Film crew death

[Euclid]

Here is some coverage of the trial:  http://wsav.com/2017/07/11/day-one-underway-for-the-civil-trial-against-csx-transportation/

These two comments quoted from the story above were made apparently by CSX representatives:

“They also said that if the train were to use an emergency brake, it would have derailed.

According to the defense’s research, if the train braked regularly, it would have stopped two seconds after the point of impact.”

 

 

*****************************************************

Nobody can say for sure that an emergency application would have derailed the train as the first comment asserts.

But the second comment is a real puzzler.  I interpret it to mean that CSX has done technical research that determined that the heaviest service application of brakes would have stopped the train two seconds after the point of impact. 

This seems bizarre in many ways including the motive for saying it.  It seems that the intent is to be understood from the two comments taken together as the article states them.  They seem intended to to convey the idea that no braking would have helped, and that therefore justifies and defends the engineer’s decision to not apply any braking prior to impact.

Obviously the first comment rules out an emergency application by saying it would have derailed the train.  However, the overall conclusion for these two comments has to be that an emergency application would have stopped the train well short of impact.  This has to be the conclusion base on the second comment which says that the service application (which would take far longer to stop than an emergency application) would have almost stopped the train short of impact. 

But the really bizarre thing about this second comment is that it apparently intends to convince us that, after ruling out an emergency application, a service application too would have failed to prevent the tragedy because it would have missed the stopping goal by two seconds.   This seems like childhood reasoning to me. 

In their zeal to come up with an airtight case for not applying any braking, these experts apparently have completely overlooked the following: 

After about 33 seconds of warning, the train came upon the film crew at 54 mph.  The 33 seconds was not enough time for the film crew to get clear.  If the train had made a service application of brakes, it would have arrived at the film crew traveling maybe ½ mph.  In that final two seconds of travel past the film crew, the train would have only passed them by a matter a few yards before stopping.

So yes, two seconds would have been plenty of time to get killed if the train were traveling at 54 mph.  But the main point is that the slowing train would have used more and more time to reach the bridge compared to a train traveling a constant 54 mph.  So even though a slowing train would not have not have completely stopped before reaching the bridge, it would have given the film crew MUCH MORE TIME TO GET CLEAR compared to the train that applied no braking at all.

If the train had only made a service application, the film crew could have probably finished their shoot and gotten off the bridge before the train arrived. 

[Electroliner 1935]

My experience in running trains is limited. I have operated a 44 ton switcher and an old Whitcomb switcher plus CTA cars but none at speeds over 20 mph. At slow slow speed, with no train, emergency does stop you fast. But even on Amtrak, I have been on a couple of trains that went into emergency and you don't stop on a dime. Unlike an auto where a panic stop is fast. Not so for trains. When working on the PRR and riding in the cab of the E8's I observed many grade crossings where it appeared the autos on the roads appeared to not be going to stop at the crossing. Always had an urge to want to brake even when I couldn't as I wasn't operating. Fortunatly, when I was in the cab the cars always did stop in time. In my conversations with engineers, I asked a number what they would do if the saw a car on the tracks, to a one, they all said they would apply power to hopefully knock the car off the track and not brake and have it get lodged under the locomotive and derail them. Don't know if true but thats what they told me.

On one time when I was riding in coach, we did hit a car and I walked up to the front of the train. A car had been hit (in front of its front tire) and knocked into a field. Two young men taken to the hospital. The three mu hoses had been broken off of the pilot and the pilot was bent down to within about an 1/8 of an inch of the rail. It bent but didn't buckle. So we waited for a welder to come and cut off part of the pilot. It took him about an hour to cut through that thick steel. He just sat on his little seat on the rail and took pass after pass cutting that steel.  

As far as EUCLID saying he would have big holed it, I am reminded of back in 1963, when I was living in multiunit rental townhouse complex with my wife and new baby son and there was another childless couple that lived in the adjacent building and they knew exactly how they would raise their child when they had it. When they did have it they quickly realized they were not the experts they thought they were. Its very easy to say what you would do until when you have to do it. As was said earlier, Sully did what he needed to do because he knew from experience what to do. I know I don't know how to fly a plane. Nor do I want to claim what I would do in the engineers position. That would be overreaching.

