The chase crew knew they had to catch the freight or possibly die trying. The conductor heard the flanges grinding as the loco rolled from side to side being unloaded. If the loco left the tracks, for sure the conductor would have not lived.
Rich
Just random trivia, but your estimate for an empty car is a bit on the low side. A 77ft coach is 60tons (20ton per truck and 20 for the body), so a better base weight for freight is around 50. Yeah, 1 mil is a bi
Having seen the movie and read a little about the past incident I have a few questions for the experts: 1. I thought the principle behind air brakes was that without pressure in the pipe the brakes were engaged. If that is the case, wouldn’t failing to couple the brake line to the engine cause the cars to have their brakes set, thus making it impossible to pull them? If not, why isn’t this the design - it seems a whole lot safer since I’d think that you’d want cars to ALWAYS have their brakes set if they aren’t coupled to an engine. In the real life story, my understanding is that the brake hoses were coupled, but that the alerter didn’t engage since the independent brake was set. That makes me want to ask another question: 2. In the wake of the real-world incident has any thought been given to changing the brake design, so that if the independent brake is applied the engine stops applying power, or perhaps also applies dynamic braking as well? It seems to be bad design to allow the engine to apply power and brakes at the same time, or that the alerter should ever be disengaged if the engine is applying power.
- I thought the principle behind air brakes was that without pressure in the pipe the brakes were engaged. If that is the case, wouldn’t failing to couple the brake line to the engine cause the cars to have their brakes set, thus making it impossible to pull them? If not, why isn’t this the design - it seems a whole lot safer
We seldom use air while switching cars-even today air is bled off before a car is hump.
Why?
It would be impractical to flat switch or hump cars with air.
- In the wake of the real-world incident has any thought been given to changing the brake design, so that if the independent brake is applied the engine stops applying power, or perhaps also applies dynamic braking as well?
I don’t think so…
You would want both power and then brake while kicking cars.
I’ll let a engine man fill in the blanks since I was a brakeman.
This I recall I seen older ex-steam locomotive engineers on the PRR apply light train brake while opening the throttle…It slips my mind why they did that.
I was kinda surprised by how much stuff they got right, but when the engineer left the cab to throw throw the trailing-point switch, it was actually properly lined. No excuse for that. They should have known better, since this was the one thing that triggered the whole incident.
That 'POOF" you just heard was my suspension of disbelief doing a vanishing act.
As for the old-timer applying power against light train brakes - probably to prevent slack action causing cars to surge back and forth.
And the example of In Harm’s Way as a movie based on real life - no way. The only thing even quasi-real about the novel of the same title was that Pearl Harbor was attacked. The crucial final action was purely fiction, supposedly taking place off a chain of islands that can’t be found on a map of the Pacific Ocean. (The novel was a good read - as fiction. The movie???)
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I guess I could think of some cases where you’d want to apply the brakes on the cars while applying power, but why the engine?
In any case, problems like this could still be prevented if the alerter is triggered ANYTIME the engine is applying power. Why would you want to just park the engine straining against its brakes anyway?
I hadn’t realized that cars were sorted using gravity - it would make sense in that case to disengage the air brakes.
Train brakes don’t really work that way. The brakes aren’t applied by the
air in the train line, they are applied by the air in the air reservoir on
the car. The train line communicates when to apply or release the brakes
and charges the reservoirs on the cars. There is no direct connection
between the train line and the brake cylinder. When the brakes are
applied the valve senses a drop in the brake pipe pressure, when the brake
pipe pressure is less than the reservoir pressure, the valve vents
pressure from the reservoir into the brake cylinder applying the brakes.
When the pressure rises in the brake pipe and the pressure increases above
the reservoir pressure, the valve vents the air in the cylinder to
atmosphere, releasing the brakes and then charges the air from the brake
pipe back into the reservoir. When the pressure in the reservoir matches
the brake pipe pressure the valve holds everything in equilibrium.
