACD I reiterate - ditch the bed - save yourself! Film crew valued their lives $100 each or less.
The news article reported two comments by CSX experts. The first one was that an emergency application would have derailed the train, so that is why it was withheld. I would be surprised if they actually did say "would have," and I suspect that is a misquote of "might have."
In any case their second comment was that normal braking would have stopped the train 2 seconds after hitting the bed. I assume they mean a service application by "normal braking."
I interpret this to mean they ruled out any braking, either emergency or service because the first would have derailed the train and the second would have failed to stop in time; regarding being 2 seconds too late.
I assume that the experts completely overlooked how a service application would have altered the entire stopping emergency in a way that would have most certainly prevented any death or injury despite stopping 2 seconds after hitting the bed. It is an amazing oversight on their part.
I can't answer your question about what stopping distance would have been possible with either type of application. But the comments by the two experts lead me to disbelieve anything they said.
EuclidI interpret this to mean they ruled out any braking, either emergency or service because the first would have derailed the train and the second would have failed to stop in time; regarding being 2 seconds too late.
Got the source (the media you linked) this correct? Perhaps the physics tell a different story? Therefore I'm asking for the deceleration.
BTW a deceleration of approximately 3 ft/sec² would lead to a speed of 6 ft/sec two seconds before the complete stop. That is about 4 mph. In my opinion 5 mph would be more realistic as delay and build-up time of brake power require a higher deceleration at the end.Regards, Volker
Again, I have to question - at what point would the service application of the brakes have had to been made in order to stop the train two seconds after it collided with the crew, etc, on the bridge?
As for the CSX statement that an emergency brake application would have derailed the train, sounds reasonable to me, despite longstanding claims made here to the contrary.
The human factor needs to be considered.
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...
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid I interpret this to mean they ruled out any braking, either emergency or service because the first would have derailed the train and the second would have failed to stop in time; regarding being 2 seconds too late. Got the source (the media you linked) this correct? Perhaps the physics tell a different story? Therefore I'm asking for the deceleration. BTW a deceleration of approximately 3 ft/sec² would lead to a speed of 6 ft/sec two seconds before the complete stop. That is about 4 mph. In my opinion 5 mph would be more realistic as delay and build-up time of brake power require a higher deceleration at the end.Regards, Volker
Euclid I interpret this to mean they ruled out any braking, either emergency or service because the first would have derailed the train and the second would have failed to stop in time; regarding being 2 seconds too late.
My estimate of less than 1 mph 2 seconds prior to stopping is just based on my observations of freight train stopping. Very near stopping, I tend to form an idea of how much further it will travel. It always seems to travel further than my expectation, almost as if more shoving force were somehow being added to the train over the last 10-15 ft. of travel.
Here is what I posted a few pages back with the link to the comments by CSX experts on this issue of stopping:
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, July 13, 2017 2:23 PM
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.”
EuclidMy estimate of less than 1 mph 2 seconds prior to stopping is just based on my observations of freight train stopping. Very near stopping, I tend to form an idea of how much further it will travel. It always seems to travel further than my expectation, almost as if more shoving force were somehow being added to the train over the last 10-15 ft. of travel.
So, Is your comment based in fact? Were/are you an engineer, conductor, or other railroad employee? What qualifications do you have to determine stopping distance? I would suspect it differs for every train based on weight, the distribution of loads and empties through the train. I would consider the judgement of the one operating the train to be more valuable than opinion rendered by a railfan intended to nudge the readers of his posts to agree with his conclusions. I'm certain the engineer and conductor both knew the makeup of their train and were there empties up front with heavy loads trailing the engineer may have been right in saying an emergency application of the brakes may have derailed the train.
EuclidAccording to the defense’s research, if the train braked regularly, it would have stopped two seconds after the point of impact.”
Do you have scientific evidence to bak that statement? If not, I question the validity of your statement. The bottom line is that none of us were there to witness the collision with the hospital bed. Any thing we post is pure speculation given the fact we were not on scene at that moment.
