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.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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
According to the defense’s research, if the train braked regularly, it would have stopped two seconds after the point of impact.”
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
BaltACDI reiterate - ditch the bed - save yourself! Film crew valued their lives $100 each or less.
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
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!
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.
Edit: I think my above calculation is wrong. I'll redo it in a new post.
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.
Forget it Dave. You're wasting your time.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
daveklepper Even at ten miles per hour hitting the bed would have resulted in loss of life.
Well sure, if they stood on the track and let themselves get run over, they would have been just as dead as getting hit at 58 mph. But everything changes when you slow the train to nearly stopping, and also take the time to do so, which lengthens the time to get out of the way.
And it would have been a lot slower than even 10 mph. No train that stops is moving 10 mph 2 seconds before stopping. I doubt it would have been moving more than ½ mph. If the train arrived at the bed site at that speed, the following would have been true:
The bed would not have been thrown with lethal force due to train impact.
The bed would not have broken up and thrown as shrapnel.
There would have been more than enough time to remove the bed from the track.
There would have been more than enough time for the crew to get off the bridge.
That is just with a service application. An emergency application would have stopped even quicker. Incidentally, the scenario referring to stopping two seconds after passing the film crew was with a service application. The same experts said that the reason for not making an emergency application was that it might have derailed the train, as the engineer had stated.
Admitting that you did not make an emergency application because it might derail the train is an admission that you realized there was an emergency that justified an emergency application. And certainly the facts that followed did confirm that there was a real emergency. So you are asking the jury to believe this incredible reasoning that the risk of derailing the train is a greater emergency than the actual emergency that is a known fact.
It is entirely possible that CSX is going to settle the case through negotialtion before appealing simply on the basis of public relations. I would not blame them for doing so, despite the implication of freedom for trespassing that such a settlement would imply.
My understanding is the stopping distance referred to an emergency applicaton, not a service application. Am I mistaken?
If the brakes had been applied in emergency, and the train not derailed, the train would have stopped two seconds after hitting the bed according to expert testamony. But the train might have derailed. And a full service application would not have slowed the train as much as an emergency application. Even at ten miles per hour hitting the bed would have resulted in loss of life.
Only Miller is guilty because if he had not lied the accident simply would not have taken place. None of the others had the absolute control of the sitiuation that Miller had.
Again, if a certain politician had not started the lieing cycle in high places in the USA, possibly Miller would have thought twice about lieing. (And an important religious organization rewarded him for lieing?)
tree68Thus I would contend that the ability to stop at the point suggested was based on an immediate application of the brakes when the bridge and its occupants came into view.
Yes, I can see some time lost in recognizing the nature of what was first seen. I do not know whether the CSX experts factored that into their stopping evaluations. All of the details could have been laid out and evaluated in order to present a good explanation and illustration of what did happen and what could have happened if brakes were applied, but as far as I know, that was never done.
The defense seems to have hung their hat on “no means no.” In any case, the issue was presented by the plaintiffs in the most effective way by stating that no braking was applied prior to impact. It is easy to understand, and sounds like negligence. So I think that took the prize for the plaintiffs.
Norm48327I can't help but think the same applies to the railroads. Cheaper to give the plaintiffs some money that fight the decision in court. A travesty of justice in my mind.
The "plaintiff's" have no reason not to try for money - if the sued entity settles, they (and their lawyers) get some cash. If it goes to trial, and they win, they get some cash. If they lose, their lawyer might send them a bill, but otherwise they get off scott free.
If the "plaintiffs" were on the hook for the railroad's legal fees in the event they lost, you can bet the railroad would be there with the "A" legal team. And the plaintiff's lawyers would be advising their clients not to bother with the suit in the first case, as their case didn't hold enough water anyhow...
Dave,
Not to denigrate anyone's opinion on the subject but I agree with you. Taking responsibility for one's actiond has been forsaken in the name of getting a settlement in which only the lawyers profit. I was involved in such a situation in 2001, but thankfully got in contact with an attorney who had some sense. He basically said the pharmaceutal company never admited fault but had paid a lot of hush money.
I can't help but think the same applies to the railroads. Cheaper to give the plaintiffs some money that fight the decision in court. A travesty of justice in my mind.
Around and around we go...
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
The 'victims' valued a studio prop - the bed - more than they valued their own safety. That is the cause of the death and the injuries. Pitch the bed off the bridge and SAVE YOURSELF!
Euclid daveklepper Two seconds after hitting the bed. There would not have been any life saved, then. He would have stopped two seconds after hitting the bed according to CSX experts. How fast is a train moving two seconds before it stops? I would estimate not more than 1/4 mph. As it was, the train hit the bed at around 58 mph. If he had made an service application, he would not have hit the bed at 58 mph and then stopped 2 seconds later. He would have hit the bed at hardly any speed and stopped about 6 feet later. It is a big difference.
daveklepper Two seconds after hitting the bed. There would not have been any life saved, then.
Two seconds after hitting the bed. There would not have been any life saved, then.
He would have stopped two seconds after hitting the bed according to CSX experts. How fast is a train moving two seconds before it stops? I would estimate not more than 1/4 mph. As it was, the train hit the bed at around 58 mph. If he had made an service application, he would not have hit the bed at 58 mph and then stopped 2 seconds later. He would have hit the bed at hardly any speed and stopped about 6 feet later. It is a big difference.
We've left out the "human factor." First - "what's that on the tracks." Second - "They're moving, they'll be in the clear." Third - "What's that they're trying to move?"
