Train of events - Train Crash

[northstar1950]

I think this was the film were Jack Warner, who played the engine driver, fell into a turntable pit during filming and injured his back, The excellent "Steam on 35mm" series has the full information.

[CyberFur]

stop it dead on 0:49 u can see wire that pulls it up

[papoocanada]

accident looks so fake, shot in studio with miniature trains.

[Mr21tomy]

poor steamie

[TRAINHEAD247]

Could you tell me what film this is and british trains are much better than american ones they look so much better

[01276]

the films called train of events, made 1949. not sure if its ever been released on dvd, videos of it are hard to come by

[GarethJohnMills]

It has been. I bought it from Amazon about 2 months ago after watching this clip. It's an excellent film.

[BEEFYBAYONET]

Top, top film. I know it's easy to mock some of the special effects as not being "wholly convincing" but they'll never spoil a good film. Personally, I love what some of the miniature builders achieved. The model work approaching the crossing at 0:35 is exquisite and the editing to the impact is spot-on. High-speed cameras would have helped give the models some "weight", too! Most films these days though are all top effects and nothing else!!!

[HerefordTrainspotter]

Hello This is your driver speeking,

we seem to have had a slight coupler brakage. Please remain in your seats.

:D

[robertgift]

No bright headlight?

I'd hate to travel not seeing ahead.

An American steam locomotive would have gone right through that tank truck with no problem.

[commanderTL]

right on that one!ours would go though like a train goes though a car'

[chickengeorg123]

poor america, this is a modell train, not a real

[robertgift]

Of course it is a model.

Any moron can see that - as you have obviously proved.

A bright headlight would give the crew a liitle more time to begin braking, or whistling, even though they would not be able to stop before getting to the object or person.

What is an engine automatic brake?

Why none?

Why no speedometer?

[chickengeorg123]

i don´t know, its just a movie

[GWR4079]

most steam engines did not have speedos till br days due to the driver knew how fast he was goin by the sound of his engine and rate of chuffs from the engine :)

[mabmb1987]

what locomotive is it at 0:25?

[caseyjunior]

It is rebuilt Royal Scot No.46126 Royal Army Service Corps.

[danlefou]

I have yet to see a headlight that can shine around corners!

[Skarloey123]

For the late 40's that crash looks very realistic!

[Engineer5344]

who plays the driver at 00:34, and has this movie been released on DVD yet?

[enochsneed]

This is Jack Warner playing driver Jim Hardcastle. The film doesn't seem to be on DVD yet (you can still get it as VHS on Amazon).

[northstar1950]

If you like this type of film the full footage much longer is available on "Steam on 35mm" featuring many stock shots taken for films like this.

[DarkTower97]

i dont know about you guys, but i love all steamers far and wide. And I dont think crashing into a truck with a train would cause it to crash like that.

[joeferrito]

you're right.

[jimmyp42002]

If the engine derailed and hit somthing (stopped instaly or very quickly) then yes it could have.

[superbumfinkel]

the train would have smashed through the tanker in real life

[matthewpeter]

um it kinda did? but the heavy chassis of the tanker would have really spelt doom for a real Royal Scot.

[NCStL576]

Royal Scot? I though it was a Black 5.

[matthewpeter]

no, its a RE-BUILT scot. The really massive boiler and smokebox give it away. Of course if you have the first steam on 35mm video by Video 125 with all the outtakes from this film, its obviously a Scot, the 3rd cylinder in the shed scene when viewed from below quite definitly dispelling all doubt!

[NCStL576]

Well I couldn't tell. I didn't see any smoke deflectors so.

[matthewpeter]

they didnt have them initially

[SteffanLlwyd]

These out-takes are great eh! You can almost smell em!

[aeolus925]

Actually there's more than a few cases where trains have been wrecked by road vehicles on the line.

[SteffanLlwyd]

I'm sure that's right. A train hit a transporter carrying a powersation transformer on it about 1967, and that DID create a disaster, but not a tanker... unless full of fuel!

[superbumfinkel]

wow. i didnt realize that my one comment would create such a debate.

[01276]

Its on youtube somewhere, saw it a week ago.. its a class 46 with afew mk1s hitting a nuclear flask not a transformer .. or is that another one??

[SteffanLlwyd]

Yep, that was a deliberate test. I think the collision with a transformer was about 1967. One of the BeeGees was on the train. He talked about it a few weeks ago on Radio 4.

