I thought this was pretty humorous both sides could use a little work on what to say and not to say to each other.
This specific derailment might not have been due to bad track but E&LS really does need to fix up its track.
Another whiteout photo.
A thought I had was a safety question. When the worker was under the locomotive, was a “THREE POINT PROTECTION” rule in efect? I didn’t hear any conversation that indicated he had any protection from the equipment being moved.
Might have blue flagged the control stand.
From my observation of the rail employees in the video - I don’t think they ever heard of Blue Flag or Three Step Protection. Very unprofessional in my opinion.
Just an observation; From the ‘greetings’ and ensuing conversations. My guess, is there there is probably some"History"; between the person with the camera, and the railroad employees(?). Agendas/ Confrontational? ? Most likely/You Betcha’…
Another possibility: railroad ROWS generally have a specific distance from the centerline of the tracks {established for taxation purposes?} The cameraman trespassing, techincally, quite possible (?)
I’d leave that up to someone who has that kind of expertise, possibly, mudchicken(?)
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. It must be a short line. A really SHORT line. I’m actually kinda surprised they re-railed that engine so quickly…tho I couldn’t really see the other side. I’m certainly no expert on re-railing stuff but I thought wood blocks were customary. I don’t understand how a winch and chain did the trick. As for the drama, someone must have been having a bad day. Perhaps another testament to their professionalism. While folks trespass all the time, especially with cameras, Duck Dynasty dude didn’t seem close enough to be a safety risk so had it been me, I couldn’t have cared less what he did.
It looked to me like they were using the come-along to turn the truck closer to the rail.
If the county real property/GIS information on-line is to believed, the road actual IS owned by the railroad.
However, since it appears that the railroad has allowed use by the public, and the road is apparently maintained by the municipality, one could probably argue in court that the railroad has essentially given up sole claim to the property. There’s a term for that, but it escapes me.
That might get a person out of a ticket, if one were forthcoming, but not without a warning. And if the railroad wants to prevent further such issues, they’re going to have to secure the land, IMHO.
In the end, this guy might just suffer the wrath of those who have been using that road, should the railroad decide to exert their ownership and close it off.
The fellow shooting the video deserves any and all credit/blame for anything that was handed to him. He copped an attitude and got it right back.
Not sure if the fact that the State Police called him at home indicates prior engagements.
I’d cut the railroaders some slack… they were rerailing a locomotive in the cold dead of winter with only limited tools at their disposal. Nerves likely frayed to begin with…Cameraman could have been friendlier too…
Not saying who is right or wrong (probably both are guilty somewhat), but I’m usually suspicious when a video has a link to donate to its creator.
Could be a (yet another) case of creating drama for views/money.
And isn’t teh E&LS the railroad with the Baldwin sharks, and was known for their hostility toward railfans due to prior events (trespassing/stealing)?
And tree: adverse property rights?
E&LS is the RR that had or has? the Sharks and no they don’t have much affection for rail fans.
As a former Class 1 railroader, I have a couple of thoughts…
What was my employer’s attitude toward me speaking to a fellow employee in that manner? An aggressive, foul-mouthed, argumentative incident with someone I worked with. I can tell you no one I worked with ever acted this way and if they had and it either was reported to or overheard by a manager, do you know what would have happened? Rhymes with write-up or Investigation.
So, given that insight into the culture expected of my employer, how would the carrier like me to speak to the public? I would like to think that my employer expected and demanded more of me and my co-workers than silly bickering and threatening the public with expletives. If you don’t know how to properly and professionally speak to the public then stick to the facts and do not engage in a back and forth, right? If he believed that the guy was trespassing then he should have told him that he was standing on railroad property rather than stating the road was his, right? Is he the owner of the railroad? My train was “my” train informally but for purposes of legality, “my” train was my employer’s train and I was merely being employed to operate it. Taking an argument using personalized language escalates the confrontation. He should have told duck dynasty dude that he was trespassing on railroad property, perhaps told him a couple more times and then informed him he was going to contact his manager or the police, whichever was appropriate for his situation.
I can tell you in my class 1 operation, if I had needed to r
I believe the term is actually “adverse possession,” but the effect is the same.
And this gets to the heart of the problem.
The photographer thought he had every right to be on that road, based on previous use, maintenance by the municipality, etc, etc.
In that regard, the railroad is at fault - they’ve allowed open access to that stretch of road. Odds are it’s not posted, and there are no barriers.
It’s no wonder the photographer didn’t believe the RR employee - who appears to have been exactly right.
Still, the photographer’s attitude right from the first exchange left a lot to be desired. I’d probably get him busted just to teach him a lesson…
Edit - I sent a PM to the photographer suggesting he check with his local real property folks. He sounded like he is now aware that the subject road belongs to the railroad, and said that there are other issues involving the ROW in the area as well.
Wonder if MC will get involved…
The photographer came on strong, but it was the railroader who began the hostile confrontation with the first “f-bomb.” That was incredibly petty and childish even if the photographer was trespassing. And any normal person is going to assme that is a public street.
This suggest that he and the railroad guys have probably met before. [sigh]
Small town… likely met before…
[quote user=“Justicar”]
Ulrich
I’d cut the railroaders some slack… they were rerailing a locomotive in the cold dead of winter with only limited tools at their disposal. Nerves likely frayed to begin with…Cameraman could have been friendlier too…
As a former Class 1 railroader, I have a couple of thoughts…
What was my employer’s attitude toward me speaking to a fellow employee in that manner? An aggressive, foul-mouthed, argumentative incident with someone I worked with. I can tell you no one I worked with ever acted this way and if they had and it either was reported to or overheard by a manager, do you know what would have happened? Rhymes with write-up or Investigation.
So, given that insight into the culture expected of my employer, how would the carrier like me to speak to the public? I would like to think that my employer expected and demanded more of me and my co-workers than silly bickering and threatening the public with expletives. If you don’t know how to properly and professionally speak to the public then stick to the facts and do not engage in a back and forth, right? If he believed that the guy was trespassing then he should have told him that he was standing on railroad property rather than stating the road was his, right? Is he the owner of the railroad? My train was “my” train informally but for purposes of legality, “my” train was my employer’s train and I was merely being employed to operate it. Taking an argument using personalized language escalates the confrontation. He should have told duck dynasty dude that he was trespassing on railroad prope
So what?