I'm presuming that the engineer probably did reduce throttle almost immediately. That will be on the "tape" as well.
Going back to the "Miracle on the Hudson," that the airplane could have reached either of the airports in question was based on an immediate reaction to turn the plane back. It did not account for a "what the heck was that?" and "what's going on with the airplane?" reaction. Once those were factored in, the only choice became the water landing.
Thus I would contend that the ability to stop at the point suggested was based on an immediate application of the brakes when the bridge and its occupants came into view.
My understanding is he applied the brakes as soon as he was no longer on a curved trestle.
The engineer saw a large object on the track. He probably had no idea what it was until he was told about it afterwards. When large objects appear on the track, it is a sign of great danger which good engineers constantly watch out for. When they see a large object, they don’t dismiss it as a hallucination.
Besides, the engineer explained his reason for not braking. He said an emergency application might have derailed the train, and that in turn may have killed people on the bridge.
So then why didn’t he use a service application? CSX’s own experts said that a service application would have almost stopped the train in time. They said a service application would have stopped the train 2 seconds after it struck the bed.
So a service application would have most likely prevented the death of Sarah Jones or injuries to others. For one thing, a service application slowing train to the extent that CXS experts say, would have allowed much more time to escape the danger zone. And it also would have slowed the train to almost nothing by the time it hit the bed.
And also: If the engineer was afraid that an emergency application would have put the film crew in danger due to causing a derailment, why did he make the emergency application immediately after hitting the bed? By then, it was too late to be of any help, and it occurred as the train was passing the film crew, which would have placed them in the worst proximity for being injured should the train have derailed. This nonsense about withholding an emergency application because it might derail the train is the very thing that leads to railroads paying off big settlements.
I must have served on at least 50 Juries in my life in the USA.
I still say that Miller had total responsibility. Schlimm, did you ever consider that seeing a bed on a track ahead of you might make you think you are halucinating before you realize that it is real and then apply the brake?
Rembember that our judicial sysem has in fact condemned people to death who were later found innocent. I am not condemning the Judicial system in general. But I have every right to express an opinion about the verdict. Just as your crticism of certain political leaders does not mean that you condemn the USA political system or Democracy in general. The Judicial system is the best system available. But it is not perfect, and we are all human beings, not G_ds.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid BaltACD The Rayonier representative would have had to let the film company personnel onto Rayonier property. In the area of the incident, Rayonier property is on both sides of the CSX right of way. It does not seem like that action alone would make Rayonier repsonsible for the accident in any way. Rayonier representative did not keep the film crew on Rayonier property. The Rayonier rep allowed the film crew onto Rayonier property. Why would he be obligated to prevent the film crew from entering other private property without permission. Am I obligated to prevent my neighbors from trespassing onto the property of other neighbors?
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD The Rayonier representative would have had to let the film company personnel onto Rayonier property. In the area of the incident, Rayonier property is on both sides of the CSX right of way. It does not seem like that action alone would make Rayonier repsonsible for the accident in any way. Rayonier representative did not keep the film crew on Rayonier property.
Euclid BaltACD The Rayonier representative would have had to let the film company personnel onto Rayonier property. In the area of the incident, Rayonier property is on both sides of the CSX right of way. It does not seem like that action alone would make Rayonier repsonsible for the accident in any way.
BaltACD The Rayonier representative would have had to let the film company personnel onto Rayonier property. In the area of the incident, Rayonier property is on both sides of the CSX right of way.
It does not seem like that action alone would make Rayonier repsonsible for the accident in any way.
Rayonier representative did not keep the film crew on Rayonier property.
The Rayonier rep allowed the film crew onto Rayonier property. Why would he be obligated to prevent the film crew from entering other private property without permission.
Am I obligated to prevent my neighbors from trespassing onto the property of other neighbors?
daveklepper The family is mistaken about the application of brakes. It would have not made any difference whatsoever with regard to the life of the girl, because the stopping distance was far far greater than the sight distance. There was the possibiliiy of a train derailment on the trestle with greater loss of life, including other members of the film crew as well as the train crew. Note that their campaign for greater safety targets film production, not railroad operations. Again, no means no and CSX said no. They had no reason to assume their no would be violated. Miller was 100% at fault. To blame anyone else, Rayoner, CSX, other members of the film crew, is a demand that human beings be all-knowing and perfect. We are not G_ds. A lie caused the death, and Miller was the liar.
The family is mistaken about the application of brakes. It would have not made any difference whatsoever with regard to the life of the girl, because the stopping distance was far far greater than the sight distance. There was the possibiliiy of a train derailment on the trestle with greater loss of life, including other members of the film crew as well as the train crew.
Note that their campaign for greater safety targets film production, not railroad operations.
Again, no means no and CSX said no. They had no reason to assume their no would be violated.
Miller was 100% at fault. To blame anyone else, Rayoner, CSX, other members of the film crew, is a demand that human beings be all-knowing and perfect. We are not G_ds. A lie caused the death, and Miller was the liar.
Proportional responsibility is a part of tort law. The engineer made no attempt to even slow down with a service brake application. That is where some fault lies, as he might well have hit the bed with far less impact and thus the girl might have survived. Maybe not. But the jury had access to far more information than anyone on the forum.
Dismissing juries and the judicial system with contemp,t as many do on here, is shameful. It is a right for which our ancestors fought, which many folks less fortunate in the world do not have.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.