MOVIE: Unstoppable

I don't think it's impossible for a car to go up on one rail and settle back onto both rails without derailing. On the other hand, it's pretty unlikely. On the third hand, it's so unlikely that it's probably happened, only there wasn't a Hollywood crew there to film it.

RussNelson wrote:I don't think it's impossible for a car to go up on one rail and settle back onto both rails without derailing. On the other hand, it's pretty unlikely. On the third hand, it's so unlikely that it's probably happened, only there wasn't a Hollywood crew there to film it.

So it's one of those incredibly contradictory quasi-motos? Very interesting indeed.

Just got hte Blu Ray and enjoyed it with my wife asking questions.


What was MORE impressive was watching the behind the scenes on BluRay and learning about the scene where they derailed the 2 locomotives. I wont spoil it but it was not GCI, they actually derailed a train.

One question I have, trying to gauge whether its Hollywood or not, but when the fat engineer that started all this got off the train t othrow the switch, you see him walking toward the switch and then the levels automatically moved with no one in the cab.


Im only familiar with older diesels. is that the norm?? For the loco to throw itself in notch 8? What was that all about Hollywood??

I saw this movie with a fellow engineer when it first came out, and now have a copy on DVD.

The parts I found most realistic was the interaction between the employees. Whoever wrote the script must have spent some time around railroaders.

Sure, there were a lot of things happening in the movie that would not have happened in real life. But, then, what kind of entertainment would THAT have made?

Things that stood out to me:
Engineer getting off moving locomotive, leaving it unmanned. I have actually seen someone do this. You can't fix stupid.
Everyone talking on cell phones while doing their jobs. Now forbidden, once common.
Throttles do not move by themselves. However, I once had a throttle lever come off in my hand!
Why not step from the back porch of the SD40-2 into the nose of the Dash-9?
Why climb all over the outside of a cab of a moving loco instead of just going through the doors? (This same situation in the movie "Runaway Train".)
Idiotic instructions given by the FRA inspector to the engineer ("You gotta go from full throttle to full dynamic") and the engineer complying.
The wheels lifting from the rails on the curve. Instead of the car bodies falling off their bolster pins.

The use of handsets instead of the cab radio? Maybe there were things being said that were best transmitted at low power.

My favorite scene: where the train was going to be derailed by a series of portable derails. The derails broke (as they would) and the frogs crashed into a row of cop cars like a string of claymore mines.

At least the mainline didn't terminate in a stub-end passenger station, like it did in a couple other movies I've seen.

Rumor here has it the local Class One railroad has a low opinion of the movie. Not because it makes railroading appear unsafe. Because it makes railroad management look stupid!

Les

FRA people that I've been in the company of would in no way act like the guy in the movie. Never met an FRA inspector that DID NOT have their act together.

A few things of note:

The angle cock on a CW60 is most commonly located on the engineers side right over the truck. Would be unreachable to anyone on the locomotive.

Never seen freight cars riding on two wheels (as opposed to four)? Look up high cube car rocking (between 14 and 21mph) on certain areas of track. This is IAW rule 4453 on CSXT.

~Shire

Desertdweller wrote: Why not step from the back porch of the SD40-2 into the nose of the Dash-9?
Why climb all over the outside of a cab of a moving loco instead of just going through the doors? (This same situation in the movie "Runaway Train".)

Imediately after seeing the film, I stated these two facts. The idea of ever bringing in a helicopter is dumb.

I just saw this thing for the first time last week. One must realize that art imitates life, but only to a point. I must say that I recognized most of the lingo. It is kinda like talking to the railbuffs who try to "talk the talk", but one recognizes who's real and who's not. A railroader just knows!
Ya gots to accept that Hollywood feels it necessary to put in a bit more tension, more blood and gore in most any film, or they think the public won't buy it. I, too, questioned some of the things they did, but wrote it off to making the movie more exciting. If the guy had walked across the "porch" onto the runaway engine, the movie would've ended right there! They needed 2 hours to stretch the story.

It's good to see a generally accurate railroad story, but we all know that, most of the time, the railroad life is boring and uneventful. Now if you count the time a bum walked into our shop office and snatched a clerk's pocketbook right off her desk, and the truckdriver/porter took off in hot pursuit in our Chevy crew truck after the raggedy old Nova............................................

GF

Yes, that was in there.

While the train crew was sweating blood, the kids were impressed by what they took to be "precision railroading".

Les

I saw it again on TV two nights ago. A fun movie, just overlook the flubbs in accuracy.

I find the camera work quite bad. The "spin around outside the cab" shots and the picket fencing shots with the trees zooming by in front of the train were annoying. The editing was rather choppy, and although I understand this is the director's style, I don't care for it, and it made watching the movie tedious.

I used to be director of live TV at a horse track and anyone who shot camera for me like that would need a new job.