Do I disagree with the jruy's award of damages You bet your sweet I do. While I have compassion for Sarah's parents this trial was a disregard for the idea of taking care of one's self and not getting in a dangerous position. IMO, the film director should have been at fault and be held liable for all damages. The sad part is he was not financially worth going after. Rayonier have much deeper pockets than did Miller. Her parents chose to go after them. I speak from the position of my wife who, thanks to a pharmaceutcal that has paid a lot of 'hush money" but has never lost a settlement in court because it was cheaper than fighting the suit to the end. That seems to be today's plan; take the money and run. It's a sad commentary on Justice in America.
Norm
Euclid My estimate of less than 1 mph 2 seconds prior to stopping is just based on my observations of freight train stopping.
My estimate of less than 1 mph 2 seconds prior to stopping is just based on my observations of freight train stopping.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Norm48327 Euclid My estimate of less than 1 mph 2 seconds prior to stopping is just based on my observations of freight train stopping. Very near stopping, I tend to form an idea of how much further it will travel. It always seems to travel further than my expectation, almost as if more shoving force were somehow being added to the train over the last 10-15 ft. of travel. So, Is your comment based in fact? Were/are you an engineer, conductor, or other railroad employee? What qualifications do you have to determine stopping distance? I would suspect it differs for every train based on weight, the distribution of loads and empties through the train. I would consider the judgement of the one operating the train to be more valuable than opinion rendered by a railfan intended to nudge the readers of his posts to agree with his conclusions. I'm certain the engineer and conductor both knew the makeup of their train and were there empties up front with heavy loads trailing the engineer may have been right in saying an emergency application of the brakes may have derailed the train. Euclid According to the defense’s research, if the train braked regularly, it would have stopped two seconds after the point of impact.” Euclid According to the defense’s research, if the train braked regularly, it would have stopped two seconds after the point of impact.” Do you have scientific evidence to bak that statement?
Euclid My estimate of less than 1 mph 2 seconds prior to stopping is just based on my observations of freight train stopping. Very near stopping, I tend to form an idea of how much further it will travel. It always seems to travel further than my expectation, almost as if more shoving force were somehow being added to the train over the last 10-15 ft. of travel.
Euclid According to the defense’s research, if the train braked regularly, it would have stopped two seconds after the point of impact.”
Do you have scientific evidence to bak that statement?
Norm,
Please show me where I have determined stopping distance. You can’t because I have made no statement in which I claimed to have determined stopping distance. All I did was ESTIMATE that the train was not moving more than 1 mph at the point 2 seconds before stopping. It is just an estimate. It is based on direct observance too many times to count. It is based on what two seconds look like as a braking freight train slows to a stop. The pertinent point I was making is that approaching the bed site so slowly probably would have resulted in no death or injury, and that I assume the CSX experts failed to realize that point.
You asked if I have scientific evidence to back up this statement:
Euclid
If you notice where you extracted that quote, it was not I who said it. I posted it as a quote from the experts hired by CSX to testify at the trial. They made the statement. I have no idea whether it is based on science or even accurate. But that wasn’t even my point.
In my opinion, the CSX experts made this statement with the intent to show that not even a service application would have been of any benefit because stopping two seconds after impact would have still rendered the same result simply because stopping came two seconds too late. I doubt they made the statement to show that a service application may have saved the day since they had an interest in defending the engineer who chose not to make any brake application. My point is that the CSX experts apparently continued to see the train hitting the bed at the speed it did (57mph) even though a service application would have it stop two seconds later.
You said this: “…the engineer may have been right in saying an emergency application of the brakes may have derailed the train.”
I certainly agree. It is an absolute fact that an emergency application MAY derail the train. It is also an absolute fact that whether or not it derails the train, is impossible to predict. It is also a fact that in many cases, an emergency application will not prevent the collision. And in many cases, it is impossible to predict if it will prevent the collision or not. So what do you do? That is a question we have debated before here, and I have my opinion on it.
But that is not the point I make about the two comments from the CSX experts I quoted above. My point about that is their comment saying that if the train were to use an emergency brake, it would have derailed. “Would have” is not the same as “may have.” Obviously, the experts have no way of knowing that an emergency application would have derailed the train. Frankly, I think they intentionally exaggerated to reach that conclusion without realizing that in completely deflates their credibility. Either that or it is a misprint in the news story.
