Trains.com

Film crew death

53599 views
495 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2002
  • From: Northern Florida
  • 1,429 posts
Posted by SALfan on Friday, February 21, 2014 7:03 PM
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.
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Friday, February 21, 2014 7:17 PM

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'.

Norm


  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Friday, February 21, 2014 7:32 PM

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....

23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Saturday, February 22, 2014 7:59 AM
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
  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:18 AM

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/#

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:46 AM

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?

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

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:59 AM

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

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Saturday, February 22, 2014 10:17 AM

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.

Norm


  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Iowa
  • 3,293 posts
Posted by Semper Vaporo on Saturday, February 22, 2014 10:31 AM

Maybe see Dr. Wadu?

 

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

Semper Vaporo

Pkgs.

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:10 AM

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

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:47 AM
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.
  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:59 AM

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.     

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:23 PM

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?

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:25 PM

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

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Iowa
  • 3,293 posts
Posted by Semper Vaporo on Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:29 PM

Murray

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

 
You have to click the little yellow triangle in the lower left corner to get their attention... they do not necessarily read every post all the time and may not have seen the insults flying hither and yon.

Semper Vaporo

Pkgs.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:31 PM

Semper Vaporo

Murray

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

 
You have to click the little yellow triangle in the lower left corner to get their attention... they do not necessarily read every post all the time and may not have seen the insults flying hither and yon.

Ah yes....the magic yellow triangle that restores peace and sanity to any thread.peace and sanity.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Saturday, February 22, 2014 1:05 PM

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.  

  

That leaves me wondering who that party may be. I'd be certain (well, almost) it was not a CSX employee but may be someone with familiarity of the line.

Again; I'd prefer to just wait for the facts.

Norm


  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: US
  • 13,488 posts
Posted by Mookie on Saturday, February 22, 2014 1:13 PM

Let the parties argue a little.  So far, they have kept it civil.  If you stop all disagreements, you won't have anything left except the Chatterbox and the Lounge.  Think about it.  Weather, chocolate cake and a little train watching. 

My $$$ is on the film crew found someone walking their dog and asked them if it was ok to film on the tracks. He told them "sure, go ahead".  See how simple this is? 

She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,820 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Saturday, February 22, 2014 1:13 PM

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

If there is a license agreement/contract/permit (permit) involved, (1) There would have had to be at least one copy at the site (probably multiples) AND a rules qualified individual(s) on the railroad site, especially FOULING the main line and any other operating track. NO Flagman = NO Right of Entry.

(2) I hear nothing about Track & Time/ Track Warrant, etc or anything else protecting multiple people  out on an open deck truss and deck girder bridge with few, if any, places of safety. The CSX Police and the local law would be looking for this as well.

(3) I believe any discussion of lineup will fall back to somebody misunderstanding service scheduling for a lineup or stupidly thinking all trains run on a fixed schedule like passenger trains (like insurance people still claim)

(4) Betcha that there was no RRP (railroad protective policy insurance) in play here as well. The movie company's insurance left them the moment they stepped over the line.

(5) Not hearing any evidence of RWP awareness training which in turn allowed (1) (2) & (3) to happen.

It appears right now that CSX has the hammer here and here's hoping they unleash it to the fullest. Sorry about the death and six others injured. Disgusted with the people in charge and their actions. "I didn't know" is not an acceptable answer in cases like this.

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, February 22, 2014 1:39 PM

Norm48327

Euclid
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.    

That leaves me wondering who that party may be. I'd be certain (well, almost) it was not a CSX employee but may be someone with familiarity of the line.

Norm,

See how hard it is to refrain from speculating?  I don’t even try. 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Saturday, February 22, 2014 1:51 PM

Euclid

Norm,

See how hard it is to refrain from speculating?  I don’t even try. 

Thought about that after I'd walked away. Oops

Norm


  • Member since
    August 2005
  • 964 posts
Posted by gardendance on Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:11 PM

Mookie

My $$$ is on the film crew found someone walking their dog and asked them if it was ok to film on the tracks. He told them "sure, go ahead".  See how simple this is? 

Does your dog bite? No.

Ouch, you said your dog doesn't bite. That's not my dog.

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
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:17 PM

MC,

Good points on what wasn't in place - sounds like the production company did not do due diligence on the legal responsibilities.

