QuoteMother sues CSX over trestle death of her son
A train hit the youth, 17, who was fishing on the bridge.
By MARY MARAGHY, The Times-Union
The mother of a 17-year-old train accident victim is suing CSX Transportation for malpractice and negligence.
Wesley Whiddon, a Fleming Island High School football player, had been fishing May 14 on a CSX-owned railroad trestle over Black Creek, near Russell Road in Green Cove Springs, when he was struck and killed by an oncoming train. Two friends with him jumped out of the way in time.
An attorney for Angela Whiddon filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the company and supervisor Dennis Merrill.
"The death was a tragedy," CSX spokesman Gary Sease said, adding the company had yet to be served with the lawsuit papers. "The company will defend itself vigorously."
The civil suit says:
- CSX officials knew pedestrians sometimes walk on the trestle, thus train operators should have been trained to exercise extraordinary care when crossing there.
- CSX failed to close or fence off the trestle and failed to post adequate warning signs.
- The train was traveling at an unlawful and unreasonable speed.
- Train operators failed to warn Wesley Whiddon of the train's approach.
Angela Whiddon, principal at W.E. Cherry Elementary School, declined to comment.
A May 29 investigation by the Clay County Sheriff's Office said the train was traveling about 43 mph at the time of the accident. The posted speed limit on that section of track is 50 mph.
Investigators noted there were at least four "No Trespassing" signs posted in the area.
CSX engineer Brian Beaver and conductor David Jones told police they saw movement on the tracks, suspected it was a deer and began blowing the horn. Beaver said he then realized there were people on the trestle but didn't immediately put on the emergency brakes, which would risk derailment, because he expected they would jump into the water. He said children often play chicken with the train before jumping into the water. But this time, they didn't jump. Upon realizing that, he threw the brakes.
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/061708/met_291594542.shtml
Location of accident (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=30.080012,-81.761756&spn=0.01309,0.018711&t=h&z=16)
2 ever-growing themes at play here:
1) ambulance-chasing attorneys.
2) no personal responsibility.
I don't see them having much of a case here. Especially if CSX has a sign at the nearest at-grade crossing that says no trespassing.
There are some really ugly comments about this story on craigslist. :(
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2008, 09:56:50 AM
I don't see them having much of a case here. Especially if CSX has a sign at the nearest at-grade crossing that says no trespassing.
lake...never underestimate the award-winning power of a stupid jury. seriously. my wife works on legal teams that defend the big, bad, mean, nasty corporations and insurance companies. at least 85% of what they have to fight against is just complete BS. probably 10-15% are legitimate cases where the corporation probably was at fault. this case (even having no merits) pales in comparison to some of the other ridiculous claims i have seen.
Hard to see how CSX could be at fault if teenages trespass onto an open and obvious danger - a railroad bridge. I dont get this one. The family needs to grieve rather than try and grab money.
Quote from: RiversideGator on June 17, 2008, 12:43:29 PM
Hard to see how CSX could be at fault if teenages trespass onto an open and obvious danger - a railroad bridge. I dont get this one. The family needs to grieve rather than try and grab money.
Isn't that a new step in the modern American grieving process?
like i said guys, never underestimate the power of a stupid jury. the momma here will definitely be paid off to go away. her son was too popular and well-liked in the community. heck, look at how the T-U describes him... "who played football at Fleming Island High".
sad state of affairs in today's litigous society. both the ambulance chasers and the ignorant jurys (there are a few exceptions...but they are just that: few and exceptional)
see guys...THIS is the type of people that ambulance-chasers try to get on the jurys. they do their best (and usually a good job) of eliminating people with all common sense. what you end up with is jurys that find McDonalds liable for millions of dollars for serving hot coffee to a customer (imagine that) and find the small local business shop owner guilty of negligence because he has a floor in his building and Ms. Sue You walked and "slipped" on the floor.
now for some facts from the T-U story...
QuoteThe civil suit says:
- CSX officials knew pedestrians sometimes walk on the trestle, thus train operators should have been trained to exercise extraordinary care when crossing there.
Someone that works for CSX could probably confirm this, but it is my udnerstanding that it takes EXTENSIVE training to be a train engineer. my guess is that safety would be primary.
Quote- CSX failed to close or fence off the trestle and failed to post adequate warning signs.
from the T-U Story... "Investigators noted there were at least four "No Trespassing" signs posted in the area." and the claim that the tressel should've been "fenced off"...prosecutors will need to show a precedent set nationwide in urban areas where all tressels are fenced in. it won't happen.
Quote- The train was traveling at an unlawful and unreasonable speed.
flat out lie that the defense will try to prove as true. from the T-U: "A May 29 investigation by the Clay County Sheriff's Office said the train was traveling about 43 mph at the time of the accident. The posted speed limit on that section of track is 50 mph."
Quote- Train operators failed to warn Wesley Whiddon of the train's approach.
from the T-U: "CSX engineer Brian Beaver and conductor David Jones told police they saw movement on the tracks, suspected it was a deer
and began blowing the horn. "
--train horns aren't exactly quiet.
Sad situation for sure...But more "No Trespassing" signs wouldnt have done much good, More Common Sense is what is needed here. Its has tracks, its not like the train sneaks up on you...We are a people who refuse to take any responsibilty for our actions, everything is someone elses fault.
Quote from: Driven1 on June 17, 2008, 09:34:20 AM
2 ever-growing themes at play here:
1) ambulance-chasing attorneys.
2) no personal responsibility.
Personal responsibility on who's part? I've had a more then a few law classes. Here's the deal.
When a business operates a dangerous business in the public domain, the business is responsible.
CSX will settle soon.
I guess we'll see how it turns out. But its not like this bridge is in the middle of town. The site is pretty isolated, meaning they would have had to trespass and walk a couple of thousand feet to reach the bridge, unless they came by boat.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2008, 02:28:39 PM
But its not like this bridge is in the middle of town. The site is pretty isolated, meaning they would have had to trespass and walk a couple of thousand feet to reach the bridge, unless they came by boat.
thank you Lake.
Scalding coffee is totally unrelated to kids trespassing on a railroad bridge. I can think of very few scenarios in which I would find against CSX.
yes, if CSX wanted to, they could countersue the mother for her son trespassing, along with suing the 2 kids. CSX has irrefutable proof that the kids were trespassing.
trespassing is just criminal right? The kids could be high and drunk CSX is still at fault. Trust me.
Quote from: gatorback on June 17, 2008, 05:05:23 PM
trespassing is just criminal right? The kids could be high and drunk CSX is still at fault. Trust me.
And thats what screwed up with our justice system.
I think what you're talking about is that contributory negligence would disqualify the mom from any recovery, regardless of the proportion of blame on the kid; however, I'm sure they will argue that CSX should have made it impossible for a youth to get access. CSX could have built a fence, but they made a financial decision to not protect the public. CSX does that all the time. Shame CSX.
This thing is pretty "deep" in the woods if I recall - I mean, there's not even a road or trail leading to it. What's the cut off for responsibility?
The majority of personal injury lawsuits in Florida are brought under a theory of negligence. Negligence has to do with how careful a person was when he or she caused an injury, and how careful, according to the law, he or she should have been. So how careful was CSX. A Sign? Please.
Quote from: gatorback on June 17, 2008, 05:16:01 PM
I think what you're talking about is that contributory negligence would disqualify the mom from any recovery, regardless of the proportion of blame on the kid; however, I'm sure they will argue that CSX should have made it impossible for a youth to get access. CSX could have built a fence, but they made a financial decision to not protect the public. CSX does that all the time. Shame CSX.
And if they did have a fence up, they would be sued for not having barbed-wire on top, then if they had barbed-wire on top they would be sued when someone tried to climb over it and cut themselves....As Stephen pointed out earlier we don’t have all the facts, so its a straw-man argument, but bottom line to me, and this is totally my opinion, is that its a terrible, terrible thing that happened, and kids will do dumb stuff sometimes, but the decision ultimately falls back on the teen, who was old enough to know what he was doing and old enough to know what the consequences of playing on a railroad bridge.
Quote from: gatorback on June 17, 2008, 05:36:57 PM
The majority of personal injury lawsuits in Florida are brought under a theory of negligence. Negligence has to do with how careful a person was when he or she caused an injury, and how careful, according to the law, he or she should have been. So how careful was CSX. A Sign? Please.
I know, you would think they would put big arms that go up and down and big flashing lights, and even a bell at railroad crossing....oh wait, they do that people are still dumb enough to go around them when a train is coming, somewhere we have to take responsibility for our own actions, not blame them on someone else
And who gets hurt most of the time when the jackasses do that? The engineer. It's a button of mine...since I used to work at CSX and found out that the car usually gets pushed out of the way, but the train crashes in the the engine.
Quote from: adamh0903 on June 17, 2008, 05:37:12 PM
Quote from: gatorback on June 17, 2008, 05:16:01 PM
I think what you're talking about is that contributory negligence would disqualify the mom from any recovery, regardless of the proportion of blame on the kid; however, I'm sure they will argue that CSX should have made it impossible for a youth to get access. CSX could have built a fence, but they made a financial decision to not protect the public. CSX does that all the time. Shame CSX.
And if they did have a fence up, they would be sued for not having barbed-wire on top, then if they had barbed-wire on top they would be sued when someone tried to climb over it and cut themselves....As Stephen pointed out earlier we don’t have all the facts, so its a straw-man argument, but bottom line to me, and this is totally my opinion, is that its a terrible, terrible thing that happened, and kids will do dumb stuff sometimes, but the decision ultimately falls back on the teen, who was old enough to know what he was doing and old enough to know what the consequences of playing on a railroad bridge.
well put Adam. i know this to be true, you do and everyone in the world knows this. even the mother. hell, if the boy was alive today, he would say the same thing. it's just that there are devils advocates and trial attorneys in this world. and while the former can just be a@%(&@#% sometimes, the latter got to get paid.
Quote from: Driven1 on June 17, 2008, 06:47:22 PM
Quote from: adamh0903 on June 17, 2008, 05:37:12 PM
Quote from: gatorback on June 17, 2008, 05:16:01 PM
I think what you're talking about is that contributory negligence would disqualify the mom from any recovery, regardless of the proportion of blame on the kid; however, I'm sure they will argue that CSX should have made it impossible for a youth to get access. CSX could have built a fence, but they made a financial decision to not protect the public. CSX does that all the time. Shame CSX.