If the CSX experts are reasonably accurate about stopping distance had a brake application occured, their testimony may be the major factor that influenced assigning CSX 35% of the responsibility. Rather than an endless roundabout with Euclid, we should pay more attention to that testimony, ironically by the defense.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmIf the CSX experts are reasonably accurate about stopping distance had a brake application occured, their testimony may be the major factor that influenced assigning CSX 35% of the responsibility. Rather than an endless roundabout with Euclid, we should pay more attention to that testimony, ironically by the defense.
Well, actually, that is my point. Pay attention to what the CSX experts said. Pay attention to what people post and the whole discussion would go smoother.
CSX's lawyers may have not used their experts truly professionally. I think they may have relied to much on the "no." There is ample evidence that grade crossing accidents where a car or truck is hit at high speed, the train stays on the track and vehicle is tossed to one or both sides, whereas if the vehicle is hit at low speed, the train is actually more likely to derail with part of the vehicle under the locomotive. So, again, if the train had derailed, everyone on the bridge, including the train crew, would have been a gonner.
But basically Euclid is arguing from a law and tort perspective, with reference to what law and legal precident is. I'm probably arguing from a moral reference with the source sacred books. CSX and Rayoner and it employees may have had questionable judgements, but none deliberately committed a crime. Miller commited three crimes. He lied in a quesitonable safety situation, he tresspassed , and he caused other to tresspass. Three deliberate crimes. So from my moral point of view, he is 100% guilty.
daveklepper CSX's lawyers may have not used their experts truly professionally. I think they may have relied to much on the "no." There is ample evidence that grade crossing accidents where a car or truck is hit at high speed, the train stays on the track and vehicle is tossed to one or both sides, whereas if the vehicle is hit at low speed, the train is actually more likely to derail with part of the vehicle under the locomotive. So, again, if the train had derailed, everyone on the bridge, including the train crew, would have been a gonner. But basically Euclid is arguing from a law and tort perspective, with reference to what law and legal precident is. I'm probably arguing from a moral reference with the source sacred books. CSX and Rayoner and it employees may have had questionable judgements, but none deliberately committed a crime. Miller commited three crimes. He lied in a quesitonable safety situation, he tresspassed , and he caused other to tresspass. Three deliberate crimes. So from my moral point of view, he is 100% guilty.
Dave, I would add the word intentionally to your statement. He wanted that shot come hell or high water. Unfortunately, both arrived before he got the shot.
I still want to know when that brake application that would have nearly stopped the train would have had to occur.
schlimm If the CSX experts are reasonably accurate about stopping distance had a brake application occured, their testimony may be the major factor that influenced assigning CSX 35% of the responsibility. Rather than an endless roundabout with Euclid, we should pay more attention to that testimony, ironically by the defense.
Agreed. Bucky will debate what the meaning of "is' is until Hell freezes over. Given his ability to straddle the fence and his ability to twist other's comments to suit his agenda he should have been a politician.
Norm48327 schlimm If the CSX experts are reasonably accurate about stopping distance had a brake application occured, their testimony may be the major factor that influenced assigning CSX 35% of the responsibility. Rather than an endless roundabout with Euclid, we should pay more attention to that testimony, ironically by the defense. Agreed. Bucky will debate what the meaning of "is' is until Hell freezes over. Given his ability to straddle the fence and his ability to twist other's comments to suit his agenda he should have been a politician.
You started out with a hostile post in which you put down comments made by CSX experts because you mistakenly attributed them to me. I replied to your hostile post point for point in a very reasonable, and non-hostile manner. Why don't you read that and get back to me after you understand it. But now you jump over and side with somebody else that you assume is attacking me. I thought you were finished with Schilmm. It was only a few weeks back when you made a rage-filled post declaring that your agreement with Schlimm was over with. You must have reinstated the agreement.
Bucky,
Some of us have long been wondering when you will shut your mouth or reveal your "experience" and recognize other's opinions. If you posted on another forum [Train Orders comes to mind] you would have been banned long ago. You seek to draw others into your conversation, one sided though it may be, so you can argue your point even though it flies in the face of logic. You are no better than the "resisters" who post comments on news sites.