Reminds of a story about negotiations between a RR museum and a movie production company. Since the movie crew wanted to use pyrotechnics as part of the filming, the museum required the movie crew to get insurance. When the movie asked why they needed insurance, they were told "Vic Morrow".

- Erik

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,023 posts
Posted by tree68 on Saturday, February 22, 2014 7:03 PM

Methinks that this whole event falls pretty much under "if it looks like *** and smells like ***, then it's probably ***.

There are certainly unanswered questions, but like geometry, if you can prove two sides of the triangle, it follows that the third side will be "thus."

Unless there's some mysterious factor here we haven't heard of yet, the conclusions drawn so far are likely pretty close to the mark.

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
    October 2001
  • From: US
  • 591 posts
Posted by petitnj on Saturday, February 22, 2014 7:05 PM

The most contradictory statement is that CSX provided the film crew with a "schedule". Has anyone ever heard of that as a means of permission to be on the track? I would like to hear if any of you have had contact with a railroad that just said "there will be a couple of trains thru here".

That makes all of the other statements (either from the crew or sheriff or from CSX ) suspect. In many court cases, once a piece of evidence is struck down, that source is discredited. Since all of this "evidence" is coming from the sheriff with no direct information from the crew or CSX, I suspect the "man walking the dog" theory is a good one. Someone from the film crew talked to a employee of the wood products firm who told them that only two trains pass thru here. And the statement that CSX knew they were in the area is most likely speculation after a passing engineer waved at them earlier in the day. 

I know this is speculation, but would like to hear other experiences of dealing with a railroad. 

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,747 posts
Posted by Randy Stahl on Saturday, February 22, 2014 7:08 PM

Please tell me this was a Lindsay Lohan film !

 

Randy

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,023 posts
Posted by tree68 on Saturday, February 22, 2014 7:10 PM

petitnj
And the statement that CSX knew they were in the area is most likely speculation after a passing engineer waved at them earlier in the day. 

It is possible that CSX knew that the film crew would be in the area and may have warned crews of that fact.  I've seen that done when there are going to be major events in communities through which the tracks run.  That warning usually takes the form of a bulletin order or some similar device.  

That still doesn't mean that the crew had permission to be on the tracks, as they clearly were.

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
    December 2001
  • From: near Chicago
  • 937 posts
Posted by Chris30 on Saturday, February 22, 2014 7:45 PM

I'm going to skip any speculation and backup from the result of this tragic incident to one very basic rhetorical question... Why would any railroad let a film crew drag a large object (like a bed) out onto a bridge, where even if all safety procedures had been followed, the film crews safety still couldn't be guaranteed because of the dangers imposed by the bridge itself? 

CC 

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:35 PM

petitnj
...I suspect the "man walking the dog" theory is a good one. Someone from the film crew talked to a employee of the wood products firm who told them that only two trains pass thru here. And the statement that CSX knew they were in the area is most likely speculation after a passing engineer waved at them earlier in the day. 

I know this is speculation, but would like to hear other experiences of dealing with a railroad. 

 
 
I would like to hear if any of you have had contact with a railroad that just said "there will be a couple of trains thru here".

 

I have had that kind of contact with railroad employees many times and they told me what trains would be coming and when they would come. 

The “man walking the dog” theory is fine.  So is the “employee from Rayonier” theory.  But equally plausible is the theory that an employee of CSX told them about the two or three trains due.  And equally plausible is the theory that the film crew had no contact with anybody who gave them information about the trains.  They may have just waited for two trains, and figured a third one was unlikely to show up soon.  It is easy for them to know the lineup of the three trains after the fact because they saw all three of them.

From the latest comments from the president of the filming company, I suspect that nobody gave them permission to be on the tracks and nobody told them about the trains that were expected.  The president said he just thinks we should all move on and stop worrying about who to blame.        

  • Member since
    October 2001
  • From: US
  • 591 posts
Posted by petitnj on Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:33 PM

On the contrary, move on to what? If the film crew were to blame, it is time to start skewering these folks who use the tracks for their fun and profit. I have warned all of the professional photographers in the area that graduation pictures of coeds on the rails is an admission of a crime. It is like taking a picture of yourself stealing from Walmart and putting it up on Facebook.  If we are going to skewer the railroads after an accident, let's skewer the public when it does something deliberate!

We have had snowmobiilers commit suicide here in Minnesota on the tracks all winter. Someone has tell the world that the train track is no place to play.!

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