[BaltACD]

Their mistake was trying to do anything other than pitching the bed into the river and getting themselves clear of the track.  Their trying to 'save the bed' is what caused the death.

CSX did not tell them to suspend their self preservation instincts to save the bed.  The bed was what caused the death.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

it seems to me that as little as 1 second more time might have made the difference between life and death. 

 

 

Let's go to the video:

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/watch-midnight-rider-crew-flees-tracks-train-crash-article-1.2145172

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/video-shows-train-involved-death-midnight-rider-crewmember-29804691

Based on the video from the locomotive at the end of the second video, five to ten seconds was more like it.

 

The video shot first shows a flury of activity with the bed moving fast, but it almost looks like they just froze at the end for the last several seconds.  It looks like they just gave up on moving the bed, got into the clear, and assumed they would be okay.  In a way, it looks like they had plenty of time to move the bed the small distance it needed to clear, but maybe it was hoplessly jammed, so they just gave it up.  Once they were in the clear on the walkway, the next issue would have been to get over the bed to the side nearer the train approach.  I don't know what prevented that.  They might not have considered it to be an issue.     

[schlimm]

I think many of us were hoping that the opinions and judgements of engineers and other railroaders would be the authorities we would defer to on the thread. Wrong again.

[tree68]

Deggesty

I had thought that the leather from the horse had been put to use by now. I see that I was mistaken.

Nah - not as long as someone insists on - well, never mind.

[tree68]

Euclid

it seems to me that as little as 1 second more time might have made the difference between life and death. 

Let's go to the video:

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/watch-midnight-rider-crew-flees-tracks-train-crash-article-1.2145172

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/video-shows-train-involved-death-midnight-rider-crewmember-29804691

Based on the video from the locomotive at the end of the second video, five to ten seconds was more like it.

[Deggesty]

I had thought that th eleather from the horse had been put to use by now. I see that I was mistaken.

[Euclid]

RME

It is abundantly clear to me that in the situation involved, by the time the engineer realized the situation, no amount of emergency braking would have prevented running down the film-crew people, nor would it have slowed the train enough -- specifically -- to allow the poor girl to have escaped having the bed thrown into her.

How many seconds do you estimate that Sarah would have needed to get clear of being hit by the bed or the train?  My impression is that she was on the walkway, in the clear of the train, but on the trailing side of the bed.  And the bed was getting hung up on all of the nooks and crannies of the track and bridge.  So the bed did not get into the clear in time to avoid getting hit.  Then when it got hit, it hit Sarah and propelled her into the train.  The natural escape route was forward on the walkway toward the train, but the bed was blocking that escape.

So it seems likely that if they had managed to get the bed into the clear, the train would not have it it, and it would not have hit Sarah.  It also appears to me that the bed is very close to being completely clear of the track.  And when using substantial force, with multiple people lunging the bed to get it moving over hangups and snags, and maybe 75% in the clear; it seems to me that as little as 1 second more time might have made the difference between life and death. 

What is your estimate?

[Euclid]

n012944

 

Euclid

We discussed this in an earlier thread and I sought out some independent experts to get their take on it.  

 

 

So, how many "independent experts" did you have to ask until you got the answer you were looking for?

 

Two out of two.

[n012944]

Euclid

We discussed this in an earlier thread and I sought out some independent experts to get their take on it.  

So, how many "independent experts" did you have to ask until you got the answer you were looking for?

[RME]

WDGF

Speaking purely as a "civilian," I have to wonder what the condition of the crowd along the track might have been, had the train derailed on top of them.

Very unlikely any derailment would have taken place at or past the end of that bridge.  Derailment further back on the bridge itself would likely have resulted either in full pileup there or perhaps in some of the bridge structure failing (which might have had its own collateral casualties among the film crew).  Much more likely that derailment would be back along the curve, and a subsequent pileup unlikely to send debris across the river.

[WDGF]

Euclid

...And yet the point of the emergency application is also to protect people other than the engineer and conductor...

