Vintage railroad film - Denver and Rio Grande Western - Trouble at Troublesome - 1956 

It happens in rail, auto and aircraft and the goal is to learn from those mistakes to prevent them in the future.

Fame and infamy go hand in hand 😂

Happens all the time and but there by the grace of God go any of us. I cannot count the number of close shaves I've had!!!

Interesting! The first time I saw this film was in one of the monthly safety committee meetings in the balcony conference room at Burnham around 1981. I was a machinist working in the balcony machine shop and was the balcony safety man working for Boots Agee at the time. Who knows, we may have been watching it at the same time.

Ronnie Coleman would say "...NOT a lightweight"

Ya well, those appear to be the old GM car body style. They were cheaper, I guess.

@@alanmcentee9457 It was also before 68 years worth of inflation.

9:43 I think I've worked it out. Brilliant filmwork!

A drone

@@andrewheld2475 Filmed in reverse?

Zoom lens

They could have used a car or truck with a camera on board. The rubber tires would have allowed faster braking. And they could have filmed much slower and then just sped up the film.

ALL TEN of you guys are truly stupid. AN OUNCE of gold cost $35.00 when this film was made, what does it cost in "Today's Dollars"!? It's soon expected to hit $3,000, Now, IF only you could do the arithmetic....

It was very early in the morning. The sun could have washed out the brightness of the signal or the sun was in the engineer's eyes.

@@alanmcentee9457 If so, one mustop the train and contacthe Dispatcher. Then proceed at a speed slow enough to be able to stop in time if seeing another train or broken rail, etc.

Exactly, the narrator made a huge deal out of the amount of years the engineer & brakeman had on that particular line. With that many years online they either got complacent by the constant greens since pull out or they were just not paying attention. 🤷‍♂️

@@robertgift There was nothing given to suggest the engineer or conductor knew they would be passing a train pulled over on a siding. Nor did these older trains have radios. There was no way the engineer could be contacted. Nor was there any reason for the engineer to slow or stop his train . That would have been a firing offense. Yes, what you suggest is true today. It took several incidents like this to convince the rail roads to implement safer practices. Strong pressure from the ICC and later the NTSB as well as the RR unions have come a long way in making the rail roads safer..

@@alanmcentee9457 Thank you. Did not know thathey did not have radios. If thengineerealized that he passed the signal but missed reading it, he should have slowed until reaching thext signal. Would the signal preceeding the missed signal have been *Yellow* ?

Considering the EPA is still a decade or so in the future, they probably just bulldozed it into the dirt during cleanup. Looking at photos of yards prior to OSHA and EPA regs look like the whole locomotive service area was a giant oil slick.

Back in the day they'd spray dirt roads in my area with used motor oil to keep the dust down. We shake our heads now, but in 70 years I bet they'll shake their heads at us and our practices of today.

If distracted, can happen to the best of them.

If staring directly into the sun, it’s possible

@@nicktynan1355 The track is straight. Those signals should be visible for two or three miles. So the question becomes why didn't the engineer see them. Was he blinded by the sun? Were the signals not bright enough to compete with the sun? It is inconceivable that an engineer would take their eyes off of an upcoming signal for a solid two or three minutes. Why didn't either engineer know about the other train? The through train was traveling at full speed. If he was expecting to meet another train, he would have slowed in order to give a bigger time cushion.

@@alanmcentee9457 Sun can be a factor, though the target style signals of the day with hooded lights (better than the tri-lights nowadays) could mitigate that. On straight rail, could be possible to see multiple signals(depending on spacing), but the priority is the one you are approaching. At times dispatchers communicate meets in advance, but it is mainly signal indication. In this video, this particular crew was distracted(unnecessary conversation) and missed their immediate signal(this is why the implementation of "Sterile Cab", following the airlines example of "Sterile Cockpit", allowing for full concentration/focus in critical situations), thus being too late when they DID finally see the opposing train. It's the dispatcher's responsibility to set up the meets, it's the train crew's responsibility to observe/obey the signal indications that are set up for such. This particular crew didn't do that.

@@nicktynan1355 Who said they even saw the signal? At day break with the sun behind the signal and in the engineer's eyes, there would be no visible signal evident. The script was written by and from the management's view. They blamed all the accident on the crew and none on the actual railroad. They quoted the crew as saying that they had talked. BUT they did not say if the crew could see the signals or if the signals were even working. They said nothing about the speed of the train. And they still should have alerted the crew that another train was expected to be run to a siding so this train could slow down. Instead the engineer thought he had a straight run without any events planned. In any event like this there are multiple causes. One excuse that the Occupational Health and Safety Act did away with was allowing an employer to tell the worker to "be safe" or just warn him of a danger. Today employers must fix dangerous conditions.

