Talk:CSX 8888 incident

Credits

The initial version of this article used text from the Inspiration section of Unstoppable (2010 film) and List of rail accidents (2000-2009).--agr (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really an accident

While this incident (and the movie) were tremendously interesting, this really wasn't an "accident." As usual, the media makes it more than it was. It seems to me that it was a "near-accident" or a "dangerous situation." It did not strike anyone or anything, that I noticed. I can appreciate that the National Transportation Safety Board was probably quite interesting in hearing about it.Student7 (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-categorized it. Hundreds of other transportation categories are also hyped as one moves up the line, and need new definitions. Student7 (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The original engineer was dragged 80 feet. People's lives were disrupted. Towns incurred additional expense deploying public safety personnel. The locomotive was hit by gun fire. Those derailers were certainly damaged. It was far less serious than it might have been, but it meets the dictionary definition of an accident. In any case our categories are for navigation purposes, to aid readers in finding similar articles. The fact that a category about accidents may be referenced in a category about disasters does not mean that every article in the first category has to be a disaster. --agr (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I notice that in the aviation area, categories have been systematically renamed to include the word incident, e.g. Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1983. If you're still concerned about this, I'd suggest going to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and ask that the RR accident categories be similarly renamed. You should also bring it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains.--agr (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice that, moving up the categories, this is eventually categorized as a "disaster." While it does not meet the National Transportation Safety Board's definition of "accident", it apparently meets yours, which is enough, I suppose, but still pov since it is unsupported by WP:RELY except for the usual media hype, which apparently Transportation Projects has adopted. Does it also meet their standard for a "Disaster?" Student7 (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Our category structure isn't strictly hierarchal, categories often have multiple parents, some more exact than others. In this case all the categories in question are eventually categorized under Category:Accidents, which is not a subcategory of disaster. Putting events in separate categories depending on whether they were incidents, accidents, or disasters (by some definition) would lead to endless problems. Again, I would suggest the aviation approach if you think precision is that important.--agr (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow me through on this. 1) Step up from "Category:Railway accidents in 2001". 2) What is the second category at the bottom of the page? Student7 (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If anything, this is an "Incident", not really an accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.61.174.22 (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

New SD40-2 photo

I don't think the current SD40-2 photo on the article is that great; the shot angle and glare make the engine hard to see (at least for me). I think we should find a better photo of a CSX SD40-2 to use. Ideally, a photo of #8888 should be shown here, but I'd really be happy with any nice frontal shot of an SD40-2. The article's fourth reference site has a good photo of #8888, but I'm pretty sure we can't use that without permission from that site. MarioLOA (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I found a slightly better photo on Wikimedia Commons and added it to the article. I agree that a photo of 8888 would be ideal; if anyone who lives in CSX territory is reading this and can snap a photo of 8888 (from public property, of course), please consider uploading it to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons so we can use it. –BMRR (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Dynamic Braking

In the 2nd paragraph, the article states:

"If the dynamic brakes had been properly selected, this would have applied maximum braking."

The train was moving at 11 mph when the engineer attempted to set the dynamic brake. At 11 mph on an SD40-2, dynamic brakes, even at 100% throttle, would have had no effect. That's just too slow for the traction motors to generate enough electricity to result in any heat loss, thus no loss of energy, and no braking. Of couse, had the engineer waited for the setup of dynamic braking to be complete, then put the throttle at 100%, then dismounted to realign the switch, the train would have eventually stopped because there would have been no forward force, and the independent would have slowed and then stopped the train. Perhaps a better explanation would be:

If the dynamic brakes had been properly selected, due to the trains slow speed, no appreciable braking would have been applied, but no forward propulsion would have been applied either, so the independant brake would have slowed and eventually stopped the train.

Opinions anyone?

Randy — Preceding unsigned comment added by VTBurtonRA (talk • contribs) 18:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

At 11mph at full throttle the brakes would have had an effect - the braking force is proportional to the speed, and not zero - this pdf has a dynamic braking curve http://www.vossloh-espana.com/cms/media/downloads/pdfs/flyer/Vossloh_Espana_EURO4000_freight_us.pdf - as you can see the braking force is limited at high speed by the amount of energy the braking resistors can dissipate, at low speeds there is still braking - this is for a loco with EMD engine and EMD DC electric transmission and motors. (it's not far off a SD 40-2 at all )

Dynamic brake at low speeds is a gentle brake as its proportional to speed, but it does stop a train. If the train was on a slope that could be a problem though...Imgaril (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I also changed the article a bit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CSX_8888_incident&action=historysubmit&diff=440180851&oldid=434922831 .. what I don't understand is why the driver applied the train breaks - didn't he know it was connected.

I think it's important to bear in mind that the driver though he had applied the loco and train brakes, and applied the dynamic brakes as the "icing on the cake" because he was worried about overshooting the points - basically he turned on every brake he had.. So he wasn't relying on the dynamic brakes at all.

It is true that the dynamic brakes wouldn't have been a good idea on their own - but the driver didn't do that.. The report does agree http://kohlin.com/CSX8888/z-final-report.htm that dynamic brakes aren't much use at low speed, thogh.

