RJS1977 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 My "concern" with this sort of film is that often in the interests of a good story, various safety mechanisms get ignored by the storytellers etc (we've all seen the sort of film where a wagon/coach comes uncoupled from a moving train but the vacuum/air brakes don't come on ). This then gives the impression to the 99% of the audience who are less "railway literate" than RMWeb members that railways are much less safe than they really are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I'm not sure folk do think that deeply about it - how many of us worry that our cars will explode by default in almost any accident for example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedrahn Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 My take on the relationship between this film and a sci-fi one is that viewers of sci-fi KNOW (or should do!!) that it is fiction but a film that portrays current affairs (of any sort) is often taken to be a sort of 'documentary' because the viewers can relate to it. Something like the people who think Coronation St. is real and lambast the actors for what they've said or done to another actor. I do hope everyone realises that when I wrote about Star Trek it was meant to be a joke! That obviously worked well. Of course, there could be some fans of Star Trek who believe it's all a document of life in the 23rd and 24th Centuries, beamed back to us in clear breach of the Temporal Prime Directive. Much as I love ST, my heart has always been with a different franchise, mainly because of Star Destroyers and Sith Lords. On a more serious note, this post is spot on about people confusing fiction and reality. I seem to recall that many years ago the actor John Altman, who played 'Nasty' Nick Cotton in EastEnders, said that he received abuse on the streets from people who thought he really was being vile to poor old Dot. These things are fiction, FICTION. That was my point here. We could spend all our time writing posts about inaccuracies in films and TV programmes - let's start with Heartbeat and go on from there. Or rather let's not. Those who, for whatever reason, feel the need to dismiss a bit of fluff like Unstoppable completely miss the point. It isn't a documentary. It's just escapism. As for being based on a true story, that's a typical bit of Hollywood hokum, regularly employed whenever a real event has 'inspired' a slice of fiction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZiderHead Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I quite enjoyed it. It had trains in it One thing that bugged me a little - if you're going to bother chasing a runaway and coupling a loco to the back, why not connect the brake hoses to the loco too so you can brake the whole train, not just the loco … Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catkins Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 It costs more to add another cab than it does to turn the unit I don't understand how it can cost more to add another cab. In the UK and Europe, most of the diesel and electric locomotives are double-ended, that is they have a cab at each end, which makes it just as easy to run in either direction without the need to turn the loco's. I would have thought that it would cost more to keep turntables and turning triangles in good order, than it would have cost to design and build loco's with a cab at each end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pH Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I don't understand how it can cost more to add another cab. In the UK and Europe, most of the diesel and electric locomotives are double-ended, that is they have a cab at each end, which makes it just as easy to run in either direction without the need to turn the loco's. I would have thought that it would cost more to keep turntables and turning triangles in good order, than it would have cost to design and build loco's with a cab at each end. It's common to have at least two locomotives on a train here, even locals, with the cabs to the 'outside' of the pair. And single locomotives can be run either way - some railroads (notably Norfolk and Western, and Southern) ran their locomotives long hood forward for many years. So there is no need for a second cab, and the associated cost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotalLamer Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I don't understand how it can cost more to add another cab. In the UK and Europe, most of the diesel and electric locomotives are double-ended, that is they have a cab at each end, which makes it just as easy to run in either direction without the need to turn the loco's. I would have thought that it would cost more to keep turntables and turning triangles in good order, than it would have cost to design and build loco's with a cab at each end. Your average road train will have at least 2 locomotives and when they're paired up they're generally back to back... which is good because the terminal where I work doesn't have a wye or turntable. The only way we can turn cars or motors is to have them run "the loop" but it's too tight for 6-axles. So when trains come in from Hamlet, the motors always come in back to back. Except when they don't and the Yardmaster blows a gasket when he sees them come in that way. Can't really send out road trains with both motors facing the wrong way, hah. But that's what has to happen in that situation because Hamlet was dumb and sent us two Southbound-facing motors. But with yard jobs and locals... yeah a lot of them have just 1 motor and no one really cares which way it's facing. They go out or come back in long hood forward all the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I don't understand how it can cost more to add another cab. In the UK and Europe, most of the diesel and electric locomotives are double-ended, that is they have a cab at each end, which makes it just as easy to run in either direction without the need to turn the loco's. I would have thought that it would cost more to keep turntables and turning triangles in good order, than it would have cost to design and build loco's with a cab at each end. One thing it's easy to forget is the size difference between US & UK locos. Have a look at this link -http://www.meaker.me.uk/Rail/Class/66/Canada.htm A Class 66 is dwarfed by a 'small' Switcher in the first picture. US locos simply don't need two cabs, as the loading gauge means that ample visibility both ways can be had from one cab. UK locos need a cab at each end because one along the body just wouldn't fit... You'll get the idea from this pic as well.... http://class66.railfan.nl/photo/20068864-044a.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Class 20's excepted of course... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Class 20's excepted of course... But aren't they just one locomotive that happened to be built in two parts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Class 20's excepted of course...Yes, but the cab is at the end, not midway. Plus they most often ended up in pairs anyway.The old Class 15 &16 were a similar design to US practise, but access still had to be by doors on the sides of the cabs - not the ends via walkways & corner steps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I would sooner watch some rail related Hollywood fictional fluff i can immerse myself into for 2hrs than go without because they make one or two technical errors. If i just want facts and accuracy id go buy a DVD like British Transport Films et al. