Film: Unstoppable - Unrealistic?

[oliMw]

I am currently watching the 2010 film Unstoppable and I can't help but think how unrealistic this film is. I have virtually no knowledge on the USA's railway system. For starters would a driver abandon the Cab of his locomotive in order to change a set of points or would they stay with the train and derail it? Also it seems unlikely that a train would be allowed to continue on the Mainline when a unmanned train was on the mainline. I know that in the UK a driver would not be allowed to leave the cab without It being fully stationary and with all breaks on, is this different In the USA?

 

[johnnyp_360]

I don't know much about the US railway system either, but I was watching it rather sceptical. They must have some sort of automatic train protection system you'd think? I think its one of those films you just have to take it how it is. Just for a bit of entertainment.

 

[ninja-lewis]

Wikipedia states it is loosely based on a real incident where the engineer did get off to correct a switch while the rain was moving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSX_8888_incident

 

[Crossover]

I watched it a year or so back on the recommendation of a friend. As has been said, it is loosely based on a real story, so things that may not happen in normal service could happen (though for unrealistic, I'm not sure a loco would have avoided tipping over going on the sharp bend and over speed :P)

 

[Ze Random One]

My understanding is that it is not uncommon in 'dark' areas (i.e., unsignalled areas) for the drivers to have to stop the train to change the points if it is to be looped or put into a siding. However, the train would obviously have to be appropriately stopped and secured prior to leaving the cab. Movement authority in this environment is provided through the use of 'train orders', which are often radioed through. A train order will, for example, state that your train must enter the loop at a certain location, and is not to be moved until it has been passed by another train, and the number of this train will be given.
The integrity of the train is monitored by remote axle counters, which broadcast the axle count on an open radio frequency. It is up to the driver to ensure the appropriate number of axles have entered/left a section, and to declare an emergency by radio if their train has become divided.
Others may know more, but I believe all US trains have to be continuously braked as an additional mitigation against the risks involved with a divided train, and that it is atypical for the train being met (as per the train order) to be a same-direction movement.
Finally, I understand it is normal for trains to carry two drivers when working in 'dark' territory, in part because of the limited mess & depot facilities out in small-town USA, and in part because then one driver can stay with the train while the other attends to any line-side duties.
As with the UK, I understand that generally the largest risks on the railroad come from some dumb idiot stalling their 100ft rig on a level crossing, or playing race-the-train.

I would add that 'Positive Train Control' systems (i.e., TPWS / ATP) are still relatively rare in the US, but are becoming mandatory on certain lines with higher risk traffic (passengers, chemicals...)

 

[Dieseldriver]

So there are genuinely unsignalled lines in the USA with trains being controlled entirely by verbal communication? hock:

 

[ainsworth74]

Worth bearing in mind that in a lot of places some lines might only see a few trains a day (less possibly!). Their network is very different to our own.

 

[gazzak]

Forget the unrealistic nature of much of the film, it was a very enjoyable watch.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Forget the unrealistic nature of much of the film, it was a very enjoyable watch.

I enjoyed it

 

[talltim]

So there are genuinely unsignalled lines in the USA with trains being controlled entirely by verbal communication? hock:

You mean we had unfitted trains here until the 1980s? hock:

 

[jopsuk]

So there are genuinely unsignalled lines in the USA with trains being controlled entirely by verbal communication? hock:

Well, verbal communications plus the paperwork of the train order.

They also have:

Radio-multiple working for locomotives- locos positioned in the middle or rear of a long freight train may be controlled wirelessly from the leading locomotive

radio-controlled yard shunters - some marshalling yards do not have shunting drivers on the ground; rather the shunter sits in the control tower and drives the locomotives from there.

 

[Crossover]

I enjoyed it

Likewise

 

[Harbon 1]

Surely if the brake pipe that was unhooked at the start, the train wouldn't have been able to get the brakes off? But other than that, a pretty good film

 

[12CSVT]

Probably not as far fetched as this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8M5_7KNZiA

[youtube]u8M5_7KNZiA[/youtube]

 

[Dieseldriver]

You mean we had unfitted trains here until the 1980s? hock:

Touche.... It just shows the differences between railways. I couldn't imagine being away from the safety net of an interlocked, fully signalled mainline.

 

[ainsworth74]

I enjoyed it

Likewise

As did I, though watching a film about a train disaster whilst taking the train to Glasgow possibly wasn't my best idea

 

[D365]

The 'explosion effect' of Judd's train was much more realistic than those in Zorse (Source) Code. CGI isn't always realistic enough :P I'm still confused to this day on how it was possible for #777's throttle to 'jump' though.