I'm of the opinion you have an attitude that this forum belongs to you, and that dates back to the days of volunteer moderators who were ordered to delete any posts that disagreed with you. I got the latter information from one of them first hand. For some reason you have been given a pass to post your drivel on the forum. I would like to know who is behind that. I suspect you are a relative of someone at Kalmbach but can't prove that.
I herewith nominate you for the "troll of the year". Others have information to offer. You continue to speculate. Please take a walk in the forest that has no paths.
I think when calculating the necessary deceleration in my first post in this thread I made a mistake.
I checked the cab video again and it says it were 26 sec to the impact.
A train at 56 mph travels s=2,135 ft in 26 sec. To stop in this distance it had to decelerate at the following rate: d = v²/2*s
The deceleration had to be 1,58 ft/sec² That sounds reasonable compared to the ICE 3's 3.61 ft/sec²
The time to come to a stop would have been t=v/d= 52 sec.
If the engineer had started to brake at first sight there would have been 52 sec, not 26 sec to leave the bridge.
The numbers are approximations as brake delay and brake power build-up aren't considered.
I don't think the engineer was able to start braking at this point. As the NTSB pointed out the bed was placed vertically beside the track. It fell back on the tracks when the train reached the road crossing.
For me it is more likely that the engineer realized the danger at that point when a brake application would have had only little effect.
In this light the quoted line of defense is not easy to understand.
In hindsight this is always easy to say. The film crew got two NOs from CSX so it is not CSX's fault as I see it. But the legal system seems to work differently.Regards, Volker
tree68 I still want to know when that brake application that would have nearly stopped the train would have had to occur.
I don’t know at what point the train would have to have begun braking in order to stop two seconds after reaching the hospital bed; as calculated by the CSX experts.
That beginning point for braking would have to have been after the people came first came into view of the engineer. I believe that point was established as 33 seconds prior to impact.
I do not know how much time the engineer took to realize what he was seeing, nor whether the experts properly factored that into their calculation. I must say I am a little skeptical of their answer being given right down to the second. I am also skeptical because they said an emergency application would have derailed the train.
Also, I conclude that the engineer, at some point prior to impact, did recognize the situation as being an emergency which would have made it worthy of an emergency application. I conclude that because the engineer said the reason he did not make an emergency application was that he worried that it might derail the train. If he did not believe there was an actual emergency, he would have said he did not make an emergency application because he was not aware of any emergency.
VOLKER LANDWEHRThe time to come to a stop would have been t=v/d= 52 sec.
Volker,
I understand that the train was 33 seconds away from impact when the people first came into view. You calculate that the train would have taken 52 seconds to stop. Considering that the 33 seconds to impact would have increased during a braking event, where would the front of the train have been in relation to the bed when finally coming to a stop?
daveklepperBut basically Euclid is arguing from a law and tort perspective, with reference to what law and legal precident is. I'm probably arguing from a moral reference with the source sacred books.
I have no idea what Euclid's perspective actually is, as it changes like the wind. But I do know that our courts operate from a secular common law and tort prspective thankfully, not some religious one.
daveklepperBut basically Euclid is arguing from a law and tort perspective, with reference to what law and legal precident is.
I have mentioned that it appears that the law can find more than one party to blame in cases such as this. But I am not arguing any position on whether the decision was right or wrong. I have been interested in this point about withholding emergency applications because of a fear that they might derail the train. We discussed this in two earlier threads a few months ago, and I contacted two experts to get their take on it. So I was very interested to find the topic at the center of this CSX accident.
Euclid If he did not believe there was an actual emergency, he would have said he did not make an emergency application because he was not aware of any emergency.
And he's a friend of yours? How do you know he would have said that?
This is why you have little credence here on the forum. You make pronouncements like this that have no basis in fact.
The fact is, there was no emergency until the film crew failed to clear the bridge. A possible close call, yes.