The brakes are set up during switching operations such that the air is
discharged from the car’s air brake system so the air brakes are
completely off and the cars can be moved around, coupled and uncoupled
without having to worry about the brakes applying. In the real life story
it was a sw
I just saw it Sunday afternoon. Sure there are goofs, factual errors, and a few other things. But to be honest, I was more annoyed with the subplot of the executive then witht he factual errors witht he train operation. It was quite entertaining. The big glaring error I MOST noticed? It was supposed to be in PA, well those State Police cars were NOT PA State Police, ours are white. LOL.
I will definitely pick this up when the DVD comes out, I’d watch it again. The previews made me think it was goign t be tons of typical Hollywood screwups but it wasn’t that bad at all. I know I wasn;t the only one in the theater who knew something about trains, I heard a guy in the row behind me make a few comments as well.
Watching it made me realize what probably happened on the real thing - as far as I know, there is a setup time from when you move the handle to the dynamic brake position, it’s NOT instant. SO I suspect in the real event the engineer did not allow enough time for the setup because he was in a rush to get out and line the switch.
–Randy
Just random trivia but your estimate of a freight cars is a bit on the high side. Checking several boxcars, hopper and gons, they end up being about 30 tons empty.
1 Million tons of empty cars would be 33,333 cars.
The bottom line is that the root cause of the real accident was human
failure, a human being intentionally set up a situation that circumvented
the rules that, suprise, had a bad outcome.
Dave H.
Dave,I am sure that is done hundreds of times every day on various railroads while the powers that be looks the other way until something goes wrong.
With today’s 2-3 men yard crews-including the engineer I can understand taking a calculated risk that has worked hundreds of times before.
We took calculated risks when I worked on the railroad and yes some times we stood before the man answering up for taking those risks and 90% of the time it was a slap on the wrist with a wink.
Of course that was when railroads had railroaders running the railroad instead of college kids with no train service time.
And a lot fewer people die now than they did back in the “good old days”.
Dave H.
Dave,In 9 1/2 yearsof train service I knew only 3 deaths.A friend who step off a cabin car and into the path of a light engine move,a Chessie engineer and head brakeman that was killed when their locomotive rolled over and down a short embankment after hitting a coal bucket at a crossing.
I do know today they have far move accidents with the remote controlled engines in the yards-including several deaths…
Same goes for The Perfect Storm. I know because I am a commercial fisherman out of Gloucester Ma.
The only thing realistic about the movie is the trains, but alot of the scenes they are used in are pure Hollywood fiction.
Maybe Hollywood was confuse?
Those crab fishermen on the Bearing sea face fierce storms every year and many has perish over the years during those storms…
Accually, laj200, Even though Hollywood was wrong on most of the main details, the basic story line of “Engineer sees switch misaligned- Engineer leaves cab with locomotive running - train gets away”, as seen in the beginning of the movie, is fairly accurate.
Remember, it’s a movie. Unless it’s purely a documentary, they’ll add explosions and “If it don’t go right,…” -type storylines to draw the box-office crowd in. It’s purely entertainment.
There was just one thing I think they missed in editing - if you haven’t yet seen the move STOP READING NOW!
In the beginning, when the yard guy leaves the cab to get the switch, they show the throttle moving all by itself - what was that all about? But later when confronted by Rosario Dawson, he admits he left the throttle in run 8.
This is a slight difference from the real thing - the real engineer did have the throttle in run 8 but he thought it was maximum dynamic not maximum power.
Like I said, I was more bugged by the subplot of the railroad executive seemingly willing to kill thousands of people just to save a buck. Yes, we get the message already, Hollywood - business executives are all evil people.
–Randy
one correction…
a single light loco is limited to 30mph or less because of the signal system. two or more locos or one loco with one or more cars can go at whatever track speed is.
the reason is often a single loco will not trip the signal and the dispatcher will not know what block it’s in. it has nothing to do with the locomotive staying on the track…so i don’t see how they’d be worried they were going to derail at 65mph. most intermodal trains travel at 60 or better, and amtrack is good for 79mph. on good quality ribbon rail, derailing isn’t the issue for light locomotives.
Actually in the use an empty freight car usually weighs about 30-35 tons, depending on the type of car, and this of course excludes articulated cars, or cars of extreme length or such. Most modern cars can hold upwards to 100 tons, especially covered hoppers and open top hoppers.