how likely is an ''UNSTOPPABLE '' scenario?

Question

i have several questions jumbled into one so please bear with me.......

i just watched the movie '' unstoppable '' in which an engineer leaves the cab to adjust the switch, he does not apply the brakes correctly and the train comes '' under power '' and barrels down the track at 70mph unmanned carrying hazardous materials

have any such occurrences happened?

what are the penalties for an engineer leaving the cab while the train is moving?

in the film, a ''derailer '' fails to even budge the mammoth train. if a train is very large and moving very fast would a derailer likely fail?

bottom line, how likely is such a scenario??

Answer 1

That exact scenario is almost impossible, there are too many things in the movie that experienced railroaders shake their heads and groan at.

However, similar events such a runaway freight trains not under power can and do happen.

I have personally seen it happen and the results were very very bad.

All the "safety" systems in the world wont do a thing if the brakes are inoperable, either due to equipment failure or operator error or a combination of both.

So a simple answer is yes, it is very possible, it has happened before and will happen again.

Not exactly as in the movie but the results would be the same.

Answer 2

That film (by the sound of it!), like so many others involving railways (including "The Taking of Pelham 123") is so full of misrepresentations as to be little more than a fairy tale. As has been said, you can't apply AND KEEP power on (no matter what the source) unless the "deadman's device" (handle or treadle) is kept in operation, and as soon as the equipment on the train detects that it is NOT in operation the brakes are applied - usually an "emergency" application to bring the train to a halt in as short as distance as possible.

Pretending that none of that happens and the train IS still under power whilst unmanned ("Jack and the Beanstalk" is another good fairy tale), then a signalman or control room operator will (locally or by remote control) divert other traffic off the route and then divert the "runaway" into a dead-end - in a remote region/area if possible to avoid too much collateral damage and then they would send the emergency services to "pick up the pieces" OR.... said signalman would operate any derailers on the route - but it's highly unlikely that there would be any - except spring-operated trap-points which would derail anything running away backwards down a slope..

I am reminded of a 'short' film entitled "The most expensive breakfast on earth" where a lone driver parks his loco in a siding and then goes for his breakfast during which the brakes leak off and the loco rolls down a steep incline gathering speed - and you can watch the film for the rest of the story - but it's not really likely because that loco - having been signalled into a siding - would have then been protected by the signalman (etc) operating "trap points" which would derail the loco if it attempted to leave said sidings without the correct "permission" for whatever reason - even if it was just the driver trying to pass the outlet signal at danger - so you see, these films are "fun" to watch and probably get the blood rushing a bit - but are so improbable as to be IMPOSSIBLE.

Answer 3

Very fine question Benito and I have no problem answering such and relate reality with fiction as in the film. OK....First of all, the in the beginning of the film when the engineer jumps off the train in an attempt to stop it, they should be rolling the credits of the movie then. In reality, locomotives are big air compressors that give air through the entire train. Brakes are applied on a train after the air on them exhausts through the main reservoir each car. Since the cars were not coupled to the locomotives' air (the scene in the movie where the guy tries to couple the cars but fails), all the brakeman had to do was "blow" the air from the locomotives to apply the brakes on them to stop the train. Scenario 2: Remember in the film, when the switch engines hop in front of the runaway train, and try to stop it with the locomotives itself? Why, in this scenario, would not a crewmember be on the rear end of the engine consist, and the switcher matches the speed with the runaway, the crewmember jumps from the switcher nose to the runaway nose and manually stop the train? As you can see, this comparison goes on in the entire movie. I won't even begin to tell you about how fake the scene is with the train making it through the elevated curve grabbing the independant brake....And that was fake too. When Denzel was telling him to use more independant, Chris Pine was using the "big air". Remember in the beginning of the movie, the train had no big air!!!! lmbo!!! (Big Air is railroad lingo for air pressure through the entire train and Independant is braking for only the locomotives). As for the "derailer" I've never seen a derailer like the one used in the movie and I'm not saying thats fiction. But derailers do work, and I don't think you would want to be close to a chemical train when its thrown off the tracks as you saw in the movie.

Also, the penalties for the engineer leaving the cab are serious if he is at fault of a incident, but if you look up BNSF Crash on youtube, you'll see the penalties of reality after being at fault of a incident. (If you look it up, pay attention to the left side of the oncoming train). And remember, no train ever goes under power on its own...If its under power, its manual, and after so long without touching the throttle, there is a safety feature that stops the train when a alert is given and it is not acknowleged after a certain time...(usually like 30 seconds).

This is pretty much, but I hope this clears answers your questions for you.

