The problem with properly addressing these questions regarding photography is that it quickly becomes a routine much like the "stupid questions" thread below--to someone who has operated a lot of camera equipment and has an eye for photography, no explanation is necessary, and to someone who hasn't "been there" behind the viewfinder, none is possible.

But to wit, no, there isn't a 200' cable release that I know of. There ARE remote radio triggers, but you're still dependent upon snapping the shutter at *just* the right moment, and that involves being behind the camera, plotting the timing precisely and taking a chance, or setting a movie camera to run continuously and taking the one frame out of several dozen/thousand or so that actually caught what you wanted.

Telephoto *can* give you the effect of a head-on without compromising safety, provided there's a curve also involved. However, someone dealing with mainstream photo editors will find that most non-railfan photo critics seem to prefer the bloated "wide angle" effect to the "squished/compressed" telephoto effect.

Okay, we're not going to turn this into a photography thread/forum, are we?

But my not wanting to make you a greasy spot on our pilot (ewww) trumps your stupid photo any day...

Ok. We have established that the person (if he was taking a photograph) could have used technology to reduce his risk. We have also established that the railroad and its crew were neglegent in more than one aspect of the conditions that caused the incident-perhaps to the point of being exposed to civil liability.

What can we do to minimize the risks to the visiting public while remaining reasonably accessible?

Keep people off the gage, pure and simple. Use care and caution when moving equipment - including always having someone on the point (esp/ when running LHF), making sure pedestrian crossings are guarded.

Education is also key. Part of any railroad or museum's mission should be to promote safety.

And there is this one also.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fr5Ay4ZJd8

Don C.

I *want* that to occur.

However I don't see *how* it can occur at times.

In many cases crew are greatly outnumbered by the public. Physical barriers could assist in keeping them from being places they should not be, but short of that, it's difficult for a 2-man crew to be everywhere at once.

I think the best course in this sort of scenario is to stop that engine, and not move until that individual has moved clear.

And it has to be firmly stuck to. He doesn't move, train doesn't move. If necessary, suggest that you will get the local police involved. It has to be 100% clear to people that safety (as the GCOR says) is rule #1.

So often museum folks are afraid of guests. They think they can't tell them what to do. "They're only enjoying themselves" or "they don't know better" or "don't worry they won't get hurt" is what they tell themselves. And that gives a cop-out, a pass to people like that photographer, allowing them the potential to get hurt.

What would you rather do. Piss off a random guest or three? Or kill someone?

When I go to work in Summers and see literally hundreds of people crawling around the property it makes me highly paranoid at times....

One of our managers was prompt to correct a safety issue with a visitor during our Christmas event. In response, the offending guest exclaimed in a loud voice "well, now we've met Scrooge, so I hope Santa is in a better mood."

Wesley

That reminds me of how one TVRM guest came within seconds of losing a hand. We were running the 4501 in local service and were in the process of uncoupling the locomotive so it could run around the train. I was on duty as conductor and was walking along the right of way towards the locomotive. I saw this man reach under one of the tender's wheels to retrieve a crushed penny from the rail. I immediately shouted at him to get his hand out of there. No sooner had he done it and the locomotive pulled down. He came within two seconds of having his hand crushed by the wheel. You cannot have too many people on a train crew.

I know that some folks may argue with me on this point, but I've had times that I had to draft crewmen from the Commissary and dining cars to assist in boarding or deboarding passengers. Commissary and dining services are non-essential services with no safety impact. Safety always comes first.

We can discuss this "'till the cows come home", but it all comes down to this...at least in my book:

If you are involved in the operation (and in this sense I mean "control of movement") of a train, especially in a tourist environment, you MUST chose the safe course! We cannot account for the intelligence, or lack thereof, of a non-railroader (or in some cases a careless railroader) and it is incumbent on the operating crew to do whatever is necessary to make sure stuff like this does not happen - that our guests/passengers/bystanders are kept safe...sometimes in spite of themselves.

"The Safety and Comfort of Passengers is Our Top Priority!"

This is the SAM Shortline motto, and it is attached to every communication sent to the conductors.

Now, before someone tears me a new one, I'm not casting blame entirely on the crew, but there were obvious gaps in good judgment that resulted in this event. Not just on the part of the crew, but by the individual who was hit.

