Film crew death

[Anonymous]

Mr./Ms. Moderator......where are you??????????

[Paul of Covington]

Norm48327

Why don't we just wait till the facts are provided?

   But that would go against the established practice of speculation and conjecture based on rumor and hearsay.

   By the way, where'd that hi-rail truck come from?

[Euclid]

The news coverage goes both ways:  Some says they had permission and some says they did not.  The sheriff says his first priority is to look at the communications between the film company and CSX.

The part that strikes me as most curious is the claim by the film company that CSX told them to wait for two trains that were expected, then go ahead and set up.  And they were also told by the same CSX source that there might be a third train, but if so, the train will sound the horn to alert them.  There is no way in the world that any large railroad company would grant permission under those terms and conditions.  

So I speculate that the film company is exaggerating their interpretation of “permission from CSX.”  They might have received official permission to be on Rayonier land, but not official permission from CSX to be on their land.   Then, as they approached the CSX track and bridge, they might have received the admonition to watch out for the three trains from a CSX employee on site—perhaps somebody in a hi-rail truck. 

The film company may have simply told that employee that they had permission (meaning from Rayonier), and the employee did not feel compelled to question the claim of their “permission.” 

Now, after the fact, it is an easy leap to claim they had permission from both Rayonier and CSX if you regard the acquiescence of the CSX employee as permission from the CSX.     

[ACY Tom]

I suspect that the interested parties are keeping a fairly low profile and trying not to tip their hand in light of the inevitable future legal wrangling. The nature and extent of permission, the identity of the person(s) who gave that permission (if any), the presence or absence of CSX or Rayonier personnel and their roles in the tragedy --- this will all come out in time. For now, I've been thinking about how to discuss this with non-railroaders who may not know much about trains. Maybe the best thing is to suggest that the film crew would have been safer if they had set up to film in the middle of Interstate 95, which is just a few miles away. In fact, Route 301 is even closer, and would probably be just as good. The highway would have been safer because highway traffic might be able to make a sudden lane change or stop in time. The train, of course, can't do that.

[erikem]

Has anyone read or heard anything about a written authorization by CSX to the movie crew about filing on the tracks? The way I see it, the burden of proof is on the production company to show that they were authorized to film on the tracks, other wise they are fair game for speculation on civil or criminal charges.

I did find it interesting in that several of the reports on this incident stated that the production crew did not have authorization to be on the tracks.

- Erik

[Semper Vaporo]

Maybe see Dr. Wadu?

 

You know, the fellow that runs "Wadu Eye Care". 

[Norm48327]

schlimm

edblysard

schlimm

Norm48327

Thanks MC. For 35 years in aviation I had to put up with others speculating on the cause of accidents. It always galled me to hear those who knew better than the investigators.

You are not an investigator of this accident.  You know no more than what you have read, which has many contradictory statements that don't add up.  We all need to wait, neither condemning either group involved or defending them.

Before attending to the mote in thy neighbor’s eye….

Politely suggesting you take your own advice.

"Sounds like poor comunications" sounds a lot like speculation....

"If CSX had been aware the film crew would be on the tracks, they would have insisted on a flagman and lookout, after all, CSX knows when they are going to run their trains." sounds like blatant speculation on your part.  Perhaps you need to see an ophthalmologist?

Here we go again.

[Euclid]

I don’t see the problem with speculation.  People occupying a busy railroad trestle would be well advised to speculate. 

[schlimm]

edblysard

schlimm

Norm48327

Thanks MC. For 35 years in aviation I had to put up with others speculating on the cause of accidents. It always galled me to hear those who knew better than the investigators.

You are not an investigator of this accident.  You know no more than what you have read, which has many contradictory statements that don't add up.  We all need to wait, neither condemning either group involved or defending them.

Before attending to the mote in thy neighbor’s eye….

Politely suggesting you take your own advice.

"Sounds like poor comunications" sounds a lot like speculation....

"If CSX had been aware the film crew would be on the tracks, they would have insisted on a flagman and lookout, after all, CSX knows when they are going to run their trains." sounds like blatant speculation on your part.  Perhaps you need to see an ophthalmologist?

[Euclid]

This description of advice from CSX does not seem like it could possibly have come from the company on an official basis from the proper authority within the company:    

 

“The crew, including director Randall Miller, had been warned to expect two trains on the local bridge, one in each direction, and waited until after those two trains had passed to set up their shot, which involved placing a bed on the tracks. The railroad had also told the production that if any additional trains came, they’d hear a whistle about a minute before the train would reach the bridge.

A third train did arrive unexpectedly, blowing its whistle while the crew was on the bridge and the bed was on the track.”

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/midnight-rider-train-accident-investigated-by-osha-officials-1201115360/#

[narig01]

My comment.
The train involved appears to be a double stack. Can't imagine CSX allowing a film crew unsupervised access without escort.

See the pic from LA Times

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79400105/

Rgds IGN

[edblysard]

schlimm

Norm48327

Thanks MC. For 35 years in aviation I had to put up with others speculating on the cause of accidents. It always galled me to hear those who knew better than the investigators.