And if they did have a fence up, they would be sued for not having barbed-wire on top, then if they had barbed-wire on top they would be sued when someone tried to climb over it and cut themselves....As Stephen pointed out earlier we don’t have all the facts, so its a straw-man argument, but bottom line to me, and this is totally my opinion, is that its a terrible, terrible thing that happened, and kids will do dumb stuff sometimes, but the decision ultimately falls back on the teen, who was old enough to know what he was doing and old enough to know what the consequences of playing on a railroad bridge.
well put Adam. i know this to be true, you do and everyone in the world knows this. even the mother. hell, if the boy was alive today, he would say the same thing. it's just that there are devils advocates and trial attorneys in this world. and while the former can just be a@%(&@#% sometimes, the latter got to get paid.
I'm sorry but tort law can be a little confusing which is best handled by an attorney and they need to get paid just like the rest of the maggots out there. Let's put it this way. CSX is in a dangerous business, and like all businesses, they are in it for money. The sad part is if they had spent a a god damn nickle to protect the public, well, then we wouldn't be talking about this horrible accident now would we?
It's called Strick Liability in Florida. CSX has to go above & beyond to protect the public. CSX clearly doesn't do that because it eats at the bottom line. It's less expensive to pay the lawsuits then to make the railroad safe.
I actually know a family who lost a teenager at a NS railroad crossing where there was no arms, and no lights. The teen didn't stop, was hit by a train and was killed, the family tried to sue NS because there was no arms or lights and lost the suit on Negligence on the drivers part to stop and look for a train.
was that in fl? Automobile accidents fall into a different catagoy. I would have expected some sort of payout.
kid was trespassing.
he knew he was. his friends knew they were. even without the 4 "no trespassing" signs that are there. they knew that land was not theirs.
they had to travel a fairly great distance from a man-made paved road to engage in such trespassing.
train was travelling 15% below the maximum allowed speed in that area.
the engineer blew his horn early.
train horns are not quiet.
2 of the trespassers jumped off safely. the 3rd did not for some reason. was he trying to outrun the train out of bravado to impress his friends? why did he stay on the tracks? we may never know. it may come out in court. who knows.
but, at this point, there is overwhelming evidence that this star football player (re: Times-Union) was negligent, and sadly, to the point of his own death. it is a tragedy, but one of the finest-ran corporations in the country should not compensate his mother for his own negligence.
I agree with your thinking for adults given the law imposes a duty on everyone to behave at least as carefully as a reasonable, ordinary, prudent person in a similar situation. This is known as the reasonable person standard. I doubt the court expects a teenage to act to the same as an adult.
Quote from: gatorback on June 17, 2008, 10:03:31 PM
I agree with your thinking for adults given the law imposes a duty on everyone to behave at least as carefully as a reasonable, ordinary, prudent person in a similar situation. This is known as the reasonable person standard. I doubt the court expects a teenage to act to the same as an adult.
gator - he was 17. and a star football player. less than 1 year from being a full-fledged adult. while his numerical age was 17, he was much, much closer to being an adult than the idea of what a "teenager" conveys. a 19 year old is also a teenager.
So you're saying the son's lack of common sense caused his death and not because the railroad made a business decision not to make the track safe to the public? Pools have fences around them for the same reason as do retention ponds.
Besides, it doesn't really matter in this case who's at fault. CSX is going to pay. They'll settle out of court for a couple hundred grand and while the mom would probably get more, the maggot attorney will convince her to settle so he/she can get a paycheck.
Just remember this whenever you drop the personal injury attoney bullcrap argument...as a result of lawsuits filed on behalf of surviving family members, these cases have been instrumental in forcing railroad companies to replace cross buck railroad signs with lighted and flashing gates at intersections to warn motorists of approaching trains resulting in a significant reduction in deaths across the state from railroad intersection collisions.
Quote from: gatorback on June 17, 2008, 10:21:26 PM
Besides, it doesn't really matter in this case who's at fault. CSX is going to pay. They'll settle out of court for a couple hundred grand and while the mom would probably get more, the maggot attorney will convince her to settle so he/she can get a paycheck.
we agree 100% here.
Yeah we agree 100%. So, how much should we award them? $200,000? That might be a little high, but then again, the boy could have gone off and been very productive in society and that makes a difference in the payout. If he had good grades, and a was surely going to college, it could be more like $500,000.
i would say 200k - 400k is a good estimate. probably on the higher end because he was a high-profile and well-liked football player. your analysis is sad, but true. we agree there again. now mom will be able to buy that house in South Hampton. i just don't get it. she is grieving and wants money?? money will make it better??
and don't tell me it is about changing the corporate culture of negligence. even if CSX was negligent (i don't think they were), and she got $5 million from them (she won't), it wouldn't affect them radically.
Some maggot attorney called her up and fed here a line about whatever...probably was at the hospital before she was. But, yes she'll feel better about herself to get that money, and of course, the attorney will feel really really really good about getting his part, and the railroad will feel good about settling this before the next board meeting and getting it out of the public eye.
You're right stephen. How dare anybody put a dollar amount on the life of kid.
I'm not questioning the mother's grief and anger and I'm deeply sad for her loss, but you don't know what you're talking about. I have a problem with the railroad not making the tracks safe if you bothered to read anything above.
Nobody it making fun of the young man that died. However, the information supplied so far suggests that the young man made a mistake that ultimately cost him his life. On another angle, perhaps the Conducter should file a lawsuit for the grief he/she is going through.
QuoteSo you're saying the son's lack of common sense caused his death and not because the railroad made a business decision not to make the track safe to the public? Pools have fences around them for the same reason as do retention ponds.
Pools don't have multiple trains running on them during a 24 hour period. How can fencing off the bridge keep people off CSX's ROW? Since trains use the tracks, the ROW could be accessed at any at-grade crossing point. By the way, is it even possible to fence off the bridge? From Google Earth it appears to be pretty narrow.
You're right stephen we don't know enough. But Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes some persons responsible for damages their actions or products cause, regardless of any "fault" on their part.
I appreciate your suggestions since we cannot help that boy, but could help solve this problem going forward.
On a side note, I've been personally affected by a wrongful death. My best friend, Andy H. was killed in a drug and alcohol related accident. My other best friend Todd N. was driving a work truck back from Gainesville after partying all night. Todd feel asleep at the wheel and when the truck hit a guardrail, Andy, while not wearing his setbelt, flew out of the truck and died instantly when he hit the embankment. Andy's parents filed a wrongful death suit against Todd's parents, the owner of the truck. Like they had anything to do with it. The truth of the matter is at any moment, Todd, Andy, or I would have been driving messed up and it could have happened to any one of us. I never felt good about Andy's parents winning all that money.
Quote from: gatorback on June 17, 2008, 11:37:32 PM
You're right stephen we don't know enough.
I know a little more than I've let on. Out of respect for the deceased, I think from this point on, I'll stay out of this one.
Bill, Todd's dad, didn't know the Todd were doing that. My mom and dad never new I was doing it, except my father was smart enough to always make me own my own car. I'm sure Andy's parents were the same way. I asked my mom, what she would have done and she said she'd do what Andy's parents did. I then asked her what she would have done if I was the one drive. She didn't have answer to that. It's all sad.
sorry to hear about your personal situation gatorback...that is sad to have to have gone through it. in relation to the current lawsuit, after reviewing the facts as we know them now, we stand together - along with Lake i believe - feeling that this tragedy was one mainly due to the 17 year old football star's bravado and youthful (and unforgiving) mistake. but recognizing that Strict Liability will probably play its role in bringing CSX to the table early in a settlement.
Quote from: gatorback on June 17, 2008, 11:18:10 PM
You're right stephen. How dare anybody put a dollar amount on the life of kid.
I'm not questioning the mother's grief and anger and I'm deeply sad for her loss, but you don't know what you're talking about. I have a problem with the railroad not making the tracks safe if you bothered to read anything above.
once again, you are exactly right on every account gatorback. i also agree that the previous poster did not know what he/she was talking about. well put on all accounts.
Quote from: stephendare on June 17, 2008, 11:08:12 PM
and of course the adult "playing chicken with the children" while driving a train is totally not to blame.
And really. How dare you people question a mother's grief and anger.
This whole discourse, I am afraid has brought out the worst and most callous aspects of several posters. Its especially poignant that you are making these assumptions about people you dont know in a situation that you don't have any facts to connect to.
You just like hearing your half baked opinions out loud, even if you have to create imaginary scenarios about real live people who arent here to answer for themselves.
Knock yourself out making fun of dead children if it gives you even a few moments of smugness.
Its probably one of the few sources of validation that you get.
No where at any time, did I question the mother’s grief and anger.....
But this story was posted on an internet message board right? Where people are free, and even encouraged to have their own opinions and draw their own conclusions and assumptions, which is what you stand for right? People being free to say what they want to? People being free to have their own opinions, religious views? Moral views?
Or is that only what you believe when the opinion of others matches your opinion? I hardly ever agree with you, but at least I respect you when you say something that I Believe to be "half baked opinions"
Guess I'll be the cruel and unsensitive one here. How much of an effort should a railroad company put into an effort to keep people off the tracks? Barbed wire the whole length, electrificed fench ALA east germany. Spare me folks its a GOD**M railroad track. Surprisingly enough trains occasionally use it. It doesn't really matter if they were playing chicken or fishing off the tressel. ITS A RAILROAD TRACK!!!!!!!! stay off it. I guess it goes without saying I don't have much sympathy for the lawsuit
Quote from: civil42806 on June 18, 2008, 08:46:58 AM
Guess I'll be the cruel and unsensitive one here. How much of an effort should a railroad company put into an effort to keep people off the tracks? Barbed wire the whole length, electrificed fench ALA east germany. Spare me folks its a GOD**M railroad track. Surprisingly enough trains occasionally use it. It doesn't really matter if they were playing chicken or fishing off the tressel. ITS A RAILROAD TRACK!!!!!!!! stay off it. I guess it goes without saying I don't have much sympathy for the lawsuit
And I completely agree. Common sense, people.