I hope we are never "treated" to this sort of video again. I couldn't believe what I saw happening. And the last sequence of the trainman going in between like he did gave me the willies! Where are the *&*$^#% RADIOS! Hand signals may be "historic" in some instances, but when you have "weekend railroaders" there is too much possibility for a miscommunication. I think just about everyone knows what "slow down a bit" or "STOP" means when called out on a radio. The technology is there. Are you telling me the BM&R didn't have radios to use in regular operations?

Stephen S. Syfrett
Senior Conductor
SAM Shortline

Running restricted speed you are to be able to stop in half the sight distance for anything obstructing the tracks - photographer included. It wasn't like he rushed up and got hit - he was standing there the whole time. Don't assume he will step away as you go by. Stop the movement until he moves. It is that simple. (a couple of not-so-friendly blasts of the horn may have helped).

As far as hand signals vs. radio - sorry, have to disagree with Mr. Syfrett. I always use hand signals when possible in mainline freight service. To me, a hand signal is much clearer (if given properly) than a radio transmission on a noisy engine's radio. The person riding the point is in easy sight of the hogger and could easily have given the hand signal to stop, esp. at slow speeds. Of course he should have been giving better hand signals as he had the clearer sight of the crowded station area than the hogger that was on the wrong side. I don't know if there was someone in the other side of the cab, but if there was, he should have been looking out and ordered a stop.

I had to go into close call last year when a photographer was fouling the tracks at the end of the platform. Despite whistles and bells sounding incessantly, he didn't move. He claimed that he knew the train was going to stop and that it was okay since he has been here before.
Some photographers love it when you blow the whistle at them because it shows more steam.
What caused me to do a double take last year was a guy with a digital camera on the tracks snapping a picture of the oncoming train, then reviewing the picture he just snapped, then moving off of the ROW.
What we need to fear are those people who still think they are invincible because that excursion train is merely a carnival ride and therefore harmless.

I will also agree that hand signals are safer in many situations than radio. If the engineman cannot fully discern the signal being given, he must stop and request clarification. Either you identify the signal and acknowledge or you stop and wait to receive a clearly discernable signal. At TVRM, we used hand signals and whistle signals for many years without incident. When we went to "three step" protection, we began using radio or vocal exchanges with the engineman to establish protection. I'd rather walk a few car lengths and establish protection in person than to trust my life to a radio which can fail for any number of reasons.

As for the actions (or lack thereof) of the train crew in the video, there is simply no excuse for what happened. Hopefully they were able to work out a settlement with the injured party-any civil attorney would have a field day cleaning out the railroad's pockets (and possibly those of the crew involved) with that video. Remember, if something like this should occur on your line, you can personally be named as a party if the plaintiff believes that you failed to perform your duties and that contributed to/caused their injury/loss. Your best protection is accident/incident prevention.

As far as hand signals vs. radio - sorry, have to disagree with Mr. Syfrett. I always use hand signals when possible in mainline freight service.


Ditto. If your crews are trained on how to properly give hand signals-and you are observing the rules on their use (the train stops if there's doubt about the meaning of a signal, who its intended for OR if it disappears from view), hand signals are better than radios.

Hand signals don't get dead batteries, you can't get "stepped on" !

A little off the main topic but is the track that this passenger train running on meet FRA Class 1 standards?

I suppose I was not very clear.

Radios vs. hand signals. There will be about as many opinions as there are actively involved people here, and I don't really care. I work on an excursion train hosted by a shortline operation and I've been working with the same engineers and freight conductors (employees of the shortline) for close to 6 years now. The railroad uses radios, so the passenger conductors use radios. I worked at another place where we used hand signals. I have no preference. I do not disagree that hand signals are better in some instances, and apparently the railroads understand this since we (operating crews) are allowed to use either as long as we understand which is going to be used. The use of hand signals would have been outlawed years ago if there was general consensus that radio communication was superior to hand signals. But, that was not my point.

Here is what counts, and I copy in part the quote by superheater:



If...trained...properly...

It certainly appears to me that the operating crew on the BM&R train was not properly trained. Had they been we would not be having this discussion right now, now would we. There's a lot more to it than just that, obviously, but that is the main point.


OK, I went back and looked again, and the only hand signal I saw was given by the guy on the end of the loco before it comes across the road. I couldn't tell clearly, but it looked like it was probably a "back up" signal. The guy on the loco doesn't even seem to acknowledge the man who was hit. In fact, it looks like he was preoccupied with waving to someone other than the photographer as the loco passes and hits the man. The crew gets an "F", and the man is lucky (at least I hope so).