I changed the text to make it clear that the driver wasn't relying on dynamic brakes to stop the train.Imgaril (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Csx8888 2001runaway incident.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Csx8888 2001runaway incident.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Csx8888 2001runaway incident.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Initial Mistake is Unclear; Please Revise and Clarify

I've read it twice now, and I still don't understand how the train got away. Please revise the initial paragraphs clarifying what went wrong. Was the train started via remote control with no one inside? Did the conductor start it moving, note a railway wasn't properly aligned, hit the brakes, turn on the accelerator to increase the braking, jump out, switch the tracks, and then fail to climb back in after the brakes failed? Whatever happened is not clearly stated. Please clarify. -- Newagelink (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify.--agr (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, I've just read the explanation too and it's just too technical. Things were set, things were not set. I thought these sorts of trains had a deadman's handle? Doesn't make any sense to me either? 86.163.107.98 (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The locomotive was set so that the deadman's switch would not have activated because the locomotive's systems indicated that the brakes were actually applied, and they really were, but they had burned out. The train car brakes were not connected from the beginning. With just the locomotive brakes applied, the deadman's switch would not have activated, even though the braking force of the locomotive's independent brake could not possibly have stopped the train despite being applied. It's bizarre but that's the state of the art. --KJRehberg (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Results

Were any processes/procedures changed as a result of this incident? Can this happen again? Mellie107 (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the engineer who let the train get away? Did he end up working in "fast food", like in the movie? --Muzilon (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

No, he was a long-time engineer with an excellent record. He made a big mistake, and was unlikely to do it twice. He was given 60 days suspension and then went on with his career. It makes no sense to burn people at the pole for a single mistake, not when he's been working for decades for you and you'd need to hire a new body and train him or her all over...and they might turn out to be worse than what you already have!

70.105.242.162 (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Categorized as “Train Wreck”?

When you look up this article on the search tab its catagorized as a train wreck even though it was more of a very notable incident i dont know how to change it I’m putting this here in the hopes someone else does ThebigE31 (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Notch 5

The article says the throttle was set at notch 5. I'm sure that most readers have no idea what this means. Reference 6 says full-throttle. Are these the same? Could someone who knows locomotives clarify this? ~~C Lewison~~

Most North American diesel-electric and electric locomotives built since the 1940s employ a throttle to control the output of the engine/powerplant. It may be single mode (throttle for power only) or dual mode (throttle for power and dynamic brake for stopping or electric braking control). In the power mode, the throttle on most locomotives has multiple positions, or "notches": STOP, IDLE, and 1-8 with 8 being full-throttle position.

- Retired Locomotive Engineer

"Conductor"?

It says there was a "conductor" on the other freight train. Why would a freight train have a conductor? Around here they are manned by an engineer and a brakeman.

70.105.242.162 (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Conductor is the term used on railroads in the United States which indicates the person who is in charge of general operation of the train, even though he/she may be the junior employee. The Conductor is responsible for rule and law compliance as well as handling freight cars and related paperwork of the train. Whenever work is to be performed (such as setting out or picking up cars at a customer's facility) the Conductor handles physical work related to this task. If there is a mechanical failure of the train, the Conductor is responsible for train inspection and correction of defects, such as a blown air-brake hose or broken coupling, if possible. When necessary, the Conductor is the employee who will protect highway traffic by standing at or on the roadway to stop vehicles when there is a traffic-protection (crossing flasher/gate) failure.

The Engineer is the term used on railroads in the United States which indicates the person who runs the controls of the locomotive(s) in order to run (not drive) the train. The Engineer's responsibility is to remain at the controls unless he is relieved of this duty or the train is stopped. The Conductor and the Engineer work together to operate the train in a safe manner. Both are responsible for rule and law compliance.

-Retired Locomotive Engineer

Driver vs Engineer

In Feb 2020 this article was edited to change the term "Engineer" to "Driver". While that might be an appropriate name for the person operating the train in some countries in North America they are properly addressed as "Engineers".

I would revert the references to Engineer in this article since it is reference to an incident in North America but is there a guideline on this usage that can be referenced? It it proper to use the local terminology or international?N9jig (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Replacement of Train with map

Hello! I am curious as to why the image of the train was replaced with a map. Perhaps both could be used? Thank you! Education-over-easy (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Education-over-easy: The image of the train was placed in the infobox which makes it show more predominantly with the article. Are you using a custom view that isn't displaying infoboxes? I can see all three images on desktop and mobile. – The Grid (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, dont know how to reply, but i switched out of legacy mode and it works Education-over-easy (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistencies related to control stand and image

Heyo, bit of a railfan here. I'm noticing a number of inconsistencies out in the wild regarding the cause of this incident, and the misunderstandings seem to stem from the use of the image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSX_8888_incident#/media/File:Unstop8.jpg which seems to be taken straight from an uncited blog post: https://cinetrains.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/unstoppable-the-trains-of-the-hit-movie-and-the-even-that-inspired-the-movie/ (It seems like bits of that blog post got plagiarized into this article, but that's an issue for another discussion.) This image also mislabels a set of engine control switches as being "head lights", so it was probably made by someone misinformed. The sort of control stand in the image (for discussion's sake, let's call it "standard AAR") explicitly makes this kind of error impossible; dynamic braking and throttle are different handles, and they operate in different directions to prevent misunderstandings. The incident is only possible with a different type of control stand, which is superficially similar but handles dynamic braking very differently (let's call this "classic EMD"), using a selector handle to engage dynamic braking mode, then using the throttle handle to control braking. You can see that kind of control arrangement here: https://www.ozarkmountainrailcar.com//assets/images/uploaded/2017-10-0/912a61f72D6cae2D4cc42Dad672Df72a2864bb5fEMDCo0.JPG

Any thoughts on how we can rectify these issues? Unfortunately I'm having trouble finding citations to support my exact points on this matter. I'm not sure if this is too close to original research to include uncited. Ronjoe (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pulling the image, because it's more confusing than helpful. Ronjoe (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)