 

[Crossover]

As did I, though watching a film about a train disaster whilst taking the train to Glasgow possibly wasn't my best idea

Off topic, but can't be any worse than me and a friend once playing the Stafford area SimSig map whilst on a Manchester Piccadilly - Birmingham (and beyond) via Stafford service...really hoped someone may see

 

[341o2]

So there are genuinely unsignalled lines in the USA with trains being controlled entirely by verbal communication? hock:

The post is one of a train dispatcher, The system in the USA is the Standard Code. I recall an episode of Great Railway journeys in the Andes, where the basis of the system was communicating with the dispatcher at the next crossing point, and both agreeing that a movement may take place verbally. This is then committed to writing and given to the crew. in Fawcett's book "Railways of the Andes" p193 regarding the dispatcher's greatest fear, issuing "lap orders" where a dispatcher authorises a movement, forgetting that another movement within that section has already been authorised

These would be slow light traffic lines where there would be a good chance of seeing another train and stopping in time. When a head on collision occured on the lines Fawcett worked is called a cornfield meet, he recalled one fatal collision between two trains where neither had the opportunity to see the other in time

 

[mrmatt]

watching a film about a train disaster whilst taking the train to Glasgow possibly wasn't my best idea

I got strange looks from Virgin staff whilst watching The Taking of Pelham 123 (the travolta remake). Can't think why!

 

[D365]

watching a film about a train disaster whilst taking the train to Glasgow possibly wasn't my best idea

I got strange looks from Virgin staff whilst watching The Taking of Pelham 123 (the travolta remake). Can't think why!

Enjoyed that one too!

 

[Bill EWS]

Up into the 80's many Engineering trains were still partly braked. I worked a few. Their speed was quite slow and manageable but you had to be aware of the weather conditions, especially in Winter when it may suddenly turn frosty.

I watched that 'Unstoppable' film and while it was good entertainment as a retired driver I had to accept the' Film maker's Licence' in many scenes. You have to do this with most films where trains are a main part of the story. Just enjoy them for what they are.

I would imagine even American loco's have DSD fitted and this would stop the train from being able to move without a driver in the cab. Unless, someone released the air in every wagon and isolated the DSD on the loco making the whole trin a 'swinger'.

 

[185]

Realistic? Runaway train? Only at Neville Hill TMD...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zLSRRJiKbxg/SwhcgbFiVfI/AAAAAAAACk4/XtKTH418CNo/s1600/neville+hill7.jpg

 

[Clip]

I got strange looks from Virgin staff whilst watching The Taking of Pelham 123 (the travolta remake). Can't think why!

Because its rubbish?

 

[TotalLamer]

I would imagine even American loco's have DSD fitted and this would stop the train from being able to move without a driver in the cab. Unless, someone released the air in every wagon and isolated the DSD on the loco making the whole trin a 'swinger'.

Hey, I was just futzing around on the internetz and came across the forum... and this thread! I'm a Conductor for CSX in the US and I can shed a bit of light I think...

I'm not sure what a "DSD" is but I assume you're talking about a "dead man's switch" of some kind where it beeps every now and then and if the Engineer doesn't press a button or whatever, it automatically stops the train? Yes, our locomotives do have these. However, in this particular situation, the Engineer had applied the independent brake before exiting the locomotive, so that auto-shutdown system wasn't enabled (I imagine the system assumes that since the brake is applied the locomotive will be stopped).

The reason the train continued on is because, aside from the independent brake, the Engineer also tried to set the dynamic brake before exiting the locomotive. Unfortunately he accidentally kept the traction motors set for power rather than dynamic braking, and so the train sped off after he dismounted.

Oh and no... no the Engineer definitely shouldn't have been getting down to line that switch. That IS what happened in the real incident so I'm wondering where his Conductor was at? Either way it's a big no no... granted, back when all this happened safety rules were a bit more lax. But beyond that, back then Trainmasters did a bit more of just turning a blind eye to what crews did so long as they got the work done and got it done quickly. Smaller derailments could be pushed under the rug, run through switches, that kind of thing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My understanding is that it is not uncommon in 'dark' areas (i.e., unsignalled areas) for the drivers to have to stop the train to change the points if it is to be looped or put into a siding. However, the train would obviously have to be appropriately stopped and secured prior to leaving the cab. Movement authority in this environment is provided through the use of 'train orders', which are often radioed through. A train order will, for example, state that your train must enter the loop at a certain location, and is not to be moved until it has been passed by another train, and the number of this train will be given.
The integrity of the train is monitored by remote axle counters, which broadcast the axle count on an open radio frequency. It is up to the driver to ensure the appropriate number of axles have entered/left a section, and to declare an emergency by radio if their train has become divided.
Others may know more, but I believe all US trains have to be continuously braked as an additional mitigation against the risks involved with a divided train, and that it is atypical for the train being met (as per the train order) to be a same-direction movement.
Finally, I understand it is normal for trains to carry two drivers when working in 'dark' territory, in part because of the limited mess & depot facilities out in small-town USA, and in part because then one driver can stay with the train while the other attends to any line-side duties.
As with the UK, I understand that generally the largest risks on the railroad come from some dumb idiot stalling their 100ft rig on a level crossing, or playing race-the-train.