 

Speaking purely as a "civilian," I have to wonder what the condition of the crowd along the track might have been, had the train derailed on top of them. 

[RME]

tree68

We do this every day when we drive. There's a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Are they going to be clear by the time I get there? We don't do a panic stop immediately when we see them - we take our foot off the gas, and if needed, put our foot on the brake. If they're still in our way, we'll stop.

But compare this with the situation with the casino bus collision recently, where I understand there was considerable time, at comparatively slow speed, for the crew to get way off the train.

In any case, I see this whole somewhat ridiculous argument as peripheral to what is actually going on ... the deep-pockets legal crew trying to pin some percentage of responsibility/liability, no matter how small, on CSX in order to recover their percentage of large money damages.  In order to do that, all they probably have to do is establish some cold-blooded property-saving action on the part of the engineer that would keep him from the "common-sense" (in the eyes of almost any 'jury of peers' as finally selected) action of trying to stop the train as quickly as possible once he recognized the situation.  And that is what I think they have done, rather effectively, given the snippets of testimony that have been reported.

It is abundantly clear to me that in the situation involved, by the time the engineer realized the situation, no amount of emergency braking would have prevented running down the film-crew people, nor would it have slowed the train enough -- specifically -- to allow the poor girl to have escaped having the bed thrown into her.  In that situation, a trained engineer, knowing full emergency isn't going to do any real good, would do something like reasonable full service, blowing the horn, etc., minimizing the danger from problems with train handling.  In other words, a procedure that would be followed after any substantial crossing collision.  In a sense, it's like proactive triage. 

But that's not how it will look to a typical jury, probably carefully coached into exactly the sort of analogy to familiar scale and momentum that tree68 just provided.  They're going to say 'why didn't the engineer take every human effort possible to stop that train' ... and there, wagging its tail for them, is that weasel-word provision in the rules that says that any engineer can use full emergency at any time, a provision largely put there, in my own perhaps-mistaken opinion, precisely for legal situations like this one.

I won't pretend to claim I "know what I'd do" in that seat, seeing what was unfolding.  Nor will I pretend to speculate on whether I 'should' or 'shouldn't' have been watching out for a bunch of lawbreaking Hollywood trespassers who had been told not to be there but, according to radio traffic, were milling around the general area they'd asked permission for ... but a jury can easily be induced into asking 'if you suspected they would be trespassing why didn't you approach at a restricted speed?'

And it only takes 1% for CSX to be happily and easily put in 'settlement city' while the producers gleefully go back to their weaselry as soon as they get out as early as they can wangle something.  What a fine system this is!

[tree68]

Euclid

This is not railroad rocket science that takes years of experience to understand.  All it requires is some common sense perception of what looks like an impending emergency.  Then is it just a matter of making the decision.  It is nothing technically complicated. 

If you've seen the movie "Sully," currently on the premium movie channels, you'll realize that it's not an instantaneous "go/no go" decision.  The last portion of the movie depicts the hearing where the cockpit voice recorder is first played publicly (presumably accurately).  Several simulations were presented that showed that had the crew immediately headed for an airport, they would have made it.

But, they didn't immediately head for an airport.  They took a moment to assess the situation, to try to remedy it, even grabbing the checklist.  When that "human factor" was figured into the simulations, the simulator pilots were not able to make either available airport.  (Sorry about the spoiler...)

And so it's going to be with the crew on the train - Is that something on the tracks?  Is it going to move?"  Is it going to move fast enough?  Can we stop before we get there?

We do this every day when we drive.  There's a pedestrian in the crosswalk.  Are they going to be clear by the time I get there?  We don't do a panic stop immediately when we see them - we take our foot off the gas, and if needed, put our foot on the brake.  If they're still in our way, we'll stop.  Of course, a driver can take evasive action (unless the traffic has us trapped). 

Once again, there are myriad factors that must be considered, most of which we don't have available here.

[Euclid]

cx500

 

Euclid

 I have never worked as an engineer.  But I have enough knowledge and experience to know what I would have done.  Norm asked be what I would have done, and I told him. 