I just want to note that the family is in my thoughts and prayers,
as well as, the engineer and conductor.
I would guess that the rr should have gone as far as to have prevented this from happening. Of course there's the bulldozer/pipe cutter theory which says if you bring a bulldozer or pipe cutter, break down a fence, or cut your way thru, then yes, maybe it's your fault. But until the RR ma)kes it safe for kids, I'm sorry, I don't have much sympathy for the shareholders in this case (AKA management since they own the majority of the voting shares are were the ones that called the shots not making that area safe.
And yes, thanks for mentioning that we should keep the engineer in our prayers...even if he did something stupid which I seriously doubt.
I have to agree Civil. There are just too many "common sence" laws and laysuits already on the books to protect people from themselves and then pay them when they make the mistakes they know they shouldn't have made in the first place. Just because CSX is a huge corporation and can throw around $100,000 bills like pocket change doesn't mean they should be liable for someone else's negligence.
On the contrary, this is a very sad story and I truely feel sorry for the family's loss and the grief they are experiencing. Many of us have been effected in some way shape or form by serious accidents that have seriously hurt someone or even taken a life. Each person has their own opinion based on their personal experience and if put in this very situation would likely have taken the same route as this child's mother. I know if that was my son up there I probably would as well. Doesn't make it right, but it seems to be in our nature as greedy Americans to go looking for a payout after an accident, at least enough to cover a funeral and services.
Who said he was playing chicken and refused to stop? I must be missing something.
from the T-U Story...
Quote
The civil suit says:
- CSX officials knew pedestrians sometimes walk on the trestle, thus train operators should have been trained to exercise extraordinary care when crossing there.
- CSX failed to close or fence off the trestle and failed to post adequate warning signs.
- The train was traveling at an unlawful and unreasonable speed.
- Train operators failed to warn Wesley Whiddon of the train's approach.
Angela Whiddon, principal at W.E. Cherry Elementary School, declined to comment.
A May 29 investigation by the Clay County Sheriff's Office said the train was traveling about 43 mph at the time of the accident. The posted speed limit on that section of track is 50 mph.
Investigators noted there were at least four "No Trespassing" signs posted in the area.
CSX engineer Brian Beaver and conductor David Jones told police they saw movement on the tracks, suspected it was a deer and began blowing the horn. Beaver said he then realized there were people on the trestle but didn't immediately put on the emergency brakes, which would risk derailment, because he expected they would jump into the water. He said children often play chicken with the train before jumping into the water. But this time, they didn't jump. Upon realizing that, he threw the brakes.
Note that the train horn was blown very early. Train horns are very loud. Also note that 2 boys jumped to safety and every other boy that has been on that trestle illegally has jumped safely. Was this kid acting out of bravado? Trying to time it down to the last second? Also, keep in mind they had to travel a fairly great distance from a paved road to trespass on a RAILROAD TRACK that had 4 "No Trespassing" signs around it.
"Its one of the actual facts listed in the article.
The Engineer at the site said that the kids were always playing chicken and he expected them to jump off the bridge, but one of the kids didnt.
He didn't brake until too late."
My god,do you actually thing a train stops like a car? It takes miles for a train to stop. I weep for this country
Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2008, 09:38:48 AM
CSX engineer Brian Beaver and conductor David Jones told police they saw movement on the tracks, suspected it was a deer and began blowing the horn. Beaver said he then realized there were people on the trestle but didn't immediately put on the emergency brakes, which would risk derailment, because he expected they would jump into the water. He said children often play chicken with the train before jumping into the water. But this time, they didn't jump. Upon realizing that, he threw the brakes.
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/061708/met_291594542.shtml
From my seat I'd have to side with the train. If I were in the parents seat the obviously I would side with my son.
Without a timeframe on when the conductor first spotted the "deer" and then realised it was a kid to the time he actually hit the brakes I can't make a definite conclusion.
Question: Which is more dangerous overall. Maintaining speed under the assumption that the kids will do what they have always done and jump, or slamming the brakes with the risk of derailing a freight train and potentially killing all of the kids and the operators as well? If the train derailed on the bridge and went into the same water the kids jumped into we'd likely be talking about multiple funerals.
Jason...and keep in mind what a derailment over a trestle means. Train cars derailing into the river and possibly taking the engineer down the river with it. Also, remember that it is established that he was going 43 in a 50 zone.
Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2008, 09:32:18 AM
So no one in the forum thinks that the engineer who was 'playin chicken' and refused to brake until it was too late was at fault?
I think we all agree that it just wasn't 1 thing that caused this horrible accident. That there is no need to prove fault since CSX operates a dangerous business in the public domain. Since they will settle, we will never know the payout it will be part of the terms and conditions of the settlement. "Management" does this so next time this happens, and sadly there will be a next time, we wont know how much they settled for.
greedy? Stephen come on. If managment would have made it safe...but....no....management would rather get that $100, 200, 400, $600,000.00 bonus that year then put up fencing. Talk about greed. The mom should go for the juggler so what if that gets her a jaguar, it's her money, let her do with it what she wants.
hMMMMM after reading this
this is the point civil.
think logically about the facts.
1. By his own admission, he blew the horn on sight, but decided not to brake.
2. He then realizes that its kids, but assumes they will jump, and decides not to brake.
3. He realizes that one isnt jumping and then decides to brake.
We only have the engineer's word to the cop as to how fast the train was travelling. There is no other evidence that the train was moving at the lawful speed.
At the relatively slow speed that he claimed he was going, he would not necessarily have taken 'miles to stop', as obviously it did not when he eventually did decide to brake. And there was no derailment.
Additionally he gave two different reasons for not braking when it might have made a difference.
1. He assumed the kids would jump, as they always did.
and
2. He feared derailment.
All things considered, I would have to assume that since he actually did brake and that the train did not derail, that his first reason is the stronger influence.
Really, Im just saying that there are multiple reasons to question the clear cutness of this case. None of us know all the facts, and yet here we are calling jurors 'stupid' and a mother whose child isnt even put into the grave yet, 'greedy'."
you either a personal injury lawyer or an idiot and I mean that in the nicest sense of the word.
"actually Im neither, and I certainly hope that if your own children are horribly killed, no one will accuse you of either stupidity or greed.
But your comment would be more effective if you challenged the facts.
Can you address the facts and my conclusions above or not?"
Well since your not a personal injury lawyer I will assume my second assumption is correct. Anyone that believes that a Train engineer driving a vehicle that has between 500,000 to 750000 lbs of weight traveling even at a relatively small speed, that happens to see something up ahead, blows his horn, and some how doesn't avoid hitting somthing that weighs between 150 -200 lbs with complete freedom of movement is at fault sort of proves my point. Are you a school teacher or civil servant that would explain a lot.
I am of the very simple opinion that personal responsibility comes in to play here. As many others have stated, the kid made a life ending bad decision. That doesn't make the grieving process any easier for the family and friends, but CSX should not be culpable for a trespassing teenager.
That said, I think we all know that CSX will likely just settle and call it a day. It will cost them less than fighting it, and will lead to less of a PR nightmare.
Civil, dont bother spinning your wheels. You would have more success screaming at a wall.
Stephen, the engineer was lucky that time not to have killed anybody else. The mass behind the power is the problem in situations like this.
Why don't we accept that there's no fault here just some facts one being a dead child.
All right then. I guess I cannot call a ambulance chaser a maggot in all fairness unless I was one then it would be OK. But in my defense, I did say how much the maggot's, oh, excuse me, the attorney's cases have made rr gradecrossing safer.
Quote from: downtownparks on June 18, 2008, 10:31:08 AM
Civil, dont bother spinning your wheels. You would have more success screaming at a wall.
i can 2nd that Civil. Wisdom is learning from the mistakes (wasted time) of others.
Did the train slow to a stop or did the conductor yank the e-brake? Over what distance did this the stop occur? If the stopping distance was greater than the distance between the point where the conductor initially recognized the child and then the point where he hit the child there would have been nothing he could have done anyways.
Also, I'm sure that a freight train CAN derail at that speed or he likely would not have been concerned about an emergency stop.
It takes miles to stop a train even with just a couple of cars at 43 MPH. Would you swerve your car at 43 MPH on a wet road to avoid hitting a deer if your kids was in the car with you Jason, or would you just take out the deer a much safer option for you at that point. Because that's about as much traction a steel wheel has on a steel rail probably less then rubber on water on asphalt.
I'm taking out the deer.
Quote from: Jason on June 18, 2008, 10:59:25 AM
I'm taking out the deer.
And probably praying nobody gets hurt. Think about what the engineer just when through. For probably at least a mile or two, slowing down, not know if he killed that boy, then to realize that he did. Horrible. I blame CSX personally. There have been cases where engineers sue for mental destress for failures on part of the RR.
Maybe we can just send antagonistic emails to the CSX board of directors and the train engineer. That'll teach 'em.
This young man should not have been on the bridge period. It can not in anyway shape or form be the fault of the engineer or CSX. If he had not been there (where he wasn't supposed to be) none of this would have happened. That being said, young men (calling them little boys slants it a little I think!) doing dumb things is not new or uncommon, unfortunately this time it cost someone their life. I feel very very sorry for this young man's mother and father. I can not even imagine the pain of losing your child
Doesn't work that way in Florida Downtown Dweller.
I hear ya, I guess I should have phrased it “It should not be the fault of anyone, it was an accident†.Unfortunately I think grief may be effecting everyone involved. I can not imagine the pain and rage of losing your child in such a senseless accident I can imagine the parents wanting to blame someone for this, but it was an accident. It is a very sad situation.
Quote from: Downtown Dweller on June 18, 2008, 12:23:32 PM
I hear ya, I guess I should have phrased it “It should not be the fault of anyone, it was an accident” .Unfortunately I think grief may be effecting everyone involved. I can not imagine the pain and rage of losing your child in such a senseless accident I can imagine the parents wanting to blame someone for this, but it was an accident. It is a very sad situation.
exactly.
