If I was handling this from the CSX end, I wouldn't answer that question immediately either... not until I had a chance to investigate, send someone out in the field to interview the employees most likely to have had contact with representatives of the film crew, and make sure someone didn't stupidly say, "It's OK, just be careful."

You can't take the fact that CSX didn't immediately answer as an indication of guilt, and you certainly can't take the typical confused reporting by the media as an indication of anything.

I am not taking it as an indication of guilt. I see it as just one of several details that suggest that there is far more to this story than what we know so far. Anyone is of course free to construct a series of hypothetical explanations that will dismiss these questionable details one by one; and then jump to the conclusion about how the filming company ended up on the trestle.

Excellent quote from the above article:

> It was reported that CSX said that prior to the accident, they knew
> the film company was out there. I wonder how they would have known that.

Engineers on the two trains would certainly have observed the crew on Rayonier property, and taken the usual cell-phone CYA shots, etc. and reported on the radio. (It is not CSX's problem whether the film company had permission from Rayonier or not...)


> ... If CSX had stated that they had not given permission, why
> would the sheriff still be trying to figure out if permission was given?

Perhaps because the file-company principals have lied through their teeth about having it? And it's difficult to prove a negative?

I cannot imagine a film company not signing proper releases and providing liability coverage. I ran a favorite 'home location' for shooting commercials for years, and I can vouch for the facts (1) if a film company thinks they can get away with something, they will try; and (2) you need to have proper agreement in writing to safeguard your interests, in such a framework.

I do know that in the 1970s, if you wanted to take pictures of the service tracks at 30th Street, Philadelphia, you needed a signed release from the Real Estate department; if you wanted to photograph inside a NJ Transit facility, you needed to register with them (the stated reason being rather interesting: there were photographers from 'private investigation' firms trying to catch people doing things they oughtn't... These are the kind of 'high-profile' location where one employee might not be able to bend the rules for a photographer. I simply can't imagine why there would be any question about what's required for a professional shoot... or where the truth in this particular episode lies, if you'll pardon punning sarcasm against those people.

Earlier reports said that the CSX Right of Way was on and part of Rayonier's property, and that CSX had Rayonier's permission to have their track and trains on it. If Rayonier also gave the film company permission to be on their property, that could be like a railroad's "Lap Order", when 2 conflicting trains are both given rights to use the same track without protecting against each other.

Jim,

That is an interesting point that could explain a misunderstanding about the scope of permission from Rayonier and the earlier rather vague desciption of permission to film in "that general area," which was used to imply that the filming company did have permission to be where they were.

Here is another hypothetical explanation for what has happened so far:

The film company approached Rayonier and explained their desire to use their land for access to the trestle which they want to use for filming, and Rayonier said yes. Rayonier told the film company that they would have to get separate permission from CSX to be on the trestle. Rayonier gave the film company a specific contact or department for CSX.

Then the film company, via email, asked for permission from CSX to work on the trestle, and CSX said no. Then the film company told Rayonier that the CSX contact has turned them down, and wanted to know if Rayonier could recommend some other contact or department within CSX.

Rayonier suggested another CSX contact which the film company pursued by telephone. That contact said he did not see any problem with it, but said maybe they should clear it with somebody else at CSX just to be sure.

The film company then rationalized that they had CSX permission, and did not want to go further to risk a reversal of permission. So they gambled on just going for it. Perhaps the film company downplayed their intended activity on the trestle in the phone conversation where they got informal permission.

Now, after the accident, CSX announces that the film company did not have permission, citing their email in which they denied permission.

And after the accident, the film company tells their side of the story to the sheriff about the phone permission .

So the delay in the sheriff concluding the investigation is the time it is taking to take depositions and seek phone records that would verify the informal permission granted by CSX.

What has been missing from this discussion is a fact that was reported in "Variety." The accident did not happen while a shoot was in progress. This was a test to confirm camera locations would work properly and that lighting was satisfactory. The film crew sneaked onto the location to make their tests. They probably assumed that they could do this quickly without any trouble from trains.

I suspect the assistant producer on the shoot had a preliminary discussion with CSX on a "I'll get back to you basis" and never made arrangements for the test. Or he assumed incorrectly that Rayoneer owned the track rather than CSX.

I have worked my share of TV shoots. Things can get pretty hectic on the set.

Ron,
I can see the situation laid out as you did happening exactly in that way.

The bottom line is that the crew had to have known something was amiss. I've been in on shoots for PBS and the History Channel over the years and we weren't anywhere near RR tracks or any public road, and they always had a medic on set even then, for just people standing around.
If I'd shown up for a shoot along an active rail line without a medic around, I'd have for sure known something was wrong, even if I didn't already know enough about RR operations to wonder where the guys in the reflective vests, hardhats and radios were...

The Hollywood Reporter has published a long article that pieces together how Sarah Jones was killed:
A Train, a Narrow Trestle and 60 Seconds to Escape: How 'Midnight Rider' Victim Sarah Jones Lost Her Life (2:21 PM PST 3/4/2014 by Scott Johnson )

Here's an excerpt -- please read the full article before commenting:

A great irony here is that from the sat photos, it looks like riverbank silt under where they were when the train came. I'm sure it was quite a hop to that level from where they were, but the jump probably would have been less likely to have caused injuries than taking chances with the train.
That said, as far as the liability of people in charge, that's a moot point. It's also not human nature to jump from any distance.
I only bring it up because when I was a kid and far less ware of such things, this exact thing happened to me. A pal of mine and I were crossing a bridge over a river in Florida, saw the train coming and immediately joined the birds. We didn't even look to see if there was water under us or not, realizing anything would be better than facing the train on that narrow concrete deck bridge. My feet went about 2 feet into the silt along the bank, but I walked away with only my pride harmed and some seriously sand-coated shoes which incurred the wrath of my Mother afterward (never told her about the train, even to this day)...

From news photos included with some of the linked articles, it seems to be a drawbridge. Since there's no tale of the bridge tender noticing or complaining, could the bridge be operated by remote control, without the occupants and bed being noticed?

I strongly suspect that there is no assigned bridge tender. Further a flyover on Google or Bing Maps will show that the draw span is over what appears to be heavy silt and the riverbank rather than a navigable channel.

GME

Did anyone notice in the pictures the silted in area under the draw bridge? I'd bet big money that the draw hasn't moved in at least 20 years. The drop to the water is a good 20 feet....combined with all that dry, silted area.....nobody would have jumped.
However, in the other picture....they show the walkway...people who kept their heads and didn't panic probably would have stepped over there and hung on to the girders....not the best place to be, but they would have cleared and been reasonably safe in that emergency....and yes, I do know exactly what its like to be that close to a train going 60mph.....not a fun experience, back when I was a very young and very stupid kid.

I did when faced with the same scenario. And it was higher than that.
Mind you, I was about 13-14 at the time, though.