Film crew death

[Anonymous]

daveklepper

Was he ever tried for the specific crime of interfering with railrioad operations? Or just for the death of a specific person?

According to the linked source Miller was convicted for involuntary manslaughter and criminal trespassing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/randall-miller-director-of-gregg-allman-film-pleads-guilty-in-train-crash-death/
Regards, Volker

[DSchmitt]

 

daveklepper

I am concerned about the verdict being used by "ambulance chasers" in grade-crossing situations in the future.  Should I not be concerned?  Why not

Unfortunately the US has is a long history of verdicts that encourage ambulance chasers. 

[daveklepper]

BL553:  Please educate me if you consider that I lack a basic understanding.  Did not Miller interfere with railroad operations or did he not?   Was he ever tried for the specific crime of interfering with railrioad operations?  Or just for the death of a specific person?

I am concerned about the verdict being used by "ambulance chasers" in grade-crossing situations in the future.  Should I not be concerned?  Why not?

Please explain why you consider me so stupid.  I will thank you for correcting me.  I do not claim to be a legal expert, only someone concerned about railroading's profitable future.

 

[wanswheel]

Dave’s post, like all of Dave’s thousands of posts, didn't try to hurt nobody.

 

[BLS53]

daveklepper

While all legal aspects of Miller's breaking laws may have been settled as part of the Jury trial, as far as I know there has not been a trial where CSX is the agrieved party, on the basis of Miller interering with lawful trailroad operations.  And I believe such a law suit is an absolute necessity if the Jury verdict is upneald upon appeal or if it is not appealed.  Otherwise the same reasoning will be grasped by lawyers for families of victims of their own foolishness in grade-crossing accidents.  And not all engineers and railroads behave perfectly in such situations.

 

For someone of your age and education, your lack of a basic understanding of the American legal system is astounding. 

[daveklepper]

While all legal aspects of Miller's breaking laws may have been settled as part of the Jury trial, as far as I know there has not been a trial where CSX is the agrieved party, on the basis of Miller interering with lawful trailroad operations.  And I believe such a law suit is an absolute necessity if the Jury verdict is upneald upon appeal or if it is not appealed.  Otherwise the same reasoning will be grasped by lawyers for families of victims of their own foolishness in grade-crossing accidents.  And not all engineers and railroads behave perfectly in such situations.

[Anonymous]

Euclid

Why would the CSX experts calculate in a way that disadvantaged the engineer who they were in court to defend?

There are two extreme ways you can do it. You make all assumptions in favor of the engineer. Even if the result is an impact the assumption are at least disputable.

Or you take the earliest possible start of braking and everything else delivering the shortest braking distance and show that even under best conditions an impact was unavoidable. Nothing to dispute but in this case a low impact speed.

in the later case you have to show the imponerabilia like when was the engineer able to realize the danger, brake delay times, brake propagation rate, weather condition etc.

Euclid

In my mind, they have no credibility. Their service application calculation sounds fishy.

I think for such a judgement we know too little about the calculation itself or the line of defence.

Today's software is relatively good if you know all details of the train. And who had them if not CSX?

There are still assumptions involved but by varying them you might get a good result.

In Germany such calculations are used to determine the maximum allowable speed of a train to keep its stopping distance below the block length of 1,000 m (3,281 ft).
Regards, Volker

[Anonymous]

daveklepper

If CSX doesn't win an appeal, even if it settles out-of-court, with the lessor amount without appealing, it is going to have to press criminal charges against Miller.

Can they press criminal charges? Miller is already convicted for his crime I think.

I think the CSX attorneys thought the two letters saying no were enough to avoid the current verdict.

Here in Germany it is checked if you have done everything reasonable to avoid an accident even when the opponent took your right of way. If the court comes to the conclusion you haven't you have to carry part of the costs.

That might have happened in court with CSX.
Regards, Volker

[Euclid]

We don’t know where the stopping calculations were figured from as the start point.  But it seems unreasonable to speculatively conclude that they were figured for the worst case for the engineer and did not include the time he needed to assimilate what he saw on the track. 

Why would the CSX experts calculate in a way that disadvantaged the engineer who they were in court to defend?  If anyone really bothers to think about the testimony of the experts, you will see that they are NOT saying that any application of brakes would have prevented the accident.  They are defending the engineer for not braking by saying that neither an emergency nor service application was a viable solution.  They said he could not make an emergency application because that would have derailed the train.  They said he could not make a service application because that would have stopped 2 seconds too late. 

In my mind, they have no credibility.  Their service application calculation sounds fishy.  It would be impossible to calculate to that accuracy.  Their assertion as fact that an emergency application would have derailed the train is also impossible to know.

I don’t see how anyone can conclude for certain that the emergency did not begin until the train reached the bridge.  That may be a possibility if the engineer could not see any fouling of the track until the bed fell back on the track right before impact.   But you can see that train close enough for the engineer to observe fouling at the same time as several people are on the track and trying to lift the bed off of the track.  Yes, one has to figure the likelihood of minor incursions clearing in time.  That happens all the time.  But seeing several people on a narrow trestle deck struggling to move a large object should be at least approaching a true emergency situation.  Prudence should tip the balance at that point to make the emergency application, in my opinion. 