I am addressing the simple facts and math of the argument. I certainly feel for the parents loss, but I have seen engineers carried out of the cab in such cases. Shades of Vietnam, where children were sometimes unsuspecting victims and adult men crumbled in emotional heaps. This is day to day railroading. So with that in mind, let me point out a few things:
The engineer was "driving" the train... NO he was not driving the train. The train is run/ran/operated but there is not enough control to say that one "drives" it. To run the train is as much art as it is science.
The engineer sounded the horn... Okay, but more then you think. Horns are not just noise makers but signal devices. EVERY horn sound has a meaning - Al La Morse-code. It is a language of sound. The rule book says a series of loud sharp SHORT blasts of the horn (o o o o o o o o o o o o o o) signals that man, animal or vehicle is on the track. This is the most audible warning available. Approach to a railroad crossing would be ( - - o - )
for example.
Dumping the air, or going into full emergency almost certainly is a design for a massive disaster. Such a disaster could have forever killed the crew, wiped out the trestle, killed all of the kids at play, and forever changed the ecology of Black Creek. The engineer was right in backing off the throttle (the gas) and trying to get a firm fix on the situation.
Speeding freight, "We only have the engineers word..." NO WE DON'T. The train carries a black box just like an aircraft. Every move the engineer made, every brake application, speed reduction, speed overall, measurements in feet and inches, signal indications etc. is electronic and recorded for the attorneys.
Given 200'-400' of backing off the throttle (gas) causes the train cars to bunch-up. Each coupler has a few inches of slack action between it and the car behind it. When a long train starts off, that action causes a slight jerk on the car behind the locomotive, as the slack runs out down the train (you can hear it travel) it gets more violent. By the time it reaches the last car (the old caboose position) it can be strong enough to go from zero-10mph in a fraction of a second. Enough to throw a strong man, flat on the floor (and one of the reasons cabooses are gone). Stopping a train that action is reversed as each car slams into the slack of the car ahead, as it gathers in it poses a real danger of being "hit by the train". In other words, the locomotives may stop, and a few seconds later get slammed by 100 million pounds of freight cars still moving at 43 MPH. Derailment? More like explosion.
As for fencing off the right-of-way, or signs, I know this area. It is very remote, and the railroad has great signs on all sides and on all approaches to that narrow bridge. It shouldn't be the railroads job to protect us from ourselves, after warning us that this is DEADLY PRIVATE PROPERTY. If the teens hop one fence do we need two? If they pass one light or camera, would two work better? A few years ago the federal railroad administration passed a rule that all locomotives MUST HAVE a flashing strobe light on the roof. It would prevent 1% of all FATAL accidents at grade crossings. Or so they said. A railroad executive went on record in Washington, suggesting that 100 strobe lights would prevent ALL FATAL accidents.
Had this been Amtraks Silver Meteor, rather then a slow CSX freight, the kid would have been scattered from Black Creek to Ortega. One can join the military at 17, go into battle, drive a tank, fire a rocket, or fly a $80 MILLION dollar jet... So being a star high schooler, I would think playing in the middle of the CSX mainline would not be in his game plan. Victim? Yes, he AND the train crew. Sad? Certainly something those involved will live and re-live forever. Stupid? It's not mommy or daddy or CSX or Floridas job to think for him.
Quotethink logically about the facts.
1. By his own admission, he blew the horn on sight, but decided not to brake.
2. He then realizes that its kids, but assumes they will jump, and decides not to brake.
3. He realizes that one isnt jumping and then decides to brake.
We only have the engineer's word to the cop as to how fast the train was travelling. There is no other evidence that the train was moving at the lawful speed.
At the relatively slow speed that he claimed he was going, he would not necessarily have taken 'miles to stop', as obviously it did not when he eventually did decide to brake. And there was no derailment.
The Railroad Engineers View:[/color][/b]
QuoteA Typical Grade Crossing Analysis
An example of a time distance analysis follows. In this case a train was approaching a road crossing at 29 M/H. The sight distance available to the engineer was 484'. The question posed is how much could the engineer have delayed the train's arrival at the crossing by placing the train in emergency? That analysis follows.
Total Available Distance = 485'
Initial speed = 29 M/H (42.5 ft/sec)
Estimated reaction time = 1.5 Seconds
TRAIN DATA
Number of units (Locomotives)
= 2
Length of units (Locomotives)
= 136.66 feet
Weight of units (Locomotives)
= 350.5 tons
Number of cars
= 18
Length of cars
= 902 feet
Gross weight of cars
= 980 tons
Empty weight of cars
= 540 tons
Train length
= 1038 feet
Gross weight of train
= 1330 tons
Empty weight of train
= 890 tons
Brake pipe pressure
= 90 psi
Emergency propagation
= 1.128 sec.
Emergency braking efficiency
= 0.736
Grade
= -.00173
First lets determine the Engineer's reaction distance using an average reaction time of 1.5 seconds.
Reaction distance = (Reaction Time) x (Velocity)
Reaction distance = (1.5 seconds) x (42.5 ft/second) = 64 feet.
Subtracting this reaction distance from the total distance of 485' leaves 421' feet for the train to slow.
Next let's determine how long it would take the train to arrive at the crossing if the engineer did not act.
Distance/Rate = Time
(421 feet) / (42.5 ft/second) = 9.89 seconds
Next, we must calculate the actual slowing for the train. This is not a simple calculation. Recall we must account for the time for the air to propagate the length of the train. Next, the actuation time of the brakes for each car must be considered. We must also determine the weight of the train then compare it to brake force. The results of these calculations will be presented in the table below without support.
Initial Speed (mph)
Stopping Distance (feet)
Time to Stop (sec)
29
712.1
25.89
The first thing that is apparent is that the available stopping distance of 421' is well less than the 712.1' feet required for the train to stop. The conclusion: The train can't stop before it gets to the crossing. But perhaps more interesting is the comparison of the time it takes the train to reach the crossing with and without braking. Again, this involves detailed calculations beyond the scope of this treatment. The result will be presented for purposes of comparison. Given the 421' brake distance the train arrives at the crossing at 24.14 M/H. The time it arrives is 10.46 seconds after the point the brakes were first applied. This time should be compared to the time required to reach the crossing if no action was taken. That time calculated above was 9.89 seconds. The difference is .57 seconds. This difference in time is not much, but perhaps sufficient for a car to clear the crossing.
Conclusion
When compared to other modes of ground transportation trains have some unique characteristics that require special analytical consideration. The length of a train and its associated pneumatic brake systems, determining the train weight and calculating brake force are all variables that appear in stopping distance calculations. While running steel wheels on steel tracks greatly increases a train's load-carrying capability, these materials limit the ground forces available so that speed changes in trains occur relatively slowly.
These problems notwithstanding, this truly massive vehicle travels thousands of miles daily with infrequent incident.
Ocklawaha
Ock...you got a cliff notes version? What does all this research reveal to you?
Here here!!
Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2008, 03:07:05 PM
Adding to this case is the newly uncovered fact that a nearly identical death happened at this very site 20 YEARS ago. In that case, the group of boys on the train had apparently been drinking.
Talks with Clay County Deputy E. W Howell confirmed that none of the boys had been consuming alcohol in this case, but merely fishing.
This is directly contrary to what an extremely reliable source tells me the T-U uncovered in their investigation. With all due respect to the Deputy, he is not an investigator or detective and blood results may not even be back yet. I surely hope there was no alcohol involved. If there was, it would further impact the decision-making abilities of the victim and increase the level of his negligent behavior. Let's all pray this was not the case.
And let's all remember that we are just merely outsiders speculating on a lot of this. And that our individual opinions really don't mean $hit.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION is to RR as the FTSB is to aviation. The FRA will look at the box.
Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2008, 02:25:49 PM
Well then lets get rid of traffic lights on city streets and fences around electrical transformers while we are at it.
That way we can thin the city population out by making sure the slow witted are killed early and often.
That actually doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.
Quote from: second_pancake on June 18, 2008, 03:28:27 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2008, 02:25:49 PM
Well then lets get rid of traffic lights on city streets and fences around electrical transformers while we are at it.
That way we can thin the city population out by making sure the slow witted are killed early and often.
That actually doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.
lol. yep, maybe this could derail us off the tracks to an Idiocracy. pardon the pun. :D
Quote from: gatorback on June 18, 2008, 03:26:11 PM
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION is to RR as the FTSB is to aviation. The FRA will look at the box.
i think the FRA should come to this site and read all these posts and try to figure out what REALLY happened. :D
Gatorback, the FRA will hear about it, but the NTSB will do the black box drill. QuoteQuoteWell then lets get rid of traffic lights on city streets and fences around electrical transformers while we are at it. That way we can thin the city population out by making sure the slow witted are killed early and often.
CSX opted at the time of the last tragedy to put up additional signage along the tracks.
Perhaps 100 signs would take CSX from the Ridiculous to the safety Sublime. Should JEA use 100 fences? Maybe traffic lights with steel doors to close off streets would save lives? Conversly perhaps our local schools are to blame, and little "Johnny" simply needs to learn to read. Another thought is why not take "Operation Life Saver" into every local school at every grade level and make it REQUIRED. This railroad sponsored program usually includes the ruins of what was once an automobie (on a trailer) and video of trains cutting through Semi-Big Rigs like a hot knife through butter. Kids that see it, are not nearly as likely to play chicken with a train.
Ocklawaha
How come I hardly ever hear of a car driving off a drawbridge while it was open/up?
The railroad could make their crossing grades that safe if they dropped some bucks on safer gates huh?
Gatorback. Can you post some images of the gates you describe? I'm having trouble visualizing a scenerio where it would be impossible for a willed trespasser to gain access on a mainline railroad 24 hours/day.
Sorry lake, I was just saying rr crossing grads using quad gate technology are safter then what you find most cars running and crashing. You know these puppy's reduce crashes at the crossing but they cost some bucks and the rr would rather not spend the money. That's all i'm saying. They could make it safer you know.
(http://www.tkda.com/quietzone/Quietzone/quietzone2.gif)
Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2008, 02:25:49 PM
Well then lets get rid of traffic lights on city streets and fences around electrical transformers while we are at it.
That way we can thin the city population out by making sure the slow witted are killed early and often.
Looks like Stephen was totally talking out his @$$ as usual, according to Ock (who is a real expert).