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Yes, but the cab is at the end, not midway. Plus they most often ended up in pairs anyway. The old Class 15 &16 were a similar design to US practise, but access still had to be by doors on the sides of the cabs - not the ends via walkways & corner steps. But until your post the only consideration was one cab or two, and nothing else. You cant just add additional criteria after other people have posted just to try and justify your mistake!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 But aren't they just one locomotive that happened to be built in two parts? As opposed to the Centennial DD40 which is two Bo-Bo locomotives built in one part! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 But until your post the only consideration was one cab or two, and nothing else. You cant just add additional criteria after other people have posted just to try and justify your mistake!!!What mistake??? Of course there are/were British single cab locos, but they tended to be Shunters (pedant alert - class 20 excepted). My point about the 15/16's was that the cab design wasn't as effective as a US design from a visibility/access point of view because it was built to a tighter loading gauge.Offhand I don't think there have been any double-cab US locos? - there just isn't the need, & also they have evolved along different lines to UK/EU locos, & always did - US steam locos became far different beasts to UK ones. Rolling stock too is vastly different in many cases. The question of one cab or two started as a query re the use of a turntable in a film with slightly dubious credentials, did it not?? Much was made in the film of trains "in reverse" like it makes any difference in reality.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted February 6, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 6, 2014 What mistake??? Of course there are/were British single cab locos, but they tended to be Shunters (pedant alert - class 20 excepted). My point about the 15/16's was that the design wasn't as effective as a US design because it was built to a tighter loading gauge. Offhand I don't think there have been any double-cab US locos? - Double cab electrics, and EMD allowed what were effectively double-ended F units to be built in Australia, but I can't think of any double cab diesels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The Central of New Jersey had some double ended diesels courtesy of Baldwin: http://www.toytrains1.com/baldwin.htm They called them "Janus"..... There's a "group" on RMWeb that own some brass models of this loco. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 What mistake??? This mistake: UK locos need a cab at each end because one along the body just wouldn't fit... The British Railways specification for ALL type 1 locomotives was they must be single cabbed. You had a cab in the middle (claytons) cabs part way along, (15,16) as well as cab at the end (class 20) Now addmittedly they are relatively small locomotives, but then any BR loco compared to an American will be small. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The 58 and 70 could in theory have only had one cab as they have a narrow hood, but the loading gauge means the visibility is poor as per the 20 (although no worse than a steam loco). In mainland Europe there are plenty of smaller 'mainline' single cabbed locos, but AFAIK they all have low hoods. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Don't the Yanks have fail-safe brakes? I thought that if the air leaked out or was not being pumped in then the brakes would go on. I gather that Laq-Megantic was a similar failure of brakes and a runaway train as featured in the film. (I know it happened long after the film - it just seems incredible to me that such a failure should happen at all). JE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Offhand I don't think there have been any double-cab US locos? - there just isn't the need, As originally built, a number of the EMD FTs were A-B-A drawbar sets that were treated as single locomotives with a cab at each end. Also, the PRR (and probably other roads) initially treated their A-B-B-A and A-B-A F-units as single locomotives, even though they were coupler-euipped. There weren't any double cab hood units because there was no real issue to running long hood forward, and a fair unmber of roads specified their first-gen units to work that way (again, the PRR is an example. A few roads continued that practice on their second-gen units (e.g. Southern). Electrics were a different story, probably because it was more problematic to turn them. Adrian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Don't the Yanks have fail-safe brakes? I thought that if the air leaked out or was not being pumped in then the brakes would go on. I gather that Laq-Megantic was a similar failure of brakes and a runaway train as featured in the film. (I know it happened long after the film - it just seems incredible to me that such a failure should happen at all). JE They are fail safe as long as the brake reservoirs are kept pressurized. If left long enough without a pressure source the reservoirs will eventually leak down, and the brakes will release (probable cause of the Lac Megantic runaway). This is why they have handbrakes as well. Adrian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 This mistake: The British Railways specification for ALL type 1 locomotives was they must be single cabbed. You had a cab in the middle (claytons) cabs part way along, (15,16) as well as cab at the end (class 20) Now addmittedly they are relatively small locomotives, but then any BR loco compared to an American will be small. oh, right... Type 1 locos..... sorry I'd quite forgotten that generalisations aren't allowed in any statement at all. The film (& query) revolved around larger Road engines, & with comparison pics of Class 66 (Type 5?) that's what I had in mind, demonstrating that, as we agree, UK locos are much smaller than US ones - an unfortunate legacy of George Stephenson designing most of our network instead of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, who had a much bigger imagination.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Although said in jest, ... Indeed it was, and even if the Standard Gauge had become 7'0+1/4", American trains would still have ended up bigger than British.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVSNE Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Yes, the air brakes are a fail safe - they need air pressure to release - no air pressure and they close up. But it's not uncommon for a cut of cars coupled to an engine to use only the engine brakes with the train brakeline not connected or pressurized. My understanding is that's the reason for the real life "Crazy 8s" runaway - the situation on which the movie was based. I guy I know who works for the FRA told me the basic storyline of how Crazy 8s ended up running out of control was depicted quite accurately in the movie - the rest of it was pure entertainment - fun, but pure entertainment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.