 

 

 

I also have never worked as an engineer.  But I have enough knowledge and experience from having worked over 30 years for the railroad, in the field and in the office, and talking with friends in the running trades, to know that I am in no way qualified to second guess an experienced engineer.  True knowledge is knowing the difference between what you actually know and what is figments of the imagination.  

I have no idea what I would have done; the consensus of those with more knowledge of the job than me is that the engineer acted appropriately given the specific situation.  That is expert opinion, not armchair amateur speculation.

John

 

On this point of whether to withhold dumping the air to avoid a possible derailment, there are expert opinions that diametrically disagree with the prevailing “expert opinion” here on the forum.  So it is not just a disagreement between experts and “armchair amateur speculators with figments of the imagination,” as you say. 

We discussed this in an earlier thread and I sought out some independent experts to get their take on it.  I think it is a very interesting question, and I have explained why.  Now the same question is the centerpiece of this high profile legal case involving the Midnight Rider film crew and CSX.

My experts told me that they are aware that certain railroaders say they would avoid going into emergency in many cases because they are not sure if it would do any good; and they don’t want to take a chance of derailing the train.  Both experts told me that while they have heard many people express this philosophy, they know of few if any who have ever done it or admitted to doing it.  They both told me that they instructed their engineers that if there is any doubt, make the emergency application.  Don’t worry about derailing the train. 

Here is the problem:  If engineers are allowed to forego an emergency application because it might derail the train, they are likely to do just that unless they feel the impending emergency threatens their own safety.  They will always be justified because nobody can prove that the emergency application would not have derailed the train.  And yet the point of the emergency application is also to protect people other than the engineer and conductor.  So withholding the emergency because it is more convenient would undermine the whole point of the emergency braking function and purpose.        

This is not railroad rocket science that takes years of experience to understand.  All it requires is some common sense perception of what looks like an impending emergency.  Then is it just a matter of making the decision.  It is nothing technically complicated. 

Ordinary people of the jury are going to be listening to two opposing views on this topic from two different sets of experts just like your experts and my experts.  Then those ordinary people of the jury will use their common sense to decide if the CSX engineer made the right choice.  Those ordinary people will not be qualified locomotive engineers, and probably have never even thought about the topic before entering the trial.  And whichever way they decide, there will never be 100% agreement on this topic. 

[schlimm]

Euclid

Actually saying what I would have done is not an opinion.  I said I would have done it and that is a fact.  But in my opinion, it would have been the right thing to do.  We can disagree about that, but opinions are allowed.

Case closed.

[cx500]

Euclid

 I have never worked as an engineer.  But I have enough knowledge and experience to know what I would have done.  Norm asked be what I would have done, and I told him. 

I also have never worked as an engineer.  But I have enough knowledge and experience from having worked over 30 years for the railroad, in the field and in the office, and talking with friends in the running trades, to know that I am in no way qualified to second guess an experienced engineer.  True knowledge is knowing the difference between what you actually know and what is figments of the imagination.  

I have no idea what I would have done; the consensus of those with more knowledge of the job than me is that the engineer acted appropriately given the specific situation.  That is expert opinion, not armchair amateur speculation.

John

[DSchmitt]

No one knows how they will react in a given situation until it is over.  Then they only know how they reacted that time, not how they will react to a similar situation in the future. 

[Euclid]

schlimm

 

Euclid

Hey I am not disputing anything.  I am only saying what I would have done.  Do I need to be properly trained to say what I would have done?  

 

 

We all can have an opinion.  As yours is not that of someone with relevant experience as a railroad engineer (or a tort lawyer), you should just have said it once and moved on.

 

 

Actually saying what I would have done is not an opinion.  I said I would have done it and that is a fact.  But in my opinion, it would have been the right thing to do.  We can disagree about that, but opinions are allowed.  As I said, we will hear dueling experts during this trial.  They will have miles of credentials and yet they both can’t be right.  The ones who will decide which one is right won't be qualified in the technical elements of the argument at all.  The decision of the CSX engineer to not apply braking prior to impact will be a key element of the trial.  We will see how it goes.           