Not as archaic as it might sound. Those old diesels were less reliable than modern ones; they were also generally larger, meaning that problems couldn't be fixed from the cab. Having a fireman meant that they could troubleshoot a problem 100 feet away, and also regularly patrol and inspect the engine spaces. They kept the engine running while the engineer ran the train. They also were a second pair of eyes and ears for the engineer, to prevent exactly this sort of accident (and before you mention the head brakeman, not all trains of that era had them on a given day, and they weren't always on the lead engine when they were there). The title was obsolete, but the job was very much still relevant.

Sure beats the alternative, whatever low-paid, overworked, insecure conservative nightmare you dream about.

"......Driving that train, high on Propane....."

Good point. After taking several accident investigation courses, it was drilled into our heads that there is no such thing as an accident. There are deeper causes than appear on the surface. Any one may be claimed as the cause but the other causes were as much the reason. Such as, the claim the crew just had 12 hours off and were thus well rested. Uummm, no. How much time was involved in clocking out of their past shift, how long of a drive home, how much family time and eating did they take, and how long did they spend getting up and having breakfast before driving to the train depot and clocking in. That 12 hours is NOT all rest. If the two trains were to meet, did either engineer know it? Other than the signals. if they were expected to meet, why not keep the through train at a slower speed so the second train would have time to get fully on the siding. Knowing there was an upcoming train passing would have alerted the engineer to the fact that the oncoming train might not be fully on the siding. These tracks are straight. The signals should be visible for a couple of miles. I find it difficult to believe that someone familiar with that stretch would not know where the signals are and divert his attention for a solid two or three minutes. As it was very early morning, was the sun washing out the signals or blinding the engineer? Were the signals working and how bright were the lights? Did the signal lights have a night intensity that was still on? How many signals warned of the two trains meeting?

Wonderful insight! It always seems that blame gets assigned to the lowest guys on the totem pole or waved off as an act of god, but there are always, ALWAYS contributing factors to consider. Sure wish such consideration was taken in roadway wrecks lol

It's out there(Crash Scene Investigations, I believe).

I heard the engineer was pre-diabetic and had heart problems. All of the crew were sleep deprived. I saw it on Air Disasters. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XIym5XnGlmY.htmlsi=_gyU32LOtbrvksqh

I worked on that division as a trainman back in the 70s and 80s. The stretch from the end of Gore Canyon to Byers had a speed limit of 60mph but that first curve entering the canyon was only good for 20. On one trip, I was working the head end with an older engineer who tended to sit slumped down in his seat with his cap over his eyes but at the appropriate moment, he'd always raise his head and make a brake or throttle adjustment. As we approached Byers Canyon doing 60, I kept looking over at him, waiting for him to take action. Finally, at the last possible moment, he popped his head up, set the brakes and we hit the curve doing 20. When we arrived in Denver, I asked the conductor about this guy. "Oh yeah. He does that. You'll get used to it."

Didn’t you pay attention? He was checking the engines and not in the cab.

You don't "lose" your retirement.

Don’t count on it. You earn your retirement over the previous years of work. They can’t take it from you.

@@raylrodr well that's good... all those years of good work for sure

"Employe" is a correct but archaic alternate spelling of "employee". Tellingly, the railroad trackworkers' union -- the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes (BMWE, now a branch of the Teamsters) -- still spells it that way.

Hmmm, wrong video???

Can’t tell if you are making a joke or what.

Too many tabs open dude. I did similar awhile ago too. Had 8 of the same browser each with at least 7 tabs and got caught out. You must be using a desktop computer LOL.

F units weren't equipped with retractable gear until after the Korean war. E units got them in the mid-40s. All Geeps came standard with it. GE didn't even offer it as an option. Railroading is crazy like that.

@@Cobra-ky9bt Okay, you might be right about that , but a little known fact is that Baldwin was developing a constant speed prop about the same time as it released the Centipedes. Who knows what would have happened if those units were more successful. Baldwin just lost it’s way after the steam era.

Another comment from someone whose family knew the engineer. He always heard that the engineer was such a habitual drunk they were surprised to learn that he had been sober for this.

It is the Railroad so, probably BOTH.