Stephen, perhaps if all trains were required to travel at 2 mph everything would be REAL safe. Of course, then commerce would grind to a halt. Oh, and we need 12 foot high fences on every street and railroad. Of course, I have no idea how one would cross these streets then. Maybe we can all just travel in straight, parallel lines from now on at very slow speeds. It's for the children. ::)
I'm sure if the union had it's way, they'd be back down to 12 MPH. That would be a lot safer then the bullshit 50 or 60 they go now. A coal training going 45 MPH so the rr makes more money and the managers get a bigger bounus--give me a break.
We could build overpasses like they did a univ. blvd and phillips why. And at Baymeadows., and at..., but then again, that would make things safer and well, with food prices, and oil prices the way they are we just don't need all the competition for our natural resources then huh?
Quote from: RiversideGator on June 18, 2008, 05:01:53 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2008, 02:25:49 PM
Well then lets get rid of traffic lights on city streets and fences around electrical transformers while we are at it.
That way we can thin the city population out by making sure the slow witted are killed early and often.
Looks like Stephen was totally talking out his @$$ as usual, according to Ock (who is a real expert).
Stephen, perhaps if all trains were required to travel at 2 mph everything would be REAL safe. Of course, then commerce would grind to a halt. Oh, and we need 12 foot high fences on every street and railroad. Of course, I have no idea how one would cross these streets then. Maybe we can all just travel in straight, parallel lines from now on at very slow speeds. It's for the children. ::)
lol. "it's for the children." hilarious!
Quote from: gatorback on June 18, 2008, 05:13:26 PM
We could build overpasses like they did a univ. blvd and phillips why. And at Baymeadows., and at..., but then again, that would make things safer and well, with food prices, and oil prices the way they are we just don't need all the competition for our natural resources then huh?
Doesn't the City/State pay for these improvements, as opposed to the railroads. Nevertheless, how would crossing gates and bridges keep willed trespassers off the tracks (ex. they could walk over or under or behind crossing gates).
if i was a trial attorney, there is NO WAY i would take this case. this case would be just BEGGING to sink my practice. what...with the 43 in a 50, engineer blew the horn, no trespassing signs and the possibility of alcohol in the kid's blood!!
Lake: I was just stating the obvious and as I mention before the bulldozer/pipe cutter theory that anybody can get into anywhere they want isn't a defense in this case. Could the RR make their operations safer by spending some money? Yes. Will they? No. Why? Cuse Managment wants that $100,000 MB, or BMW, and that $90,000 wedding for their precious daughter at Epping Forsest Yatch club, or the University Club., etc.
The quad gates would make rr crossing grades safer by not allowing cars to cut throught the other directions.
oh. if i was the railroad Defense Attorney. this is too easy of a case. first, i would find out if the boy did in fact have alcohol in his blood. if he did, the case becomes that much easier. if he did not, i would pursue the simple facts in the case - the train was going under the speed limit, there were no trespassing signs, the trestle was far from a paved road so the boys had to be quite intentional about trespassing and that the engineer goes through many, many hours of safety training and blew the VERY LOUD horn early. of course, there is Strict Liability in play here (as Gatorback has pointed out numerous times) and so the case would probably settle before ever coming to me as the Defense Attorney.
Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2008, 05:23:52 PM
Quote from: Lunican on June 17, 2008, 09:33:13 AM
Location of accident (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=30.080012,-81.761756&spn=0.01309,0.018711&t=h&z=16)
you can easily see from this map that there is every likelihood that the boys crossed through the woods to the fishing spot, and further that fishing there is a pretty common occurence.
Its even possible that they came to the gates with no signs and no experience with the nature of the bridge, which btw is quite long.
From aerials and water management surveys, those "woods" surrounding the bridge are wetlands. The easiest path to the bridge would appear to be the tracks themselves.
So then maybe the fence idea is not so good. That is unless they put a fence across the tracks at each end of the bridge?
Just say you owned a big cat. And some boys jumped a fence and went fishing off your dock while have a few beers. The big cat get's one and kills him. Even though you have signs, a fence, etc., it doesn't matter...your responsible. I look at CSX the same way as the cat owner. Am I wrong?
Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2008, 05:26:28 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on June 18, 2008, 05:24:12 PM
if i was a trial attorney, there is NO WAY i would take this case. this case would be just BEGGING to sink my practice. what...with the 43 in a 50, engineer blew the horn, no trespassing signs and the possibility of alcohol in the kid's blood!!
im asking river how he would take the case from the point of view of the rr.
and please take care with the dead that you dont slander them. They arent here to defend themselves.
1) I dont do PI on either the plaintiff or defendant side.
2) If I did, I would take the case to represent CSX. CSX can certainly pay the attorney's fees. I would also represent the kid's family hoping for a quick settlement and a 1/3 cut for the lawyer. This is unrelated to my personal views of the situation. And, lawyers dont choose their clients totally. They can turn some down but ultimately you take what you get to some extent.
Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2008, 05:26:28 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on June 18, 2008, 05:24:12 PM
if i was a trial attorney, there is NO WAY i would take this case. this case would be just BEGGING to sink my practice. what...with the 43 in a 50, engineer blew the horn, no trespassing signs and the possibility of alcohol in the kid's blood!!
im asking river how he would take the case from the point of view of the rr.
and please take care with the dead that you dont slander them. They arent here to defend themselves.
Hi kettle, I’m Pot...Your black
You have miss-quoted the engineer in every post you have referenced. Nowhere has the engineer said he played chicken with kids, what he did say was
"He said children often play chicken with the train before jumping into the water. But this time, they didn't jump. Upon realizing that, he threw the brakes"
Which to me, says the game of chicken is only being played one way. So we go back to page 1 of this thread....whose responsibility is it that someone was on the tracks when a train was coming? The person on the tracks when the train was coming. Responsibility doesn’t fall to the train operator to break earlier or to CSX to put up more signs.
If you play in the street and get hit by a car, who responsibility is it....If you play with a gun a get shot, who's fault is it. The person playing in the street, the person playing with guns and the person playing on a RR track..
adamh0903: Read:
Quote from: gatorback on June 18, 2008, 05:42:54 PM
Just say you owned a big cat. And some young boys jumped a fence with bobwire, and went fishing off your dock while having a few beers also puffing the magic dragon. You've got lots of signs, No Trespassing, Danger, etc. The big cat get's one and kills him. Maybe they even taunted the cat. Even though you have signs, a fence, etc., it doesn't matter...your responsible. I look at CSX the same way as the cat owner. Am I wrong?
Why are people trying to vilify CSX when this kid clearly trespassed on CSX property? Some people on this thread are really stretchin' it, coming up with unrealistic solutions like " an impenetrable crossing gate, and 24-7 security". Get Real!!!!! Only in Fairy-tale Land that's possible. It's sad that the kid died, and I know it's hard on the family, but CSX isn't the blame here. I did stupid stuff when I was a kid; Things like running across I-95, Jumping off a Hart bridge off-ramp into a building's roof, and swimming in a closed Emmett Reed Public Pool at night; If I happen to have gotten killed doing those stupid things, I wouldn't look for any handouts to my family from FDOT, Dept of Recreation or whoever. When does it stop with the sue-happy mentality?
Quote from: I-10east on June 18, 2008, 07:27:01 PM
Why are people trying to vilify CSX when this kid clearly trespassed on CSX property? Some people on this thread are really stretchin' it, coming up with unrealistic solutions like " an impenetrable crossing gate, and 24-7 security". Get Real!!!!! Only in Fairy-tale Land that's possible. It's sad that the kid died, and I know it's hard on the family, but CSX isn't the blame here. I did stupid stuff when I was a kid; Things like running across I-95, Jumping off a Hart bridge off-ramp into a building's roof, and swimming in a closed Emmett Reed Public Pool at night; If I happen to have gotten killed doing those stupid things, I wouldn't look for any handouts to my family from FDOT, Dept of Recreation or whoever. When does it stop with the sue-happy mentality?
it doesn't stop I-10east. that is the saddest part. there are WAY too many devils advocates and hungry trial attorneys for this madness to stop. go back and read this thread in its entirety and you may even find a couple of the former here. sad indeed.
Quote from: adamh0903 on June 18, 2008, 05:58:48 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2008, 05:26:28 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on June 18, 2008, 05:24:12 PM
if i was a trial attorney, there is NO WAY i would take this case. this case would be just BEGGING to sink my practice. what...with the 43 in a 50, engineer blew the horn, no trespassing signs and the possibility of alcohol in the kid's blood!!
im asking river how he would take the case from the point of view of the rr.
and please take care with the dead that you dont slander them. They arent here to defend themselves.
Hi kettle, I’m Pot...Your black
ROFL!!! AdamH...don't you know? If you twist the truth enough and spin it around into a lie, it becomes a whole new, different, prettier truth.
Quote from: gatorback on June 18, 2008, 06:02:01 PM
adamh0903: Read:
Quote from: gatorback on June 18, 2008, 05:42:54 PM
Just say you owned a big cat. And some young boys jumped a fence with bobwire, and went fishing off your dock while having a few beers also puffing the magic dragon. You've got lots of signs, No Trespassing, Danger, etc. The big cat get's one and kills him. Maybe they even taunted the cat. Even though you have signs, a fence, etc., it doesn't matter...your responsible. I look at CSX the same way as the cat owner. Am I wrong?
Umm...a big cat is not in the business of moving things like coal and freight that are vital to the country. A big cat is a wild carnivorous animal that is unpredictable in its actions. A big cat doesn't own the property that it is capable of roaming around on. A big cat does not have a franchise from the US Government to move around. A big cat does not have a diesel engine. (Except for the D9). A big cat does not stay exclusively on two steel rails.
So....I think you might be wrong here.
This is a tragic accident plain and simple. That the kid did not have a plan B for when the train came through, or did not consider that a train might come through was a serious oversight on his part that resulted in his demise. Kids do things with a lack of forethought all of the time, some of those things are fatal.
Wow. I am in agreement with midway again. Perhaps I should reexamine my position. :D
When was the last time you were in agreement with me?
About subsidies for Amtrak. Maybe it is just a train thing.