I would add that 'Positive Train Control' systems (i.e., TPWS / ATP) are still relatively rare in the US, but are becoming mandatory on certain lines with higher risk traffic (passengers, chemicals...)

Sort of right, sort of not.

Yes, all trains in the US require two man crews, whether in signaled or non-signaled territory. Engineer and Conductor. The Engineer drives of course and the Conductor talks with the dispatcher, keeps up with paperwork and all that sort of thing. Conductor also calls signals in signaled territory and just in general provides a second set of eyes.

Calling signals is just as it sounds... you just hop on the radio and say something to the effect of "Q49721, lead engine CSXT 4677, slow clear on the East Yard Lead, lead to the main, northbound. Q49721 out."

Train Orders haven't been used for controlling train movement in, well... decades I imagine. I mean we still get "orders" but they're mostly just messages from the dispatcher regarding slow orders, work authorities, heat warnings, places that trains have been tied down on sidings or something... that sort of thing. For CSX, movement in unsignaled (or "dark") territory is controlled by EC-1 forms. Say you're waiting at a yard in dark territory waiting to make a run down the main. Well you ring up the dispatcher and he'll give you authority on a certain amount of territory. For us it might be something like "Operate on the main train, north direction from the SAS North End of Freedom, main track to the SF 327.1, main track. "SAS North End of Freedom" being the "Southward-facing absolute signal at the north end of Freedom Siding" which is the last signal before dark territory starts and "SF 327.1" being a milepost. The dispatcher will read all this out to you, you write it down and read it back to him and then he'll tell you it's "OK and effective at XXXX time" and give you his initials. Also, when throwing switches in dark territory, the dispatcher has to give you permission to operate them on that same EC-1 form. Then you have to keep track of the milepost for each switch, when you first threw it and the time you restored it for the main. The dispatcher will take all this info back from you after you give up your territory to ensure all manually operated switches are lined and locked for the main.

Let's see, what else, uhhh... yeah, all trains are continuously braked and have to have a brake test before getting on the main, there's different kinds but a road train will get what's called a "Class 1" that depending on how long the train is can take an hour or more. But if the train divides the crew knows it pretty much immediately... as soon as the hoses between the cars where they pulled a knuckle come apart, the whole train will go into emergency and thus stop. At which point the Conductor has to walk back to find where the cut is... sucks if it's, y'know... 80 cars back on a 100 car train, lol. Usually the spare knuckles are on the locomotive so he'll go back to the locomotive, drop the knuckle on the ground, pull the train ahead, load the knuckle up on the last car and then shove back to where the other half of the train is because... well knuckles are heavy, haha.

 

[RailProfileUK]

I enjoyed this film too even though it was a bit far fetched at times. If you want a more realistic film try Runnaway Train from 1985 with Jon Voight.

I must of seen this film at least 20 times and it's still not boring!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_Train_(film)

 

[TotalLamer]

Surely if the brake pipe that was unhooked at the start, the train wouldn't have been able to get the brakes off? But other than that, a pretty good film

Nah, especially back when the incident took place, most yard switching was done off-air. Either the air brakes aren't applied on the train at all and you just knock off however many hand brakes were applied when the cut was tied down or you pull the release valves on all the cars to release the air brakes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 'explosion effect' of Judd's train was much more realistic than those in Zorse (Source) Code. CGI isn't always realistic enough :P I'm still confused to this day on how it was possible for #777's throttle to 'jump' though.

It didn't. I imagine the filmmakers just assumed (probably correctly) than the general moviegoing public isn't smart enough to understand how a locomotive's throttle and dynamic braking systems work.

 

[GB]

I'm not sure what a "DSD" is but I assume you're talking about a "dead man's switch" of some kind where it beeps every now and then and if the Engineer doesn't press a button or whatever, it automatically stops the train?

"DSD" refers to the "Drivers Safety Device". Its a handle or pedal that needs to be continually depressed by the driver if the reverser handle is in either forward or reverse. If the driver takes his foot off the pedal (or hand off the handle) for more than a few seconds the brakes apply automatically.

Then there is the "Vigilance" alarm that sounds if no control input has been made for *60 seconds. If the driver does not acknowledge the alarm the brakes apply automatically.

*varies depending on class of loco/unit.

 

[TotalLamer]

"DSD" refers to the "Drivers Safety Device". Its a handle or pedal that needs to be continually depressed by the driver if the reverser handle is in either forward or reverse. If the driver takes his foot off the pedal (or hand off the handle) for more than a few seconds the brakes apply automatically.

Then there is the "Vigilance" alarm that sounds if no control input has been made for *60 seconds. If the driver does not acknowledge the alarm the brakes apply automatically.

*varies depending on class of loco/unit.

Ahhh... yeah trains here have the "Vigilance" type setup but not a DSD.