 

[schlimm]

Euclid

Hey I am not disputing anything.  I am only saying what I would have done.  Do I need to be properly trained to say what I would have done?  

We all can have an opinion.  As yours is not that of someone with relevant experience as a railroad engineer (or a tort lawyer), you should just have said it once and moved on.

[schlimm]

Murphy Siding

 

 

oltmannd

 

 

Euclid

What would you have if confronted with that situation?

 

 

Pretty much what the engineer did.  Blow the horn, stop train after it hit the bed and the bed hit the people still on the bridge walkway.  This really isn't that complicated.

 

 

 

 

Here's the balance of the quote you're taking out of context. It is from someone with railroad experience and the answer imlpies you are wrong.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying Oltmann's comment.

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

 

 

schlimm

However, there are situations in which without experience and relevant training, that opinion is about as worthless as mine (I never piloted a plane!) about what I would do as an airline pilot in an air emergency.

 

 

Regarding your point about not knowing what to do in an air emergency, as Don Oltmannd said earlier, "This isn't that complicated."

 

 

Regarding your point about suggesting you would know what to do in a railroad emergency, as euclid pointed out earlier "I have never worked as an engineer." Remember the pilot who set his airline passenger down in the Hudson river? He was able to do that because he had the experience, not because he thought he knew everything about everything.

[Murphy Siding]

oltmannd

 

 

Euclid

What would you have if confronted with that situation?

 

 

Pretty much what the engineer did.  Blow the horn, stop train after it hit the bed and the bed hit the people still on the bridge walkway.  This really isn't that complicated.

 

Here's the balance of the quote you're taking out of context. It is from someone with railroad experience and the answer imlpies you are wrong.

[Murphy Siding]

schlimm

 

 

SD70M-2Dude

I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, but my diagnosis is that Euclid has trouble letting things go.  Having not gotten the answer he wanted (a straight "yes" or "no") to a question he cannot forget it or admit that he could be wrong, and feels compelled to ask the question again and again. 

 

 

In layman's terms, good enough. I would add that it does not matter to him what your answer is.  He disputes himself.

 

Or they will dipute it themselves. I'm not so sure there's only one voice trying to be heard in there. 

[Euclid]

schlimm

However, there are situations in which without experience and relevant training, that opinion is about as worthless as mine (I never piloted a plane!) about what I would do as an airline pilot in an air emergency.

Regarding your point about not knowing what to do in an air emergency, as Don Oltmannd said earlier, "This isn't that complicated."

 

[Euclid]

 

Hey I am not disputing anything.  I am only saying what I would have done.  Do I need to be properly trained to say what I would have done?  You guys seem awfully defensive that I won’t accept your hostility.  If you would care to look at the news on this story, you will see that the whole legal theory of the plaintiff is centered on the actions of the engineer and the crews of other earlier trains exactly relative to what I have been talking about here.  There is a lot more going on in this trial than what we have generally been led to believe by the reporting over the last couple years since the accident.   

 

[tree68]

Murphy Siding

Knowledge and experience in what?

MSTS?  Trainz?

[schlimm]

SD70M-2Dude

I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, but my diagnosis is that Euclid has trouble letting things go.  Having not gotten the answer he wanted (a straight "yes" or "no") to a question he cannot forget it or admit that he could be wrong, and feels compelled to ask the question again and again. 

In layman's terms, good enough. I would add that it does not matter to him what your answer is.  He disputes himself.

[Norm48327]

zugmann

I'm just curious how someone that openly admits to having no experince would have the "knowledge and experience" to know what to do.  He has every right to say what he thinks he would have done (hindsight is always 20/20) but to be so damned sure about it?  Baffling.

Zug,

I have been wondering the same  for years. Why can someone who claims to have experience but refuses to reveal his qualifiications can speak with authority on any rail related subject. Given his  reluctance to provide his experience is the reason I constantly challenge Bucky to show us his qualifactions.

i'm still in the learning mode and have a long way to go to understand the realities of life as a conductor, engineer, or dispatcher. Your posts, and Balt ACD's have been informative. I deem those who stand near the tracks with camera in hand fomers. OTOH, there are those of us who have a definite interest.