[24VSenator]

@SteffanLlwyd Wynns heavy Haulage 100ton transformer under police escort got stuck on HIXON (Staffordshire) level crossing, Electric hauled express crashed into it severing the lowloader from the 2 tractors that were pulling it, there were fatalities!

[SteffanLlwyd]

@24VSenator Was that the crash in which the low loader had grounded on the crossing and couldn't be pulled off it? A complete nightmare. That said I always feel safe in trains....

[aeolus925]

In America, perhaps... these are dinky little British trains we're talking about here; British trains are little more than cute decorated teakettles.

[dspf85]

yeah that why british engines are some of the fastest in the world, in fact the worlds fastest steam engine is british, and some of the most powerful were built in britain. id like to see a yank engine haul 650 tonns non stop for 600 miles at 90 mph.

[01276]

Challenger UP3985 at 478 tones makes it the worlds largest working steam loco so makes a BR 9F look like a model. Not far behing Union Pacific 844 at 405 tones makes a any british locos look tiny. Check out my video

"Making Tracks - Sacremento railfair 1991"

.. think it will make you change your mind ;)

[dspf85]

ive seen it, i was impressed, i think some not all british locos have alot going for them

[aeolus925]

Yes, but could that same British engine haul a mile-and-a-half-long train up Sherman Hill in Wyoming, or Blue Ridge, Virginia? :-)

[aeolus925]

First off, the Mallard is the fastest RECORDED steam engine. The Chicago & Northwestern's streamlined E4 class, and the Milwaukee Road's Hiawathas, were regularly timed in excess of 120 MPH by their crews, and their engineering shows they could well have kept pace with, or even beaten Mallard given the chance. Also, the most powerful British locomotive is NO match for the power of Union Pacific's Big Boys, or the Chesapeake & Ohio's Alleghenies.

[dspf85]

the only british engine in service on there railways that were worth something were the loco of the lner, ther are alot of australian steam locos that might not be as powerful as the big boys and such, but they could go toe to toe with them and give them a good run for there money. most were built for heavily graded track, look up the ad60 garratts, c38 class the the d57 and d58 classes.

[joeferrito]

are not! Their locomotives may have been smaller, but THEY had the world's fastest steam locomotive.

[aeolus925]

Fastest RECORDED. Anyway it doesn't matter; American trains were superior anyway. The Mallard made its record run in 1938. At that time, consider that most British freight trains still didn't have automatic brakes of any kind, and that NO British engine -- not even the Mallard -- was equipped with a freaking HEADLIGHT for god's sake!

[joeferrito]

that is a good point. I mean, come on, why not add headlights, and before anyone says, I don't care if their lines were fenced in.

[jimmyp42002]

plus if you think about it, the mallard was one of the few equiped with a speedometer back in those days.

[Paraffinmeister]

British locomotives were not equipped with a headlight because it would simply have been pointless. At the speeds that expresses traveled at, it was simply impossible to make a headlight that was powerful enough to illuminate the track far enough infront to be of any use! You do have a point regarding automatic breaks on freight trains though!:P

[steamboy51]

among other things, you dont need a giant ungainly headlamp. british oil-lamp positioning codes worked just fine.

And actually mallard did have automatic brakes when she made her famous run.

no one has recorded that 6-4-4-6 actually went 140 MPH, i find that implausible for that wheel arrangement.

also, british engines are far more precisionly engineered then ours could ever be.

[joeferrito]

thanks.

[joeferrito]

Could Someone give me the story behind this film?

[01276]

IMDB says "A train disaster is told as four short stories to give character studies of the people involved, how it will affect them and how they deal with it."

[PMDVD]

For the uninitiated - POOL was the common petrol in the austerity years before the commercial world began again after the war. I was there!

[PMDVD]

This is hard to believe, but until around 1954/1955, all we had in UK was the so-called wartime "Pool" petrol of 72 Octane :rolleyes: . It was called Pool Petrol, because during the war all the petrol from the different manufacturers was 'pooled' into one source.

[SteffanLlwyd]

I was told that even today, the big petrol companies still distribute each other's fuel to each other's fore-courts, I guess to cut overall costs.  Makes good sense!

[Hyperen]

Needs more explosions - and guns, definitely more guns required...