You are not an investigator of this accident.  You know no more than what you have read, which has many contradictory statements that don't add up.  We all need to wait, neither condemning either group involved or defending them.

Before attending to the mote in thy neighbor’s eye….

Politely suggesting you take your own advice.

"Sounds like poor comunications" sounds a lot like speculation....

[Norm48327]

schlimm

]

You are not an investigator of this accident. 

Didn't say I was. Just relating what goes on in aviation. Speculation is rampant there too and there are far too many self appointed 'experts'.

[SALfan]

My brother-in-law frequently works close to live CSX tracks (always with CSX's knowledge and permission), and from what he says CSX is hardcore about safety and having flagmen on site. I can't imagine CSX not having a flagman and probably other staff on site if this film crew really had permission to be on the bridge.

For over two years I drove past this trestle/bridge twice every workday, and I wouldn't want to be on it even with permission. The river is probably close to 100 yards wide there, and the tracks may be 30 feet above the water.

[schlimm]

Norm48327

Thanks MC. For 35 years in aviation I had to put up with others speculating on the cause of accidents. It always galled me to hear those who knew better than the investigators.

You are not an investigator of this accident.  You know no more than what you have read, which has many contradictory statements that don't add up.  We all need to wait, neither condemning either group involved or defending them.

[Norm48327]

mudchicken

Agreed Norm and I've been suggesting that all along.

 

 

 

Thanks MC. For 35 years in aviation I had to put up with others speculating on the cause of accidents. It always galled me to hear those who knew better than the investigators.

[schlimm]

mudchicken

Agreed Norm and I've been suggesting that all along.

 

 

As for the overbearing wannabe that can't leave well enough alone:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/21/movie-crew-in-fatal-train-crash-on-tracks-without-permission-investigator/

“CSX has told me they were aware they were out there, but they did not have permission to be on the train tracks,”* Gardner told reporters.  (Gardner = a sheriff’s investigator for the county)

(*) This is what annoys those of us who are railroaders and those like Ty who have the training to be properly allowed out on the property. Poor judgement got somebody killed. I find it interesting that this disappeared from the national media after it started to become clear that CSX most likely was not at fault and the film media was. 

 

From your same source:  "A CSX spokeswoman, Kristin Seay, declined to comment further and would not confirm that film crew had no permission from the railroad to be working on the train tracks."

Pretty clearly there is a lot of contradictory information out there as well as folks doing a CYA.  Too early for any valid conclusions as to blame, but it sure sounds like poor communication.

[desertdog]

Euclid

It is hard to believe that CSX would have granted permission for the film crew to be on their property on just an informal verbal basis.  And yet if the permission did not include the right to be on CSX property, why was their permission needed? 

It is certainly not clear that this was a case of trespassing. 

I've never been allowed on railroad property (at least since about 1960) without a signed release in hand.

John Timm

[edblysard]

If CSX had been aware the film crew would be on the tracks, they would have insisted on a flagman and lookout, after all, CSX knows when they are going to run their trains.

Having permission to be on property does not necessarily mean having permission to foul live tracks….we have several contractors who perform lots of different functions who have permission to be on property, but not allowed to come within 15 feet of the centerline of any tracks.

They are made aware of this when they sign the service contract, it’s in there, and are reminded all the time by employees.

Unless some underling at CSX gave verbal permission without checking with the proper officers, I can’t imagine the carrier allowing the film crew unlimited access everywhere, including a trestle or bridge on an active main.

We, on occasion, allow photographers to be on property, but the no foul clause is part of the release they have to sign, and they have to initial beside that particular clause….and I have never seen one of them unescorted, even on my small railroad.

The official BNSF photographer was here a few weeks ago, and he had to sign a release also, and this guy takes train photos for a living for a class 1 carriers.

Can’t see CSX giving official unlimited access.

[mudchicken]

Agreed Norm and I've been suggesting that all along.

 

 

As for the overbearing wannabe that can't leave well enough alone:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/21/movie-crew-in-fatal-train-crash-on-tracks-without-permission-investigator/

“CSX has told me they were aware they were out there, but they did not have permission to be on the train tracks,”* Gardner told reporters.  (Gardner = a sheriff’s investigator for the county)

(*) This is what annoys those of us who are railroaders and those like Ty who have the training to be properly allowed out on the property. Poor judgement got somebody killed. I find it interesting that this disappeared from the national media after it started to become clear that CSX most likely was not at fault and the film media was. 

 

 

[Euclid]

Two different statements from the news articles:

“CSX has also stated they were aware of a film crew in the area, but they had no authority to be on the property or fouling the track.”

“Wayne County Sheriff's office was able to confirm that the film crew had permission from CSX to shoot "in that general vicinity."”

 

I wonder if the general vicinity included the railroad tracks.  And if CSX told them that they could film in the general vicinity, I wonder if they told them they could not be on the railroad tracks.  It may very well be true that the film crew did not have authority to be on the track.  But if this was not stated by CSX, and if CSX gave permission to be in a general vicinity that included the track, then that authority to be on the track could have easily been inferred by the film crew. 

