Train for the movie "Unstoppable" filming on the WNYP.

well the trailor looks pretty dam cool. I hope the rest of the movie is as intense.

Neat movie, but most times reality does not mimic art. In the last 50 years there have been two (that I know about, maybe three, seems like there was a crew that fell asleep on the PRR Buffalo to Olean line ?) runaway trains in Western NY. Both ended far less dramatically than this movie. In the 60’s some locomotives “got away” from the engine house in Dewitt headed west. A coworker of my father was sent out on the NYC main to try and “catch” them. His approach; speed up on the straight-aways to see if he could “catch” them. Then slow down on the curves so you don’t slam your loco doing 60 mph into a stopped unit in front of you. But then again he was not Denzel Washington, just a decent railroader. Eventually the pipefitter (IIRC) onboard killed the field circuit breaker and the units coasted to a stop. His training did not teach him what circuit breaker to trip, he just instinctively started turning OFF any switch he could find, and it worked.

In the second case some units got away headed east from Frontier, they just sent them out on the old West Shore to the end of track in Oakfield. Conrail didn’t make too many friends in Oakfield that day.

Seems like the “runaway train” theme has been dormant in the movie business for a couple of decades or so, (i.e. see “Broken Arrow”) so I guess it’s due to be revived.

Cheers, Kevin.

I have rarely been bored enough with a movie to turn it off, but this one made the cut. If you have taste in movies, avoid this one as if it were the plague. Denzel Washington's performance was average for his abilities, but to be fair that's still a heck of a lot better than most other actors out there. The camera-work seems to have been put together by someone who skipped taking their meds for ADHD. John Travolta's acting improved half a point from "Grease" but his character was so horribly one-dimensional and the motivation so cliched that there wasn't really any chance for him to be any better than he was.

The original was a pretty weak movie as well, but it was somewhat conscious of how ridiculous it was and offered a little bit of humor through that understanding. It's worth a watch, in my opinion.

This movie was a financial failure and, for once, there waactually a very good reason for that.

In Boston you had a couple of PC GP40s run off the track and across I-93 on the roadway. And you had vandals take the brake off a Guilford engine that they just derailed. The movie will be a thriller action film. Those are rarely made good but they are entertaining.

Okay guys, lets get this right.

This movie, "Unstoppable" directed by Tony Scott, produced by 20th Century Fox IS NOT, I repeat, IS NOT a remake of the familiar runaway trains movies from years gone by.

This movie is in direct response to the runaway on CSXT Transportation in 2001. CSXT 8888, a former Conrail SD-40-2 departed Stanley Yard in Ohio, absent any crew.

This appears to be a copy of the FRA's final report: http://kohlin.com/CSX8888/z-final-report.htm.

As an engineer myself, the initial accounts of this event confused me.... how could the engineer think he was applying the dynamic when in fact he was throttling up? However, after reading the "final report" it appears that the engine in question predated the standardized AAR control stand... instead of having interlocked throttle and dynamic handles, it used a selector switch to change the function of the same handle.

SemperFidelis wrote:I have rarely been bored enough with a movie to turn it off, but this one made the cut. If you have taste in movies, avoid this one as if it were the plague. Denzel Washington's performance was average for his abilities, but to be fair that's still a heck of a lot better than most other actors out there. The camera-work seems to have been put together by someone who skipped taking their meds for ADHD. John Travolta's acting improved half a point from "Grease" but his character was so horribly one-dimensional and the motivation so cliched that there wasn't really any chance for him to be any better than he was.

The original was a pretty weak movie as well, but it was somewhat conscious of how ridiculous it was and offered a little bit of humor through that understanding. It's worth a watch, in my opinion.

This movie was a financial failure and, for once, there waactually a very good reason for that.

What movie are you talking about?
your post makes no sense..

1. The movie we are discussing isnt even out yet..it will be in theatres this November..
2. and if you did see it, how do you "turn off" a movie while watching it in a movie theatre?
3. how can it be a "financial failure" when its not even released yet?
4. John Travolta isnt in this movie.

I think you must be talking about some other movie?

Scot

It's a movie made for entertainment purposes only. It's stated "based on real events", is the loosest description of the term. Simular to the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" with the same statement. A serial killer did make a suit from skin harvested from his victims, the rest of the movie was complete fiction, and was intended for entertainment value only. This movie has the same value and accuracy level. Every Holloywood movie I have ever seen involving trains has varying levels of inaccurracys. Take it for what it is. U want real? Go rent/buy a dvd from one of the many suppliers of railfan vidoes.

You want to watch a good movie...go see a foreign film. They focus more on story line and acting and less on special effects. I just saw Salt. A good movie for the first 3/4 of it. Then the special effects kicked in....movie stunk and I wasted 8 bucks.

scottychaos wrote:
What movie are you talking about?
your post makes no sense..