Answer 4

I agree with Rango 100%.Unstoppable is based on true events but the things shown in the movie with the engine they used are not possible.The engineer leaving the cab of a moving train was beyond stupid.The engineer in the real life event was a veteran rail and i still have trouble with how many mistakes he made to cause the incident that occurred.Go read the true story.http://kohlin.com/CSX8888/z-final-report.htm Scroll down to the conclusions.

Edit A few people here have mentioned the alerter that would normally trip and cause the PC to trip and cause a penalty brake application.In the real life event the engineer had applied the independent brake fully which nullified the alerter.So one of the main safety features was by-passed as a result.Also there was no dead mans pedal or positive train control(a system connected to the signal system that will stop a train if it passes a red signal without action being taken by the engineer to stop).

Answer 5

The film has been widely criticised for being unrealistic.



Runaway trains have occasionally happened, although they are very rare today (old-fashioned steam locomotives did it rather more often).



At Shap, in England, a runaway freight train recently ran for approx 3 miles before being brought to a halt. No damage was done.



It is extremely unlikely for a runaway train complete with locomotive to travel any significant distance, for several reasons.

Modern train controls require frequent inputs by the driver, otherwise automatic safety devices cut the engine and apply the brakes. This is to avoid exactly the situation show in the film, and in case a driver collapses at the controls.



On an electrified railway any train can be stopped simply by cutting off the power supply.



Most cases of runaway trains used to involve a train splitting in two due to a failed coupling and the rear part rolling away down a hill. Modern trains have vacuum brakes - if any part of the train is cut off from the vacuum pump on the locomotive, the brakes automatically come on - which has put an end to these episodes except on small industrial railways without these devices.



Catch points and other derailing devices are designed to derail runaway freight trains and will not be overridden by the weight of a heavy train.

Answer 6

Its pretty ridiculous.



The only way you get runaways now is wagons without breaks becoming uncoupled. Or wagons not attached to a train not correctly secured.



Im not an expert on the US rail system (I work on the UK railways) but I would expect any wagon with dangerous materials would need to have its own break cylinders. As a result any accidental uncoupling causes the breaks to come on.



All powered vehicals have multiple safety features.



First they will use fail-safe breaking systems (as described above)

Second, there will be a dead man switch which causes a break demand if its not held down/pressed at regular intervals.

In the UK (Im not sure about the US) we have a system called AWS whereby on the approach to a signal at anything other than green an alarm and countdown is triggered. If the alarm is not reset within the three allowed seconds: breaks go on. Hard.





Jon also explains this well with a small nitpick, modern trains use air breaks rather than vacuum.

Answer 7

Two widely separated true examples come to mind where the driver left the cab with the train in motion, under power and with the brakes not applied.

One occurred in the early 1980s on the Sydney - Blue Mountains line of the New Soutth Wales Government Railways. It concerned the driver of a 'Red Rattler', (an early electric multiple unit without air conditioning). It was a very hot day and he conceived the idea of removing a shoelace and using it to tie down the 'dead man's handle' then moved to the open door of the driving cabin to get the benefit of the rush of air. Unfortunately, the notoriously bad state of the NSWGR tracks caused him to lose his footing on a particularly shaky section and he parted company with the train which disappeared in the direction of Lithgow. It eventually came to a stop without causing any injuries.

Another incident happened in the UK on 9 February 1957 when an unfitted Buxton to Stockport freight got out of control on the 1 in 58 gradient towards Chapel-en-le-Frith. Before reaching the head of the bank, a steam pipe fractured beneath the brake valve of the class 8F steam locomotive, releasing scalding steam and disabling the locomotive's steam brake and whistle, the latter making it impossible to signal to the banking engine at the rear which was still pushing the train. The regulator was fully open at the time and the scalding steam made it an impossibility to stay in the cab. Driver John Axon told his fireman to jump off and try to pin down the wagon brakes, while he left the cab and clung on to the outside, attempting to close the regulator with a fire-iron. He failed to achieve this, the speed increased to around 70mph and he stayed clinging on to the outside of the cab until the train reached Stockport where it ran into the rear of a Rowsley to Stockport goods train. Driver Axon and the goods guard both died in the accident.

The power of the trade unions in Australia being what it is, the driver of the electric train was censured, but did not lose his job!

Driver John Axon's bravery was recognised by the posthumous award of the George Cross.

Answer 8

Not very likely. No power can be applied without the "Dead Man's Handle or Switch" being applied. Coupled with that, if an automatic signalling warning is not replied to within a certain amount of time, the brakes are applied automatically. If a train stops between signals, the signal behind will not clear red..... However, in some parts of the World where safety is not high on the list of operators' priorities, then it may happen.

Answer 9

highly unlikely but that's what it takes to make good movies....maybe not so good in this case.