It sounds to me like CSX gave them permission to be on CSX property.  Then either the film crew violated some provision of that permission, or the permission was misinterpreted by the film crew.  I have a feeling that somebody from CSX is going to be on the hot seat. 

[Norm48327]

Why don't we just wait till the facts are provided?

[schlimm]

mudchicken

CSX has also stated they were aware of a film crew in the area, but they had no authority to be on the property or fouling the track.

And:  

"Meddin Studios' Creative Director said today's shoot on the trestle was coordinated with CSX Railroad and Raynioner. The Sheriff's Office confirmed that the crew had both companies' permission to film."

Two contradictory statements:   Where is the CSX statement you reference?  Who said it?   The sheriff's office confirmed means the sheriff's office checked with both Rayonier and CSX and found both had given permission.

[mudchicken]

Euclid

It is hard to believe that CSX would have granted permission for the film crew to be on their property on just an informal verbal basis.  And yet if the permission did not include the right to be on CSX property, why was their permission needed? 

It is certainly not clear that this was a case of trespassing. 

Trademark (On the side of those blue/yellow/gray shiny toys that make noise)

[DwightBranch]

mudchicken

Charge the film production crew with murder and wreckless endangerment? CSX authorities are fully cooperating with local jurisdictions (the accident scene is on CSX jurisdiction first with the county second) The speculation and mis-information out there is rampant from people with no clue how things work.

It is a technical difference, but murder requires that you attack someone and they die (murder 1, which is punishable by death in some states, requires that you wanted them dead, i.e. "premeditation") . It could be considered "reckless homicide" in that the film crew company should have known that they were risking death by their actions (I mean, what were they thinking?) Having lived in the South for a time (Florida) however my guess is nothing will ever come of this.

[Anonymous]

mudchicken

CSX has also stated they were aware of a film crew in the area, but they had no authority to be on the property or fouling the track.

-Charge the film production crew with murder and wreckless endangerment? CSX authorities are fully cooperating with local jurisdictions (the accident scene is on CSX jurisdiction first with the county second) The speculation and mis-information out there is rampant from people with no clue how things work.

Again, this will take a while to sort out. The more I see and hear , there are people in the film crew who ought to be worried about jail time and the production company is about to be sued out of existence (CSX needs to send a strong message that this is far beyond an unfortunate accident.)

I agree that criminal charges are appropriate. 

Maybe the second camera assistant was aware that they weren't technically supposed to be there. Maybe she wasn't. Somebody made the decision to shoot on the bridge, and everyone else followed along. Professional courtesy is very strong in the film/photography industry -- people are trusted to do their jobs -- and the hierarchy of second assistant to whoever was in charge makes very difficult to say "hey, maybe we shouldn't be doing this." I'm from the still photography world, but even as a first assistant it takes a lot to speak up against a higher-up.

In any case, it sure isn't the second assistant's job to know the dangers of that location, nor that of many of the other film crew members. It may be a complicated case to decide who decided to shoot there, who was responsible for getting permission, and who should have put their foot down.

Someone was unaware of trespassing laws or thought he or she could get away with shooting without permission, and a second camera assistant is dead because of it. Others are physically or mentally injured. Disgusting.

[Euclid]

It is hard to believe that CSX would have granted permission for the film crew to be on their property on just an informal verbal basis.  And yet if the permission did not include the right to be on CSX property, why was their permission needed? 

It is certainly not clear that this was a case of trespassing. 

[rdamon]

Another article ...

http://www.enterkom.com/enterprise/?p=14278

"Miller had fallen onto the tracks before the train arrived but the still photographer pulled him off, according to the witness, saving his life. The bed was then hit by the train and exploded. That debris hit and injured several people, including one seriously, who was airlifted to Savannah’s Memorial Health University Medical Center."

Exploding Bed?

I probably should have read that tag before I pulled it off!!

[tree68]

I kinda hope that this gets widespread media coverage - especially the trespassing aspect.  You can't buy this type of advertising, and a lot of people wouldn't pay attention anyhow.

[mudchicken]

schlimm

TrainManTy

This article says that the Wayne County Sheriff's office was able to confirm that the film crew had permission from CSX to shoot "in that general vicinity."

The Wayne County Sheriff's Office is investigating this as a homicide.

"We treat any suspicious type of thing or serious accident as a homicide until we prove otherwise," said Det. Joe Gardner. "And that reasoning is always, I guess, to ensure that we err on the side of caution."

Meddin Studios' Creative Director said today's shoot on the trestle was coordinated with CSX Railroad and Raynioner. The Sheriff's Office confirmed that the crew had both companies' permission to film.

CSX has also stated they were aware of a film crew in the area, but they had no authority to be on the property or fouling the track.

-Charge the film production crew with murder and wreckless endangerment? CSX authorities are fully cooperating with local jurisdictions (the accident scene is on CSX jurisdiction first with the county second) The speculation and mis-information out there is rampant from people with no clue how things work.

Again, this will take a while to sort out. The more I see and hear , there are people in the film crew who ought to be worried about jail time and the production company is about to be sued out of existence (CSX needs to send a strong message that this is far beyond an unfortunate accident.)