Top Gear Level Crossing Film

In uk.media.tv.misc Davebt <dave.hockin@> wrote:
> There was a staged crash on the Longmoor Military Railway, with, I think, a
> piece of rail having been removed at a point where the track was on an
> embankment. The crash was quite unimpressive, with the loco just toppling
> slowly to one side, and then falling sideways down the embankment, followed
> by some of the train. It was filmed at night, but still didn't look at all
> suitable for a "Hollywood style" epic!

The movie "The Train" (starring Burt Lancaster) seems, to my inexpert eye,
to contain some of the most realistic train crashes. Mostly because they
simply crashed trains. "The Password is Courage" also has unspectacular,
but believable train crashes. BTW, both are excellent movies.

Of course, The Simpsons regularly send up Hollywoods love of exploding
transport by having such things as prams and bicycles crash, explode and
burn.

>> There was a staged crash on the Longmoor Military Railway, with, I think,
>> a
>> piece of rail having been removed at a point where the track was on an
>> embankment. The crash was quite unimpressive, with the loco just toppling
>> slowly to one side, and then falling sideways down the embankment,
>> followed
>> by some of the train. It was filmed at night, but still didn't look at
>> all
>> suitable for a "Hollywood style" epic!
>
> The movie "The Train" (starring Burt Lancaster) seems, to my inexpert eye,
> to contain some of the most realistic train crashes. Mostly because they
> simply crashed trains. "The Password is Courage" also has unspectacular,
> but believable train crashes. BTW, both are excellent movies.
>
> Of course, The Simpsons regularly send up Hollywoods love of exploding
> transport by having such things as prams and bicycles crash, explode and
> burn.

Titifield Thunderbolt ?
:)

On 27 Aug 2007 11:09:49 GMT, Geoff Lane wrote:

>
> The movie "The Train" (starring Burt Lancaster) seems, to my inexpert eye,
> to contain some of the most realistic train crashes. Mostly because they
> simply crashed trains. "The Password is Courage" also has unspectacular,
> but believable train crashes.

The crash in "the Train" was spectacular, to my eyes. The train just kept
going and going and going - it made me realise just how much momentum there
was. Obviously _real_, and obviously impressive. No matter how big a fake
bang you see it is still fake, and you know it.

> BTW, both are excellent movies.

On 29 Aug, 12:49, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:48:07 GMT someone who may be NM
> <never.ope...@all.com> wrote this:-
>
> >> At the last but one "consultation" on the Highway Code it was
> >> suggested that they re-introduce something like the old wording on
> >> level crossings, the bit about the train not being able to stop.
> >> They didn't take it up.
>
> >Why can't the train stop?
>
> Well, obviously it can, just not before it reaches the crossing in
> many cases.

Yes, I think you'll find that when a car is on the line, the train is
always able to stop. The problem is that it usually manages to stop
some several hundred yards down the line!

On 27 Aug, 18:49, Brian Whitehead <brianwhiteh...@m> wrote:
> On 26 Aug, 17:22, NM <never.ope...@all.com> wrote:
>
> > There was a similar film made in the 1950's, well actually it was a live
> > TV broadcast hosted by Old man Dimbody (He of spagetti farm fame) a
> > section of rail was removed and locomotive was steamed over the gap at
> > high speed, everyone expecting an exciting live supernova type crash, it
> > was a dismal non event, the train (IIRC a Schools type Loco) derailed
> > allright but continued to a stop perfectly upright with the carriges
> > following it.
>
> I remember my dad telling me about this one - it was broadcast live,
> as you say, when he was a lad. It was eagerly awaited (probably by
> every male in the UK with access to a TV!), and was a massive damp
> squib. I saw the footage recently, and can see why it was such a
> disappointment.
>
Are you sure it was Dimbleby Snr and not Cliff Michelmore? It was a
crash staged for "In Town Tonight" or similar - The loco failed to
explode as the build-up had suggested, in part because someone lashed
the whistle down, so the boiler wasn't over full pressure when the
track was blown up under it.

