I'm not a lawyer, so who knows what someone might bring up, but a couple of points may be kept in mind:

One, visibility directly in front of a steam locomotive can be questionable, what with the cab at the rear and especially for something with a long and fat boiler, which would include most modern steam engines. Even leaning out, there is a good deal you can't see in front of the locomotive. In this case, the woman would have been out of sight at the time of impact, and for some time from the right side--long enough to at least hope she would have moved.

Secondly, we know stopping for any train simply takes time and distance, especially if you're running at any sort of speed. In particular for a freight train, it is important to handle the brakes gently, even in an emergency situation, to prevent what could be more serious problems.

We have to understand, or make people understand, what engine crews are--and are not.

https://www.railwayage.com/safety/more- ... ck-driver/

You're talking about something altogether different, trying to put words into my mouth and combining that with theoretical nonsense from another poster. I made no statement about duty before impact with a trespasser and, as I said previously, the dead or injured argument is utter nonsense. If you're going to quote someone, please limit your comments to what was actually quoted by that person.



We're NOT talking about a stalled vehicle at a crossing or other obstruction here. We are talking about a trespassing pedestrian. They are two very different things with different duties, conditions and possible results. Ever really watched the behavior of railfans (instead of watching the steam engine/train), particularly at an event like this? Or the general public every day? Pedestrians are constantly stepping in front of oncoming trains, whether simply crossing tracks illegally or taking pictures at events like this one. Most of the time they get out of the way, sometimes with a few seconds to spare, sometimes at the last second - so close you have to look back to see if you missed or hit them. Sometimes, like with this 844 incident, they don't get out of the way, for whatever reason. If every engineer who ever had a trespasser in front of them put their train in emergency every time, there would be daily, news-catching derailments from rough train handling and the rail network would grind to a halt. Few trains would ever make it to destination in a reasonable time or condition, particularly in the summer when people are all over the place.

Moderators - This thread has devolved into speculative nonsense and excessive drift. Perhaps it should be locked until we have actual facts from the authorities and can apply any actual lessons learned to preservation/tourist situations?

I am not referring to trespassers who only happen to get in front of a train. I am talking more specifically about someone standing on the track, seen from a fairly long distance as the train approaches. This is far more unusual than just someone walking in front of an approaching train that is too close. Although, I do understand your point that people fouling the track to get a good picture or video, while remaining stationary, and then suddenly jumping out of the way at the last instant is somewhat common during railfan excursions.

It seems a very reasonable thing to discuss. If you don't think the lawyers will ask the engineer and fireman why they waited until after hitting a human being to apply the emergency brakes, then you are quite mistaken.

What you're talking about is a trespasser in front of a train. Distance is largely irrelevant.

It's not unusual at all. Happens every single day, both at special events like the 844 event and day to day RRing. My point was exactly that.

Of course they ask. But a competent defense will always raise the points about effectiveness, greater safety and reasonable expectation, and beat down the jury's emotional response as much as possible after the prosecutor does their best to inflame them. And sometimes do things go badly in court - more and more these days as society continues on the "you-can't-blame-them-for-that" path of irresponsibility.

The point about distance is that there is time for braking to have an effect. Why is that irrelevant in the case of trespassers?

I said that someone standing still on the track as a train approaches from a long distance in plain sight of the person is unusual. It is extremely unusual.

I was comparing it to people having close calls as they walk in front of an approaching train, which is common, as you seem to be saying. Not only is it common, but there is little to be expected in the way of any effective braking. And also, people taking that sort of chance are likely to clear in time. So little can be done about it.

Because at the distance required for braking to much if any real effect (assuming the train is at speed), the crew usually can't tell what's in front of them. And I'll give you that a passenger train with blended braking is in better position to slow significantly (but what brakes are on the UP equipment? Maybe ABDW/ABDX-L? I doubt they have Amtrak style blendeds). Also you don't know what a trespasser is going to do. Many just want to cross the track and do so relatively safely, but I've seen people cross the track well in advance only to get to the other side and immediately turn and cross back over. Parents getting baby strollers caught on the track no where near a crossing. Kids jump out and play chicken with you. People step in front of you to commit suicide. One guy even hung himself from a signal bridge right over the track with the apparent attempt to also get hit by the next train, but he was dumb enough that he hung himself over the siding and not the main so the next train just had to report the hanging. And then there are the picture takers who will stand on the tracks and usually step aside at the last moment.

In the hazy heat (which doesn't just happen in summer time) you often can't see anything near the ground until you're almost on top of it or distinguish what it is. That far away something on the track can appear as nothing more than a bag or tarp or some insignificant object. A person lying in the gage appears as nothing more than a lump of sand or other debris until you're on top of them. Or it might be just a dead animal carcass. Shopping carts (sometimes full of bricks) can appear as a person until you're close. In the 844 incident, did the crew have their heads turned toward each other shouting that the crossing was clear and didn't see her not moving at the last moment? You seem to be implying that a crew should dump the air every time there's the possibility of someone on the track. That's just not real world practical. And when you're far enough away that things aren't easily distinguishable, no self-respecting engineer is just going to dump his drain on the outside chance it's a person that's not going to move. You blow the horn, ring the bell, and hope that the dumb-ass trespasser gets out of the way in time. (If I wanted to keep going, this would be the point where we bring up the attractive nuisance/distracted fan argument that most RRs use against mainline steam.)


Again, it is not unusual, at all. Any day of the week, any time of year. Happens all the time, at any distance. At a long distance, you can't tell whether an actual trespasser (as opposed to an indistinguishable object) is standing still playing with their phone/camera/headphones, walking in the gage, or trying to get something unstuck from the track. Have you spent much time in the seat at 50, 60, 79, or faster, day in and day out? I have.

Not at all.

The other day, I walked up to something I wanted to take a photo of, with my cell. I walked up about the right distance I'd need to be with my SLR. Then I realized it looked like I was taking a photo a football field away from the subject. I had to get very close to get the shot I wanted.

I couldn't help but think this played into this sad event with 844. She was apparently shooting cell video and 844 looked like it was on the other side of the state, until at the very last second, there it was, so fast that she apparently didn't have any time to even react to how fast it got there. Through those lenses, that's very plausible. I think that's bene brought up here already?

When we still had our dachshund pup, I'd sometimes take videos of him walking around and doing pup stuff. He'd come up and try to sniff/lick the cell phone and it always came as a surprise to me, watching it through the lens. He'd go from what seemed like several feet away to-WOW DOGGY NOSE, just like that.

Poor placement of the feet in relation to the ties, no question about it. But if you've never shot something large moving toward you with a cell before (and looking only through the lens), I can see how 844 would suddenly be there before you realized it. Not an excuse, but it does explain it.

This might be topic drift, but a recent fatality along the Frontrunner commuter line in Utah involving a herd of bicyclists clearly shows how clueless the public can be about railroad operations and what they should - and should not - do to stay safe around the tracks, particularly at crossings.

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46367233&nid=1 ... -collision

The security camera video at that link is cut off before the moment of impact, but the outcome is not in doubt.

/s/ Larry
Lawrence G. Lovejoy, P.E.

From the same article as above:


Emphasis added....

Thank God there's still somebody like him around, that doesn't immediately think "lawsuit" when something bad happens. Good for him.

In Britain, trying (possibly in vain?) to prevent the next one--complete with video of a near-miss/near-hit on a station platform:

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/w ... ed-5518551

No one loses their head, and no one loses their head.