Quote from: Midway on June 18, 2008, 10:20:00 PM
Quote from: gatorback on June 18, 2008, 06:02:01 PM
adamh0903: Read:
Quote from: gatorback on June 18, 2008, 05:42:54 PM
Just say you owned a big cat. And some young boys jumped a fence with bobwire, and went fishing off your dock while having a few beers also puffing the magic dragon. You've got lots of signs, No Trespassing, Danger, etc. The big cat get's one and kills him. Maybe they even taunted the cat. Even though you have signs, a fence, etc., it doesn't matter...your responsible. I look at CSX the same way as the cat owner. Am I wrong?
Umm...a big cat is not in the business of moving things like coal and freight that are vital to the country. A big cat is a wild carnivorous animal that is unpredictable in its actions. A big cat doesn't own the property that it is capable of roaming around on. A big cat does not have a franchise from the US Government to move around. A big cat does not have a diesel engine. (Except for the D9). A big cat does not stay exclusively on two steel rails.
So....I think you might be wrong here.
This is a tragic accident plain and simple. That the kid did not have a plan B for when the train came through, or did not consider that a train might come through was a serious oversight on his part that resulted in his demise. Kids do things with a lack of forethought all of the time, some of those things are fatal.
Wonderful. I just LOVE that you are showing your magnificent ignorance to even the most basic case law of the State of Florida. Here's the deal. Midway, in the future, hire a respectable attonerny to defend yourself because it' SO obvious that you have NO CLUE as to the statues in the State of Florida. OK?
This will be SO entertaining for the reasonable posters here. Argue the Cat case for us PLEEASE. I'm begging you. Because you see Midway, there's no argument for the Cat case, just as there is no argument for the CSX case.
CSX is self-insured. It cost the less money that way. I guess they figure the cost of 'claims' against their revenue as if they know it's going to happen. Which it is. The RR is very dangerous. That's why we set up Rail Road Retirement in the first place. It protects the family of the men and women who work on the railroad.
(http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/hsc3401l.jpg)
(http://taxguru.org/comix/sueadfirm.gif)
QuoteJust say you owned a big cat. And some young boys jumped a fence with bobwire, and went fishing off your dock while having a few beers also puffing the magic dragon. You've got lots of signs, No Trespassing, Danger, etc. The big cat get's one and kills him. Maybe they even taunted the cat. Even though you have signs, a fence, etc., it doesn't matter...your responsible. I look at CSX the same way as the cat owner. Am I wrong?
WTF?
Some of you have been lurking about my California finca?
This one is easy, Simply lure the boyz into the nearby abandoned mine shaft and tell them there is free pot and beer deep inside. About 1/4 mile in the drift slope, they'll find the old vertical shaft... The one that once HAD the elevator in it... My guess is, that it's maybe 800 feet to the lower level, straight down. One rewards their pets for not leaving table scraps laying around. Kids gone, big cat full, landowner content that no one else is tresspassing. Victory is a taste to be savored...Ocklawaha
Quote from: stephendare on June 19, 2008, 11:13:06 AM
QuoteUmm...a big cat is not in the business of moving things like coal and freight that are vital to the country. A big cat is a wild carnivorous animal that is unpredictable in its actions. A big cat doesn't own the property that it is capable of roaming around on. A big cat does not have a franchise from the US Government to move around. A big cat does not have a diesel engine. (Except for the D9). A big cat does not stay exclusively on two steel rails.
So....I think you might be wrong here.
This is a tragic accident plain and simple. That the kid did not have a plan B for when the train came through, or did not consider that a train might come through was a serious oversight on his part that resulted in his demise. Kids do things with a lack of forethought all of the time, some of those things are fatal.
This is really the basic heart of the reason for automatic liability in these cases. In recognition of the importance of the industry, the rails are granted tremendous leeway in local affairs, granted the protection of the feds and given a franchise for operation across many public lands.
Well Stephen you sure do know a lot about the railroad. But, it hasn't always been that easy for the railroads. Remember, the giant railroads were not always this powerful they were even more powerful. In fact, the giant raiload monopoly put together by Morgan and the railroadman James J. Hill, The Northern Securities Company, were sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by President Who? Right, Teddy Roosevelet. Roosevelt directed his attonery general to file suit to dissolve this company, but Roosevelt's antitrust policy did not end the power of the giant corporations or even alter their methods of doing business.
Quote from: stephendare on June 19, 2008, 11:13:06 AM
QuoteHow expensive, honestly would a surveillance camera be for monitors to announce over a PA system to get the hell off the bridge?
How hard to provide an emergency lane so that people can jump out of the way?
The solutions to prevent this string of tragedies from recurring seem fairly inexpensive.
I honestly don't know if you are serious here or not but I will respond assuming that you are indeed serious.
How many thousands of railroad bridges are in this country? How many people would it take to monitor those thousands of cameras? Even if there were cameras and an intercom system, since the kids didn't get off of the damn bridge when they heard the train whistle what makes you think they would have gotten off of the bridge if they heard a faint voice coming from nowhere telling them to get off of the bridge?
Adding an emergency lane onto the thousands of bridges? Have you lost your damn mind? So we have a problem with kids being where they shouldn't be, so lets make it more inviting to them by adding a nice walkway so its easier to get to where they shouldn't be in the first place. Within a month of adding said emergency lanes some retard is fishing off of the emergency lane when a CSX train comes by at 40 mph and whips up a small shard of scrap metal near the tracks and it goes into the retards head and kills him. Then CSX would be liable for that too, right?
The solution to this "problem" is teach your kids not to be an idiot. Train tracks are used by big, heavy, fast moving trains that can't stop for almost a mile, they are not sidewalks or fishing piers.
The cost of that solution is exactly zero dollars.
I agree that CSX has done its part here, and the kid or kids are at fault. Shame the railroad can't sue them! Imagine owning a restaurant called "Boomtown" and the local kids decide that the new game of dare, will be to run behind the counter and stick their hands in the open flame of the stove. A small blister means you are REALLY one hard dude, a blister AND a ticket from the police would mean you are super cool and a 3rd degree burn with some hospital time elevates you to a "god" status in your high school. So every day, the staff is going about the daily business of making excellent meals, and at the same time they have to watch everyone that gets nearby for a run to the kitchen. Perhaps some more signs would do, "KEEP OUT OF THE KITCHEN" they say. Or maybe we just need a wider passage so the cook and the dare-to-burn kids can be kept apart. Fact is many of them won't stick their hand in the flame anyway, they just want to be seen darting into that super cool status spot. I think restaurants should provide them with wide aisles, passing lanes and lots of signs. Sure would make me feel better and damn, I bet that Boomtown couldn't be sued if they took that caution. Well maybe they could. HEY! Maybe a video camera, we'll hire AJAX security and their trusty ACME SECURITY SYSTEM to watch the flame 24/7/365. I mean it REALLY is the job of the restaurant to protect us from these crazy impulses... the building was built on former Native Land and god knows, probably even farm land. So the owner owes us this security system. I'll expect to see it in a restaurant near you soon.
By the way, all that "FREE RAILROAD LAND" and "FREE GRANTS and FRANCHISES" uh, they were NOT FREE! The railroads were required to carry all federal freight and passengers at a fraction of the cost. This rate schedule continued from the 1840/50's right up into the 1950's when the rates were finally repealed. It was estimated that the railroads had paid for their "FREE GIFTS" something like 8 times.
Ocklawaha
Is it official? Is this the longest thread in the shortest period yet?
(http://www.news4jax.com/2008/0515/16275891.jpg)
Quote from: whitey on June 19, 2008, 09:57:38 PM
The cost of that solution is exactly zero dollars.
Lovely. The cost of your solution is actually more life.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 19, 2008, 11:02:27 PM
I agree that CSX has done its part here, and the kid or kids are at fault. Shame the railroad can't sue them! Imagine owning a restaurant called "Boomtown" and the local kids decide that the new game of dare, will be to run behind the counter and stick their hands in the open flame of the stove. A small blister means you are REALLY one hard dude, a blister AND a ticket from the police would mean you are super cool and a 3rd degree burn with some hospital time elevates you to a "god" status in your high school. So every day, the staff is going about the daily business of making excellent meals, and at the same time they have to watch everyone that gets nearby for a run to the kitchen. Perhaps some more signs would do, "KEEP OUT OF THE KITCHEN" they say. Or maybe we just need a wider passage so the cook and the dare-to-burn kids can be kept apart. Fact is many of them won't stick their hand in the flame anyway, they just want to be seen darting into that super cool status spot. I think restaurants should provide them with wide aisles, passing lanes and lots of signs. Sure would make me feel better and damn, I bet that Boomtown couldn't be sued if they took that caution. Well maybe they could. HEY! Maybe a video camera, we'll hire AJAX security and their trusty ACME SECURITY SYSTEM to watch the flame 24/7/365. I mean it REALLY is the job of the restaurant to protect us from these crazy impulses... the building was built on former Native Land and god knows, probably even farm land. So the owner owes us this security system. I'll expect to see it in a restaurant near you soon.
By the way, all that "FREE RAILROAD LAND" and "FREE GRANTS and FRANCHISES" uh, they were NOT FREE! The railroads were required to carry all federal freight and passengers at a fraction of the cost. This rate schedule continued from the 1840/50's right up into the 1950's when the rates were finally repealed. It was estimated that the railroads had paid for their "FREE GIFTS" something like 8 times.
Ocklawaha
Oh alright, I'll run this down. Okay, we need a really strick assistant to the manager on duty. Let's call her Helga. Helga, is more like a weightliffer/massouse/starving actor. She, sees the pattern and it really makes her blood boil. She 'conveniently' get, you guessed it, a big cat for an up and coming play. She places the cat, near the kitchen, and do to some scheduling 'error', nobody is working the kitchen that night. Door is openned to the cage, and big cat is on the prawl in the unmanned kitchen. Kid after kid disappears, shows over, cat gone, a few more bones/props for the show, Helga gets that movie deal and is off to sunny california. Problem solved.
Quote from: stephendare on June 20, 2008, 01:26:11 PM
Im sorry Ock, but the restaurant industry is just as massive as the rail industry, as more people eat than use trains, and we DO have a presumption of responsibility.
If we allowed a group of teenagers behind our bar in our kitchen with access to our dangerous equipment, I could potentially go to jail.
