By: D

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:34:01 +0000

My apologies, Bruce, but one note in defense is that I took “conductor” from Chris Pine’s line. Being that he is in the same cab, I assumed it to be a conductor’s cab. At the same time, I’ll credit your knowledge on this topic more than a screenwriter’s. :)

Also, it’s great that the terminology was properly used in the film, but what of the believability? Are all engineers capable of traversing cars while travelling at 85 miles an hour — which in itself creates a contradiction within a line delivered by the man who has been “railroading for 28 years.” As an English professor on my better days, I will wholeheartedly admit that math was not my strongest subject; however, when Frank Barnes says that a locomotive cab can travel at about 70 mph going forward, how might it have had the capability to catch up with a train travelling at 85 mph? (Need we also remember that the Barnes’ locomotive cab was travelling backwards?)

By: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 22:37:46 +0000

First, it was a veteran engineer in the movie that tries to slow the train down by coupling to the headend of the runaway. Next, it is called ‘the locomotive cab’ and definitley not ‘the conductors cab’, sorry, but us engineers are sensitive when it comes to the proper language. The movie had some proper terminology, but lacked on equipment knowledge, specifically the difference between the independant brake vs the automatic brake at the end of the movie, among others.

Cheers,
The engineer of the Glendale Metrolink train accident you have in the second picture of your article.

Comments on: Unstoppable — A Train Wreck. Literal or Figurative? Hmmm…

By: D

By: Bruce