Also bear in mind that an engineer has other reasons for not dumping the air besides a concern that it might derail the train.  None of those other reasons would sound very convincing in court.

The quick action brake valve requires quick thinking and decisiveness.  If you introduce the need to hesitate in order to decide the risk of derailment, it compromises the very nature of the Westinghouse invention. 

[daveklepper]

Again, I don't think CXS's lawyers were up-to-snuff.  Imagine if the Jury had been required to view some films of grade-crossing accidents.  Again, a low-speed contact can often derail the train, while a high-speed impact almost always sends the vehicle, either whole or in peices, flying off to one or both sides, with the train remaining intact and on the rails.

If CSX doesn't win an appeal, even if it settles out-of-court, with the lessor amount without appealing, it is going to have to press criminal charges against Miller.  Otherwise, a precident will be set by this case that will have disastorous effects on the railroad industry with regard to grade-crossing accidents.

No, Euclid, you did not say that CSX, Rayoner, and the train crew had to be perfect.  The Jury said that in their verdict.  You are simply providing the us readers with facts or judgements that show that they are not perfect.

[Anonymous]

Paul of Covington

This is what bugs me: the calculations for stopping the train are figured from the time the people first came into view.

As the media reported the stopping distance calculation was provided by the defense, I speculate they wanted to say that even if the engineer had made the maximum service application the train wouldn't have stopped in time.

In such a calculation you often use the best possible circumstances. But then you have to be clear about the imponderabilia.

In another forum a read the statement of an engineer that following calculation would be a good approximation for the stopping distance:
s [feet]= V² [mph]

With 56 mph s would be 3,136 ft. So the 2,135 ft from my backwards calculations seems to be on the short side.

I believe the engineer thought for a long time the people would come off the bridge in time or be safe on the walkway of the bridge. It retreats between the truss members as can be seen at 17'':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgL39l6KrdQ

When he realized his wrong jugdement (because of the wrong reactions/actions by the film crew) it was too late to reduce the speed considerably by braking.

As long as we only know the statement "train would have stopped 2 seconds after impact) everything stays speculative.

Calculating stopping distances is quite complex. But when you know the train composition car by car and all other train details there is software today to calculate the stopping distance. You still have to make assumptions but by varying them you can get quite realistic results. Mass doesn't have an influence as the braking power is mass dependend too and is eliminated from formulars.
Regards, Volker

[Euclid]

daveklepper

Euclid, you and the court say that CSX is guilty because they are not perfect

Dave, I never said that.  For one thing, I do not know how the law was applied to this case regarding a duty owed to trespassers.  In all of the discussion surrounding this case, the actual reason why CSX should share blame has never been explained beyond the fact that they did not follow their own rules about reporting trespassers.  CSX always replied to that point by saying it does not prove their negligence.  I have not heard anyone answer them on that point. 

[schlimm]

daveklepper

Euclid, you and the court say that CSX is guilty because they are not perfect.  It will be interesting see if the verdict is appealed and whether the verdict will be overturned.

CSX, Rayoner, and the CSX crew may not have behaved perfectly.  But they did not commit any crime.  Miller committed a crime.

I think delaying a brake application for fear of topling the bridge from derailment is a perfectly reasonable excuse.

 

Dav, this was a civil suit, not criminal case.  The judicial proof standards are very different.

As in most matters, probabilities should factor into judgment.  If the engineer did not make any brake application, it was probable that anything or any person near the track would be obliterated.  If he made service brake application, it is 100% probable that the train's arrival at the bridge would be delayed and it would have been at a much slower speed (3-10mph?). If emergency braking had been attempted, the probability of derailing, etc. must be (considerably) less than 50% or no one would ever do that.

[daveklepper]

Euclid, you and the court say that CSX is guilty because they are not perfect.  It will be interesting see if the verdict is appealed and whether the verdict will be overturned.

CSX, Rayoner, and the CSX crew may not have behaved perfectly.  But they did not commit any crime.  Miller committed a crime.

I think delaying a brake application for fear of topling the bridge from derailment is a perfectly reasonable excuse.

[Euclid]

Volker,

Thanks for that explanation.

[daveklepper]

[quote user="wanswheel"]

 

 

daveklepper

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.

 

[/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?

 

[Anonymous]

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

[Paul of Covington]

tree68

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.

   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."

[Euclid]

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. 

[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.

 

[Euclid]

daveklepper

But 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. 

[schlimm]

daveklepper

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.

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.

[Euclid]

VOLKER LANDWEHR

The 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?

[Euclid]

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. 

[Anonymous]

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

[Norm48327]

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.

[Euclid]

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.

 

Norm,

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.

[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.

[tree68]

I still want to know when that brake application that would have nearly stopped the train would have had to occur.

[Norm48327]

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.