> > There was another in the early eighties when a diesel was deliberatly
> > crashed at speed into a truck designed to carry nuclear waste, another
> > non event (waste of a fine loco though)
>
> I watched this one when it happened. I'd have to disagree with you on
> it being a non event, though. IMO, the train and flask did pretty
> much what I would have expected in a collision at 90 mph. In
> particular, the slow motion footage of what happens to the loco and
> front carriage is rather scary.
>
But even at the time there was a lot of criticism - even IIRC, a whole
TV programme dedicated to showing it - that the scenario wasn't
realistic, the engine block had been unbolted and can be seen leaping
over the flask rather than slamming into it, and the crash wasn't
followed by a fire, which might have been expected in a "real"
incident.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:48:07 +0100, NM wrote
(in article <Xw9Bi.27029$Db6.26601@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>):

> Why can't the train stop? I don't mean real full sized trains but these
> virtually converted busses with train wheels that trundle around almost
> empty most of the time, they can't weigh more than a heavy lorry and as
> most of the level crossings are not on main lines and usually very close
> to platform ends why can't the train slow right down and stop if
> necessary? Cause a lot less congestion if they did.

Well they DO weight quite a bit more than you think - for example the ones
that were essentially modified express coaches on 4 wheel truck chassis
weighed in at something over 30t IIRC by the time they had been engineered up
to railway strength standards.

Then instead of putting them on rubber tyres on a rough macaddamed surface,
you put them on smooth steel tyres on a smooth steel rail.

So plenty of weight, not a lot of friction - you do the maths as to why
stopping distances could be measured in postcodes.

Chris Tolley wrote:
> NM wrote:
>
>> what I can't see is why the gates need to be closed such a long time
>> before the train actually arrives, it's frustrating to wait several
>> minutes until a train crawls into sight thn stops in the station
>> immediatly next to the crossing, then waiting another minute or so
>> for someone to open the barrier
>
> If you read the report I mentioned earlier, you will have gathered that
> for various reasons, trains do not always manage to stop at the stations
> in certain conditions. You are making the assumption that they will. You
> will be right on all but about a dozen occasions a year, so you'll only
> have the corresponding deaths, injuries and lost time arising from those
> dozen incidents to weigh up. It all depends on how much carnage you are
> prepared to accept in order to save those few minutes' wait, I suppose.

I don't see the carnage in front of Underground trains (Suicides
excepted) if anything they are heavier than those toy converted busses
and they stop every minute or so. If they can do it safely?

David Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:47:38 GMT someone who may be NM
> <never.opened@all.com> wrote this:-
>
>>> How many level crossings are there on the Underground?
>>>
>> Don't know
>
> There are none. There were some a long time ago on the extremities
> of the lines concerned. There is a photograph of the remnants of the
> last level crossing in the standard book on the Underground. From
> memory the remnants were on a line that was closed in the late 1980s
> and hadn't been used for decades before closure anyway.
>
>
Was that the Ongar spur or are you referring to the Finsbury Park link
to East Finchley, or the branch to Muswell Hill all closed relativly
recently but not 1980's

On 31 Aug, 09:38, NM <never.ope...@all.com> wrote:
> There is a level crossing near Richmond that is trainwise quite busy,
> It's quite normal to wait there 15 minutes.
>
> Lights...long wait...train....longer wait...train other way.....even
> longer wait.....another train from the first way....shorter
> wait...barriers down.
>
> That's not unusual and IMO is unnacceptable.

It seems there are more train passengers using the crossing than car
users. So the crossing is weighted in favour of least disruption to
the majority of people that use it.

If its so unacceptable, why do you accept it? Why don't you drive a
different route?

What do you suggest otherwise. Increase duty on petrol to fund a
bridge?

AE

On 31 Aug, 11:20, NM <never.ope...@all.com> wrote:
> ab...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> > If its so unacceptable, why do you accept it? Why don't you drive a
> > different route?
>
> Because if you hit the queue it's near impossible to turn round.

Why don't you avoid the queue by driving a different route?

AE