As an avid railfan myself I have previously posted comments about the dangers of shooting on or near railway tracks. I've often been "shouted" down because people thought it was "OK" or "safe" to do it. Well, I've got news for you folks, it's not OK and it's not safe. Even with all the efforts that have been made - Operation Lifesaver, for example - people still get killed or injured on a regular basis. Please be safe and stay off the train tracks...
As Two23 said:
...Trains now run on CWR--continuous welded rail. There are no joints; there is no clickety clack. Modern engines such as the Dash 9 are sound muffled pretty well, and the vaccuum that forms around a train when it's running at track speed reduces most sounds from going forward of the train. Trains can actually be very quiet. The rumble noise they make is hidden in the background noise we hear every day. If you think you're going to be safe because you think you'll hear a train coming in plenty of time, well, take it from me there's a good chance you won't hear it until it's right on top of you doing 60 mph. Stay clear of tracks. Stay at least 15 feet from the rail, 25 feet is better... ...Show more →
LKeithR wrote:
As an avid railfan myself I have previously posted comments about the dangers of shooting on or near railway tracks. I've often been "shouted" down because people thought it was "OK" or "safe" to do it. Well, I've got news for you folks, it's not OK and it's not safe. Even with all the efforts that have been made - Operation Lifesaver, for example - people still get killed or injured on a regular basis. Please be safe and stay off the train tracks...
As Two23 said:
I agree completely with the above. I live half a block from a frequently used commuter and cargo line and ride a BNSF train every day to and from work. I also live 2-3 blocks from another railway that runs in a perpendicular direction to the one I ride.
Most of the sound coming from trains are either shot straight up from the exhaust stacks, out the sides as wheels hit the welds, backward or come from the air horn (as an aside, the same applies to motorcycles, which renders the argument that noise will make a motorcycle more readily noticeable, which is bull, as all the sound travels backward out the exhaust).
So, when the gates come down and a train is doing 40-50 mph, it only takes about 5 seconds to go from slight noise to full on (which is why I never understand the people that make their quick dash across the tracks when everyone knows the gates will be up in <30 seconds later).
This may seem to be at odds with what I wrote before, but my understanding is that the woman was trying to get away. I could understand epithets being thrown around if the woman was completely oblivious until impact, but from what I've read, the woman made an effort to get away from the train and was trapped. This is why I've taken to say that much of the banter about this woman seems out of place.
kakomu wrote:
but that the railroad area somehow ensnared her foot (there seems to be no elaboration on how it did). If that's the case, the rail yard posed an unnecessary risk.
That's probably not the case. The article said her foot became entangled in rock, most likely the ballast that the track is laid on.
The rail yard poses an open and obvious risk. Not to mention, despite being private property, it's highly accessible.
Same can be said for streets and highways, except for the private property part, but that doesn't mean the DOT is responsible for damage caused by anyone participating in illegal activity on those streets and highways.
Are we going to start blaming other photographers that are hurt in hazardous areas because they shouldn't have been there in the first place (be it Afghanistan, out in the Woods, in the mountains, etc)?
Not blaming them but holding them responsible for their actions. Unless of course someone goes to Afghanistan and tries to sue someone because people are shooting guns over there. Then I would definitely blame them for being irresponsible and not thinking about what they are doing and then cluttering up the court system with frivolous lawsuits .
Part of her complaint is that the rail road should have no trespassing signs in place. They do. There are 233,000 miles of tracks in the US. There is no way to post and maintain signs in a way where you will never be out of eyesight of a sign.
The RR's spend millions of dollars on safety for their employees and the public but there is only so much they can do in a case like this. They can not make the system idiot proof, only idiot resistant.
Suing someone else for one's own irresponsibility is not right. In this case I think the rail road should press charges against the photographer and the court should bring charges against her for endangering her niece.
kakomu wrote:
She was off the tracks when she was struck by the train .
Yeah, the train jumped off the tracks and hit her! You sir, are part of the problem in this country. The RR is inherently dangerous, there are plenty of ways your foot can get wedged between the rail and ties
Steve Wan wrote:
Yeah, the train jumped off the tracks and hit her! You sir, are part of the problem in this country. The RR is inherently dangerous, there are plenty of ways your foot can get wedged between the rail and ties
According to the articles, she was ~ 6ft away and a bar attached to the train severed her foot.
kakomu wrote:
According to the articles, she was ~ 6ft away and a bar attached to the train severed her foot.
Exactly....that's one of the reasons the Rail Road warns the public against trespassing on their property, so they don't get snagged by things hanging off their trains.
Marty Bingham wrote:
Exactly....that's one of the reasons the Rail Road warns the public against trespassing on their property, so they don't get snagged by things hanging off their trains.
Marty
I'm not denying the danger of trains and this article is a perfect example of their danger. However, I do have reservation at the glib way people discuss this accident.
The railway right of way extends 25 feet from the outside rail...I don't get how ignorance isn't an excuse to break the law except in civil suits...
I mean I'm sorry, but it's a 10'000 ton train...what part of playing chicken with it seemed like a good idea? sorry she got hurt...but I think it should just be lesson learned and both parties go on their way.
Guys and gals, please. BE CAREFUL. I'm on both sides of this one. Not only do I take pictures, but I'm also an engineer. I've been lucky not to have a tragedy happen to me YET, but I know many who have. A little boy about my sons age walked DIRECTLY in front of me while we were sitting at a stop signal, so close had the engineer I was with not hestitated to hit the throttle when we got the clear, the kid wouldn't have had a chance. You have no business on RR property, and if you are then honestly, you get what is coming to you if something goes south.
cobra30689 wrote:
Not only do I take pictures, but I'm also an engineer.
I'm an RTC
I feel bad every time I have to take one of those radio calls because you know there's absolutely nothing the train crew could have done to prevent it. Not the same as being personally involved I know, but still sucks.
I also love how in this article she claims to know the train was exceeding some kind of national speed limit, like there's only one :P
kakomu wrote:
She was off the tracks when she was struck by the train and had attempted get further away before something ensnared her.
that is why the right of way extends to 25 feet away from the tracks...because the area around the tracks is inherently dangerous, full of obstacles that the average person might not expect.
the fact of it is, she shouldn't have been on the tracks in the first place...I don't care if they have someone watching in each direction, the tracks are not a place to be hanging out...yes, they're visually dramatic, but you're putting yourself at risk every time you play around on them, and if you're going to do it you absolutely should be ready to be accountable for the consequences if things go wrong.
I have worked RR fatalities, and there is no more certain way to get dead other than sticking a 12 gauge shotgun in your mouth than to tangle with a train. The usual response to "what do you see?" is "yuck".
I am the first one to admit I got too close to a train once, luckily the only thing that happened was I got an incredible, if unexpected shot. Will I get that close again?
When she blew past me at 70 mph, it felt like a mountain of wind at 3' away. Absolutely not. That was the most fear I have ever experienced. Bar none.
I have to cross a set of tracks on the way to work everyday and one time I was the first car at the crossing bar as a train cruised by. I was half asleep but woke up pretty quickly when I saw a huge chunk of scrap iron bouncing alongside the train right in front of me. I'm not sure if it fell out of one of the cars or if it got kicked up by the wheels but ever since then I always stay a couple car lengths back from that bar even if people honk at me!