I think CSX should put bartenders at each end of every trestle they own in the country. In every circumstance, his/her job shall be solely to prevent access to the trestle.
They wouldn't do as well in tips though, so CSX would have to pay them higher than an average tender salary.
I still dont understand how it is possible to block off all access to railroad tracks since they run throughout the City and State. Should we never be allowed to cross the tracks just in case we might get killed? BTW, some idiot got killed today on the Southside when he tried to go around the crossing arms in his car and beat the train but lost. Should his family now sue CSX? Where do you draw the line? This is really stupid frankly.
BTW, I can maybe see some liability for CSX if they had an unmarked crossing somewhere without any warning that a train might be coming and someone got hit while trying to safely cross the tracks. As it is, this was not the case. It was clear that the kids were trespassing on the tracks for a long period of time and not just trying to safely cross at a dangerous point.
"Should his family now sue CSX?" Sure. However, the family might do better if the sued the FECR the owner of those tracks.
That's funny cause I had a friend that lives in Green Cove Springs go over there and he actually took pics. I am waiting on them. He said it was quite difficult to get to and out of the way. He said that like most trestles (his grandfather worked his whole life for the railroads) that there really is no way - other than putting up concrete barriers all the way around - to secure it. And then - it would no longer be usable by the railroad.
Quote from: gatorback on June 20, 2008, 02:02:36 PM
"Should his family now sue CSX?" Sure. However, the family might do better if the sued the FECR the owner of those tracks.
My point is the same, regardless of the owner of the tracks.
Should this case not settle out of court (we all know that it will) and it goes before a jury, they are going to have one heckuva time trying to follow all the analysis in this thread.
Quote from: RiversideGator on June 20, 2008, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: gatorback on June 20, 2008, 02:02:36 PM
"Should his family now sue CSX?" Sure. However, the family might do better if the sued the FECR the owner of those tracks.
My point is the same, regardless of the owner of the tracks.
LOL. Actually the owner of the land is important. But I understand what you're saying. This is why the Real Property department at CSX sells crossing grades and leases them back all the time. If they don't own the track, then they are not the ones ultimately responsible. Image this. You're hill billy Martha and her husband billy bobby. You get a call from Brenda over at the railroad. They offer to sell you the gradcrossing on your property for say 1000.00 and lease it back from you for 100 years at $100.00 per month . (CSX does this all the time, I helped write the computer program they use for this.) Anywho, the point is if CSX doesn't own the grade, and they smash into a car crossing the grade, then they are less responsible and in fact, is the hill billy's liability. (Same thing with those cell towers, the cell company always leases the land for the towers for the same reasons.)
Quote from: stephendare on June 20, 2008, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on June 20, 2008, 01:40:42 PM
I still dont understand how it is possible to block off all access to railroad tracks since they run throughout the City and State. Should we never be allowed to cross the tracks just in case we might get killed? BTW, some idiot got killed today on the Southside when he tried to go around the crossing arms in his car and beat the train but lost. Should his family now sue CSX? Where do you draw the line? This is really stupid frankly.
BTW, I can maybe see some liability for CSX if they had an unmarked crossing somewhere without any warning that a train might be coming and someone got hit while trying to safely cross the tracks. As it is, this was not the case. It was clear that the kids were trespassing on the tracks for a long period of time and not just trying to safely cross at a dangerous point.
A friend went out to the actual tracks yesterday. He says that the way the trestle is built it would be pretty easy to block access to walkers.
I have to tell you I would be one of those kids on the bridge walking across to the other side.
It looks pretty cool actually. Hopefully I would also have been one of the ones that jumped.
Here's an image posted by Lunican. How does your friend propose to block out pedestrians, but not trains?
(http://www.news4jax.com/2008/0515/16275891.jpg)
Quote from: Driven1 on June 20, 2008, 02:31:25 PM
That's funny cause I had a friend that lives in Green Cove Springs go over there and he actually took pics. I am waiting on them. He said it was quite difficult to get to and out of the way. He said that like most trestles (his grandfather worked his whole life for the railroads) that there really is no way - other than putting up concrete barriers all the way around - to secure it. And then - it would no longer be usable by the railroad.
There's no research needed to see that the bridge is isolated and surrounded by wetlands. I quick look at Google Maps confirms this:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=orange+park,+fl&ie=UTF8&ll=30.080644,-81.756821&spn=0.030377,0.050426&t=h&z=15&iwloc=addr
You can't reach this site, unless your determined to trespass on CSX property to get there.
Quote from: stephendare on June 20, 2008, 03:15:00 PM
electronic gate automatically springs to mind. Obviously.
Of course, Im sure that we will now hear a hundred posts about how the Railroads dont know how to set up switching mechanisms or gates and assoicated drivel.
So the willed trespasser can climb over them? I guess they could always wire the gate up to send a couple of bolts of electricity into the guy who tries to climb over it. However, juicing the offender up could also bring up a lawsuit.
Lake: you're getting it now.
Stpehen: not only have the rr never heard of any of that, they'll likely say they don't have to money for them either.
Expect to see something like this regarding this lawsuit:
Dec. 20--A settlement has been reached to resolve a civil lawsuit against a Racine animal park, but the terms will be kept confidential and the court file sealed.
Lawyers met with Olmsted District Judge Robert Birnbaum on Friday to review terms of the settlement stemming from a tiger attack on a Rochester girl two years ago. That hearing was conducted in the judge's chambers.
The stipulation that the terms of the settlement will remain confidential was entered into the record in open court after the closed-door hearing. It also was noted that the entire file would be sealed.
The civil suit stemmed from a tiger attack on Emily Hartman while she visited the BEARCAT .
And in San Fransisco, this will not matter at all in their lawsuite:
SAN FRANCISCO â€" One of the three victims of San Francisco Zoo tiger attack was intoxicated and admitted to yelling and waving at the animal while standing atop the railing of the big cat enclosure, police said in court documents filed Thursday.
Wow. A stripper mauled by a tiger in an Ontario safari park has won $650000 in damages....
LOL
This may be a contributing factor in this accident. It is very difficult to judge the speed on an oncoming train.
http://www.youtube.com/v/YKy3cLovr-U
that is a cool video (the train was loud too). but, if you are not on the tracks, judging the speed of the train is not a factor you need be concerned with at all.
Yes. The size of the train plays a huge roll in the perception of how fast the train is going day or night.
Well that settles it. I wont go fishing on railroad trestles anymore.
Well.....the family won.
QuoteA Clay County jury found CSX Transportation negligent in the May 2008 death of a 17-year-old football star who was hit by a train while fishing from a trestle, awarding his family about $1.6 million Tuesday in punitive damages.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-07-26/story/clay-jury-awards-16-million-family-teen-killed-csx-train
What a crock of crap.
I think it is callous and irresponsible for the attorney representing the family to call CSX "grossly negligent" when his client's son was trespassing on the bridge and should not have been there in the first place. So because CSX did not have a fence around the bridge, armed guards to keep them away, the liberal attorneys score another ambulance victory for their customers. This is an example of what lawyers are doing to this country, be careful what you do, someone will sue you for hot coffee at McDonald's!
Of course CSX was negligent. They didn't have a system in place where a multi-thousand ton train could be stopped in a hundred feet like a car! How dare they operate trains like this. They should stop all train traffic immediately!
One of the reasons that railroad rights-of-way are No Trespassing zones.
Very sorry for this young man's family, but CSX wasn't at fault that their son was on the trestle.
I'm going home to watch Stand by Me.....
I think CSX should fight this, it's bullcrap.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/Jury-awards-train-accident-victim-s-parents-2-7M/-/475880/15697630/-/i2bi27/-/index.html
Quote from: mtraininjax on July 27, 2012, 10:26:21 AM
...someone will sue you for hot coffee at McDonald's!
http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/
Quote from: mtraininjax on July 27, 2012, 10:26:21 AM
This is an example of what lawyers are doing to this country, be careful what you do, someone will sue you for hot coffee at McDonald's!
http://whenyouputitthatway.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/liebeck_thighs.jpg
http://travis.pflanz.me/assets/stella_liebeck_burned_by_mcdonalds_coffee-620x360.jpg
That hot coffee case wasn't what you thought it was... Like the man says, she wasn't driving, she was a passenger, and she's had to endure years of skin grafts as a result. This wasn't hot coffee, it was nearly to the point of becoming a gas (steam).
In the case of the railroad, there was no way to stop that train or ANY OTHER train. The only logical and workable solution would be a video monitoring system for the remote trestles with a hotline to the various sheriff's departments and to the owning railroad trainmaster - dispatching center.
I wonder what - if any, fines were imposed on the 2 survivors....
Quote from: stephendare on July 27, 2012, 02:09:30 PM
Sorry this doesn't really feed into the 'litigious society' meme, but thats the way it is.
I assume that this bridge was constructed or acquired by CSX sometime after 1908?
http://www.youtube.com/v/Gk5-OAgJIZI?version=3&hl=en_US
This one couldn't stop on a dime either and you bet they wanted to!
Actually the bridge opened for business in 1881, it has been periodically updated ever since. A good part of our legal decisions and our perceptions is molded by the popular media, IE: 'Train kills teen on trestle,' 'train crushes automobile 5 dead,' 'train demolishes school bus...' etc. The headlines bend the truth to gloss over the obvious, 'Idiot drives around gates and under the front of a speeding train!'
Hey Ock. But it would be safe to say that CSX acquired the trestle after 1908, correct?
Quote from: blizz01 on July 27, 2012, 03:51:34 PM
I wonder what - if any, fines were imposed on the 2 survivors....
based on what?
Private property, so that would be on CSX to prosecute them for trespassing.
Are you just hoping that the kids got punished for something?
You know, something more that watching one of their close friends die and feeling partially responsible for it for the rest of their lives?
Quote from: rcmmngs on July 27, 2012, 04:24:07 PM
Hey Ock. But it would be safe to say that CSX acquired the trestle after 1908, correct?