1. The movie we are discussing isnt even out yet..it will be in theatres this November..
2. and if you did see it, how do you "turn off" a movie while watching it in a movie theatre?

Although I do not endorse the practice, it is possible that our "reviewer" has received an advnaced copy of the movie... either as a DVD or a download. And let me be very clear about this- I am not saying for certain that he does have it. i am jst pointong out the possibility and the means for him to obtain a copy.

Having said that, I plan to see the movie. As roadster noted, "based on a true story" is a good sign the movie isn't trying to be 100% factual. If it was, it would have been filmed on the site of the original incident, using authentic CSX equipment. The lack of authneticity doesn't matter to me. I can suspend my disbelief for ___ minutes and enjoy a popcorn movie.... while trying to see which parts of the WNYP are recognizable.

Matt Langworthy wrote:

scottychaos wrote:
What movie are you talking about?
your post makes no sense..

1. The movie we are discussing isnt even out yet..it will be in theatres this November..
2. and if you did see it, how do you "turn off" a movie while watching it in a movie theatre?

Although I do not endorse the practice, it is possible that our "reviewer" has received an advnaced copy of the movie... either as a DVD or a download. And let me be very clear about this- I am not saying for certain that he does have it. i am jst pointong out the possibility and the means for him to obtain a copy.

Having said that, I plan to see the movie. As roadster noted, "based on a true story" is a good sign the movie isn't trying to be 100% factual. If it was, it would have been filmed on the site of the original incident, using authentic CSX equipment. The lack of authneticity doesn't matter to me. I can suspend my disbelief for ___ minutes and enjoy a popcorn movie.... while trying to see which parts of the WNYP are recognizable.

Im just guessing but I think he was referring to the remake of "The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3" .. Denzel Washington and John Travolta starred in that movie.. Once again just a guess

Oh yeah. That makes me wonder if my education had any effect on my brain at all.

Somehow I thought this was about Pelham 123 as someone had pointed out. My mistake and I apologize for the confusion.

If I do find an "advanced copy" I'll keep it to myself lest I pay that $250,000 fine the blue FBi screen is always warning me about.

SemperFidelis wrote:Oh yeah. That makes me wonder if my education had any effect on my brain at all.

Somehow I thought this was about Pelham 123 as someone had pointed out. My mistake and I apologize for the confusion.

If I do find an "advanced copy" I'll keep it to myself lest I pay that $250,000 fine the blue FBi screen is always warning me about.

OK, I understand now. Thanks for the clarification.

I did not see this thread when I posted this article in CSX forums.
The below is some of what is in the magazine article.

I found the March 2002 Reader's Digest article on this issue. The chase loco was Q636, CSX 6462, with engineer Jess Knowlton and conductor Terry Folson. They were pulling a freight directly toward the runaway freight and were told to get off at the next siding, ASAP. They came into the siding 15mph over the speed limit for taking a siding.

After they pulled in, the freight went by. They were then told to catch the freight.
By the way, they were running “backwards” in this chase at speeds approaching 65 mph and the max speed for that loco unloaded is 30 mph.

The point they caught the freight was climbing a hill toward Kenton, OH and a downgrade into the town is where they freight was eventually brought under control and stopped. The loco was doing about 12 mph and the worker who hopped on was 52 years old, Jon Hosfield.
The article says the freight was directed through three slow speed sidings in hope it would derail but no such luck. They tried a 50 lb portable derailing device but it was kicked aside by the loco.

The chase loco crew had quite a ride. When the chase loco was chasing the freight, the engineer was pressing so hard on the horn control that he broke off the lever.
There are a couple good photos of the chase loco and crew, plus the man who jumped on the lead loco.
You can probably find the back issue at Amazone.com if interested.

Rich

You forgot to mention that a Police Officer, did in fact shot the fuel tank on the 8888 in an attempt to drain fuel to stop it. Yes, it's true.

The 30 mph speed is a rule for single lite locos, not shunting circuits to activate grade crossing devices. That type of Loco is capable of 70 mph under normal op.s. Considering the gravity of the incident there were a number of rules waived by on-scene management to attempt to stop the runaway before a tragic end.

As I remember the story the police officer was trying to shoot at the emergency fuel cutoff switch. Putting a few holes in the fuel tank would still let the engine run for probably a few hours at least. Needless to say, he missed.

The lower speed limit for single light units has as much to due with the lower braking effectiveness as it does with shunting circuits. Usually multiple light units are restricted as well (60 mph in Conrail ETT #2 Northeastern Region).

Cheers, Kevin.