It's not stupidity per se, it's ignorance, which is different. When everybody's daily driver was a horse, most people knew all kinds of things about horses... not to stand behind them (for a variety of reasons), what they looked like when they were about to bolt, what was likely to set them off... Of course those same people knew nothing about automobiles, and did some really stupid things around them. A couple generations later, the situation is reversed. People are very familiar with cars, and do really stupid things around horses. It's the same with railroads. Lack of familiarity leads people to try to understand them by comparison to something they do know, automobiles, even if the comparison is not valid. They have no way to know that.

Likewise with with smart phones. They are so convenient to chat, text, or capture an image, and so compelling to compulsively check, that people forget how much of a distraction they really are. "Hey, I do this a hundred times a day with no problem..." CRASH!

I believe I agree with Kelly's disagreement. My personal experience indicates a much greater tendency to reward stupidity today versus in the past. Until a stupid level is codified, above which nobody but the stupid is punished, I fear there is too much money to be made by avoiding personal responsibility.

As we look at this particular incident, based on her social media profile, the person is neither young nor apparently stupid. Being of my age, and if like me at all, she has some degree of respect for others, herself, and a sense of responsibility. She was respectful enough to stand BEHIND the other photographers. She made it into her late 50’s, raising kids and grand kids. She was active in her community and had a strong circle of friends. She was not standing in a big excited crowd of people as the train came. In fact she was standing in an area where you would not normally find a grand mother. That’s either balls or self confidence.

Again, she did have some sort of medical issue some time back, possibly a stroke. I know with my dad, when he had a very minor stroke, he lost the ability to read a conventional clock. He could not grasp straight lines, he could not open his laptop computer if it was folded shut. He could talk, walk, do anything you want, but not read a damn clock. Did she have some lingering condition from her medical situation? We don’t know.

So, in this case, she is not some millennial kid, not standing in a big excited crowd, not disrespectful to others, has some sense of responsibility, etc. I’d bet money that she would have ended up in the same spot with a super 8 movie camera so take the smart phone out of the equation here for the moment.

Somehow, she ended up in a bad spot. You can rule out stupidity. You can rule out being a snot nose kid. You can rule out a lack of respect. You can rule out no sense of responsibility. You can rule out being in a big crowd. And maybe rule out the smart phone even. If you rule all those out, what’s left? Something made her feel safe in that spot. Was it lingering health issue? Or did someone tell her that the train would be on the other track? Why did the guy on the motorcycle run like he did? That's a point that bothers me.

All I am asking here is to stop with the generalities. And by the way, millennials are our future here. Its best to embrace them. You will be surprised by their strong work ethic and diverse interests when given the opportunity.

J.R. May

When I was at the Pete Lerro Charter on the Strasburg a few weeks ago, there were a couple times when I didn't realize HOW close the train was during a runby and had to quickly adjust my lens wider in order to get the next shot. That was on the Strasburg doing 20mph tops. It's pretty easy to imagine how this lady thought she would get some photos as the train approached, and then stop towards safety when it got closer. As she was focused on getting THE shot, she may not have realized the train was doing 60 and it was RIGHT there.

Should she have been standing where she was standing? No. But I've seen "railfans" stand just as close, and then get out of the way "in time" while chasing trains.

It's a very, very sad incident for all concerned.

. While the actual Hello Dolly car is still running, it has been modified to a degree that makes it barely recognizable as the original. This included getting rid of the mostly open sides which is presumably the risk factor that AMD was asking about.

Which, IMHO is a travesty in and of itself, but that's a personal feeling for another thread...

One of the problems with the Hello Dolly was that when the now current water tower was built, it was adjacent to Hello Dolly's position in the train. If you raised the spout with any water still draining, you got the passengers wet.

.

I guess I'm confused on the "Sorry, but no" bit. You don't agree it's been modified? You don't agree it looks different than it used to? What are you disputing here?

As for the lack of side railings, it does make for a nice ride. It can't be too much of a risk though, as Disney and many other amusement parks use cars with side access, as do some trolley museums.

As for the Hello Dolly car, it's my understanding that the sides were enclosed to the normal window height during the 2004 rebuild. Is that incorrect?

I like the hello dolly car to appear uniform with the rest of the train. The open end platform keeps it a unique car to ride in going both directions.

It was before my first visit, but didn't Strasburg used to have an all yellow train?

They did back in 1978

.

.

What a gift to the plaintiff attorneys. I can just imagine the case before a judge and jury:

"Mr. Engineer, are you saying you made no effort of any kind to slow or stop your train
BEFORE your train stuck my client?"

"Yes sir."

"Why?"

"I couldn't tell whether your client was dead or not."

As I understand it, the point previously made about a need to stop was about a need to stop after impact. But there is also a duty to make an emergency application before impact if impact appears to be inevitable such as a vehicle stalled on a crossing. In this case, I would expect the question of when the brakes were applied to be asked, since the victim was clearly standing in a location where she would be struck by the train if it did not stop.