Thank you for noting that the train "could" have stopped sooner if the brakes had been applied when the people on the bridge were first seen. As I pointed out before, there was every possibility that the folks on the bridge would have been clear by the time the train reached the bridge. And, as Balt has pointed out, they probably would have had they just left the bed and got out.
I have little doubt that the engineer immediately reduced the throttle to idle when he recognized there was potentially a problem. The "tape" would show that.
Dumping the brakes may well have engendered a derailment to a potentially worse result. Remember - it's most likely that not everyone on the film crew was on the bridge. A derailment probably would have cut a wide swath and killed even those who did escape from the bridge or weren't on it in the first place.
And there is the possibility that the bridge could have been destroyed as well - I think that's been mentioned here.
tree68 Euclid If he did not believe there was an actual emergency, he would have said he did not make an emergency application because he was not aware of any emergency. And he's a friend of yours? How do you know he would have said that? This is why you have little credence here on the forum. You make pronouncements like this that have no basis in fact. The fact is, there was no emergency until the film crew failed to clear the bridge. A possible close call, yes. Thank you for noting that the train "could" have stopped sooner if the brakes had been applied when the people on the bridge were first seen. As I pointed out before, there was every possibility that the folks on the bridge would have been clear by the time the train reached the bridge. And, as Balt has pointed out, they probably would have had they just left the bed and got out. I have little doubt that the engineer immediately reduced the throttle to idle when he recognized there was potentially a problem. The "tape" would show that. Dumping the brakes may well have engendered a derailment to a potentially worse result. Remember - it's most likely that not everyone on the film crew was on the bridge. A derailment probably would have cut a wide swath and killed even those who did escape from the bridge or weren't on it in the first place. And there is the possibility that the bridge could have been destroyed as well - I think that's been mentioned here.
I said this:
“Also, I conclude that the engineer, at some point prior to impact, did recognize the situation as being an emergency which would have made it worthy of an emergency application. I conclude that because the engineer said the reason he did not make an emergency application was that he worried that it might derail the train. If he did not believe there was an actual emergency, he would have said he did not make an emergency application because he was not aware of any emergency.”
If you had quoted the full context as given here, you would not have left out the phrase, “I conclude.” I think “I conclude” makes it my opinion. It applies to the entire statement quoted above. My conclusion is based on the logic of the engineer saying that he did not make an emergency application because he thought it might derail the train. Who is going to stick their neck out and make that statement if there is a convincing argument that there was no emergency? If there were no emergency, no braking response would have been needed, and no need to speculate as to whether an emergency braking application would have been too dangerous. That is the logic. It is just an opinion, and no different than the many opinions you expressed above in your reply to me.
tree68The fact is, there was no emergency until the film crew failed to clear the bridge. A possible close call, yes. Thank you for noting that the train "could" have stopped sooner if the brakes had been applied when the people on the bridge were first seen. As I pointed out before, there was every possibility that the folks on the bridge would have been clear by the time the train reached the bridge. And, as Balt has pointed out, they probably would have had they just left the bed and got out.
This is what bugs me: the calculations for stopping the train are figured from the time the people first came into view. I have never been an engineer or been in the cab, but I'm pretty sure they see people or vehicles obstructing the track repeatedly that clear off by the time the train gets there. Can we expect them to apply the brakes immediately every time they see an obstruction? As Larry said, "there was no emergency until the film crew failed to clear the bridge."
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Euclid Considering that the 33 seconds to impact would have increased during a braking event, where would the front of the train have been in relation to the bed when finally coming to a stop?
The complete stop would still have been two seconds after impact. My calculation doesn't change this as I used that statement as my starting point for my calculation.
The determined decelaration is just good enough to check for reasonability and show that the time would have been longer. The reasonability seems to be given.
And the cited media had the defence attorney's statement possibly right.Regards, Volker
Edit: Post rephrased
[quote user="wanswheel"]
[/quote above]
For me, the cycle started a number of years before Trump decided he was Presidential material. But not for you?
I understand that Miller has served a year in prison for "Inadvertent Homicide." Correct? Has he ever been brought to trial for "Tampering with railroad operations and endangering the lives of railroad employes?" If not, is it not about time that CSX's lawyers began the proceedings?
Thanks for that explanation.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.