You could probably interpret it that way, but the company that bought out the JT&KW, was bought by the Plant System, which was sold to The Atlantic Coast Line, which merged with The Seaboard Air Line to form the Seaboard Coast Line, which absorbed several other railroads to form The Family Lines, which was consolidated as The Seaboard System, which would merge with the Chesapeake and Ohio/Baltimore and Ohio/Western Maryland Railroads, who's legal departments labeled the deal with a simple C/S/X that REALLY DID stand for something until marketing got it and decided CSX was a cool name for a company which then proceeded to buy out 55% of Conrail (the former Penn Central), so yeah, {Ock takes a breath} I guess you could say CSX got it after 1908, but it's probably more accurate to say they owned it long before that... at least it was in the family. ;)
QuotePrivate property, so that would be on CSX to prosecute them for trespassing.
Are you just hoping that the kids got punished for something?
YES! Absolutely. Just like I'd hope that they'd be punished for climbing the fence at the airport & playing on the runway.
I'm pretty certain that this is Federal Law & goes beyond trespassing on private property.
It is horrible that the young man was killed - horrible. But at its core we ALL know better. Do you think that they were surprised to see a train coming? Really? I grew up playing on the very same trestle. I knew that we weren't supposed to be there & that if caught there would be a price to pay - that's what kids do.
When bandits rob a bank & one gets shot, the others aren't off the hook...
There was a right kid to be killed.......?!
Maybe OCK can tell us when the crossing gates began to be installed. The huge death rates in the early years were probably due to unguarded crossings and more trains running than now.
Bet you that the railroads resisted installing crossing gates for as long as possible.
Were steam trains harder to stop the diesels?
This is an example of what lawyers are doing to this country, be careful what you do, someone will sue you for hot coffee at McDonald's!
Train, first of all let me acknowledge that I am a lawyer, although not a PI lawyer. Your comment is wide of the mark. The "lawyers" didn't give the folks the millions of dollars, the jurors did. And the jurors awarded the sum after listening to other lawyers - for CSX - argue that they shouldn't award anything.
I wish someone would come up with an acceptable alternative to the jury system in which a bunch of folks, not always the best educated ones, make decisions involving some pretty complicated legal issues - like the frequent thin like between 1st and 2nd degree murder. For myself, every legal agreement I draft has a "waiver of jury trial" provision in it, and I have yet to have anyone ask that it be taken out.
Quote from: stephendare on July 27, 2012, 11:53:36 PM
Quote from: blizz01 on July 27, 2012, 05:32:09 PM
It is horrible that the young man was killed - horrible. But at its core we ALL know better. Do you think that they were surprised to see a train coming? Really? I grew up playing on the very same trestle. I knew that we weren't supposed to be there & that if caught there would be a price to pay - that's what kids do.
Just wasn't horrible enough for you I guess?
And you played on the same trestle?
Sounds like the wrong kid got killed by the train.
I think you are a bit out of line with that comment.
Hmm - I'm fairly confident that was directed toward your belligerence - stay classy Stephen.
You know my biggest issue with the lawsuit is that the safety equipment not being functional really had nothing to do with the accident. Yes, the train was traveling faster than allowed because the equipment was not working but if it were working properly the train still would have been traveling as fast as it was or faster and still would not have been able to stop in time to avoid hitting the kid.
Quote from: Dog Walker on July 28, 2012, 08:30:29 AM
Maybe OCK can tell us when the crossing gates began to be installed. The huge death rates in the early years were probably due to unguarded crossings and more trains running than now.
Bet you that the railroads resisted installing crossing gates for as long as possible.
Were steam trains harder to stop the diesels?
(http://inlinethumb49.webshots.com/49200/2957559740104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
'Donner, party of 18, 17, 16, 15... Vivid image of dynamic brakes dissipating heat on the steep downhill run westbound on Donner Pass in California.
(http://inlinethumb25.webshots.com/50072/2088706390104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
The same train, note the friction brakes! Ouch!
STOPPING the train was certainly at play in this tragedy. From the north or from the south the distance from the curve to the trestle is between 1,200 and 1,500 feet. A 75 car train running at 50 mph is going to need 1.5 miles to come to a complete stop. Needless to say, as long as a mile is 5,280 feet, the engineer didn't have a chance to stop.
This brings to mind another couple of victims in this case, both the engineer and the conductor will suffer trauma and mental anguish from the knowledge if not the visual effect of watching a teen vanish under the front of the locomotive. I've actually seen engineers so shook up they had to be led from the engine (City of Miami demolition of a fuel oil deliver truck near Ortega circa 1964 +/-). The engineer and conductor in the cab of the locomotives roaring downgrade in Southern California both have PTSD from spotting two toddlers in diapers sitting in the middle of the main track as they rounded a curve. The last thing they saw was one of the baby's turned and waved.
STEAM V DIESEL, Diesel has the advantage as the the diesel prime-mover is not attached to the wheels, rather it is a massive generating station, turning generator/alternator that in turn power 'traction motors' not unlike those on a streetcar which are slung down in the trucks. Electric diesel locomotive dynamic braking is an advantage steam didn't have and it makes full use of the FACT that the armatures are always rotating when the locomotive is in motion and thus they can easily function as a generator exciting the field winding of the traction motors.
A common option on a Electric diesel locomotive is dynamic braking. Dynamic braking takes advantage of the fact that the traction motor armatures are always rotating when the diesel locomotive is in motion and that a motor can be made to act as a generator by separately exciting the field winding.
The winding is connected across the main generator and the armature of each traction motor is connected across an air cooled resistance grid, the dynamic brake grid in the roof of the diesel units hood. The prime-mover RPM is increased and as the generator is excited it causes the traction motor electric fields to likewise be excited. This means that each traction motor is now generating power which is dissipated as heat in the roof top grid. A fan uses forced air to cool the grid, a fan powered by the power output of the traction motors. The fan will run faster as more energy is applied to the grid.
Energy dissipated in the dynamic braking process, the electric-diesel (note the reverse words) imparted in the traction motor armatures. Therein the motors causes drag and the locomotive acts as a brake. The slower the engine goes, the less the effect until it runs it's course around 10 mph.
Dynamic Brakes are useful in hilly or mountainous territory where overheated friction brakes could easily cause a runaway situation. When an expert engineer handles a loaded train in such territory he or she will use a blend of friction and dynamic brakes, locomotive and train brakes which can all be applied independent of each other. Preventing a run in of slack in the couplings between cars or stretching out the slack without a sudden coupler busting jerk is another feature.
(http://www.vistadome.com/trains/steamtown2/uprr4012.jpg)
Steam locomotives have a defined weight advantage, the Union Pacific 'Big Boy' and the C&O or Norfolk Western 'Alleghenies' or Mallet's using a compound cylinder or low pressure and high pressure cylinders, when 'wet' (operating order) would weigh in at or around 1,000,000 pounds! Playing with the 'Johnson Bar' (reverse lever) a steam locomotive can shorten the bore and stroke of the cylinders and an experienced steam locomotive engineer can use this making one of these giants dance like the prettiest ballerina in the fruit cake. I'd still give the advantage to the diesel.
http://www.youtube.com/v/PTac6qAewGM?version=3&hl=en_US
CROSSING PROTECTION: Railroads don't resist crossing protection, in fact they'd overpass or underpass EVERY road or sidewalk crossing that funds permit. The signals themselves date to 1870 when the track circuit was invented, the first application was a warning bell. In 1909 the wigwag signal was perfected, it can still be found in isolated places in the western USA. The first use of flashing red lights goes to 1913 in New Jersey. Before that the biggest safety advance was the creation of the 'cross-buck' or 'X' sign as a national (and now international) standard. In large cities from Jacksonville to New York, Los Angeles or Seattle, crossing gates were manned by watchmen who could hand crank a gate across the roadway.
The deadly collision of a South Jacksonville Municipal Railways single truck Birney Safety Streetcar and a Florida East Coast freight train shoving a line of boxcars north into the old rail yard located where the Hilton-Channel 4 are today. Heavy fog played into the story, steam engines being rather quiet, the cars were a long way from the engine. The watchman didn't see the cars rolling toward Atlantic Avenue and the streetcar was broadsided. A local mechanic that saw the boxcar jumped just before impact and was crushed to death as the cars rolled over him. This is a case where a electro-mechanical gate and flashing lights would have saved both a life and a streetcar.
FRA rules require that a train sound it's horn 1/4 mile from either a crossing or the Black Creek Bridge, and 20-30 seconds before any crossing, in addition to a single brilliant light and two ditch lights. Makes you wonder why the boys didn't all jump when the train blew for the crossing a short distance around the curves? New designs are now being tested, based on some of the homeland security barrier gates used to prevent bomb filled trucks from ramming state buildings, you won't drive around them.
Today, the railroads in cooperation with various State DOT'S will award a city money for every crossing it eliminates. When I lived in OK as a city councilman, a neighboring town made enough off of closing 4 crossings to completely remake a huge city park with... what else... a train ride! (KINGFISHER OK) Automatic gates followed the first flashing lights but they were not even in common use well into the 1950's. I recall when first flashing lights went up along Roosevelt at various crossings, as well as the first gates in the area. Okay, yeah I remember but I'm not THAT damn old! Am I?
Ock, as usual your information is in depth and fascinating. The whole dynamic braking explanation was completely new information and the pictures dramatic.
Thanks for the explanations!
Stephen, I didn't know that the railroads have the burden of proof in defending themselves. Makes sense given the history of early accidents. Can you point me to a source that would give the history of the legislation or court cases that put that into effect?
Wonder if any other industries like mining that have a long history of accidents and safety violations are in the same legal position.
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2012, 09:11:38 PM
legally, no matter what happens, the railroad is liable for the incident, because of the dangerous nature of railroads. And that has proven to be a wise approach to the industry for the past hundred years.
And I dunno, would you rather outrun a car going 30 miles or 46 miles per hour?
The other two boys who were closer made it, he hesitated literally a split second too long before he jumped, this really is one of those cases where following the law might have made the difference between life and death.
Do you see it differently?
If the car was traveling within the legal speed limit it doesn't matter what I would rather do.
I still think it is a crock of crap. You shouldn't be able to hold the railroad liable simply because they are dangerous to operate. You cannot block the trestle off completely to those who are determined to disobey the warnings and signs. At some point those who choose to disobey the warnings and trespass have to be responsible for their actions. I am sorry that those parents lost their child, but the fact is, if he had not been somewhere he wasn't supposed to be, he would still be alive today.