An Engineer's perspective of the movie 'unstoppable'

Yo Suntop007 - nice to see the perspective of an actual engineer :) As a British railfan with a fair grounding in American railroading, I enjoy seeing people like yourself commenting on rail-related films.

In response to your post would like to point out though that in the CSX 8888 incident, a crew (engineer Jesse Knowlton and conductor Terry Forson) did chase after the runaway, couple-up, and apply their dynamics. Their actions allowed 8888 to sucessfully negotiate a curve near Kenton and slowed the train enough for trainmaster Jon Hosfeld to board the locomotive. The two of them met with Tony Scott, Chris Pine and Denzel Washington to advise and their personal histories influenced the script (one actually did have a pair of daughters working at Hooters, and the other admitted to getting hired thanks to family connections in the company). The two of them are credited at the end of the movie as technical consultants.

Coupling from the rear was CSX's 'Plan B'. Plan A was the failed use of the derailer. Plan C was to put two locomotives in front of 8888 to slow it down (a possibility repurposed for the movie) and Plan D was to take the track up and force a derailment.

Like you, I also question not having a man try to cross from the lash-up to 777. I assume that engineer Judd Stewart's conductor, the obvious candidate for the job, was Ryan Scott, the ex-Marine who was being suspended from the helicopter (you see him talking with Pine's character at the yard and walking off with Stewart afterwards) - it could have added an extra stunt scene though with a man attempting to cross to the runaway and either being knocked off or find it an impossible jump to make, at which point they attempt Plan B, the heli-drop.

That said though, it was still a highly enjoyable film - did any other bits stand out to you as an engineer, for good or for ill?

It really depends on whether the train is going uphill or downhill, and how steep that hill is. Seeing that the runaway was just coming off a high bridge out of Stanton, it's very possible that it was going down a pretty hefty grade and could accelerate much more quickly than if it were on level track.

Nice to hear somebody who knows confirm how easy it would have been to put an engine in front of the runaway and just casually walk back to the other engine it seemed pretty obvious.

I think you have you be careful to recognize the subtle but important difference between a movie that "inspired by / based on true events" and one that is actually attempting to dramaticize true events.

Movies like "The Hunt for Red October", "The Terminal" and this one are literally inpired by a true events. There was an attempt by a political officer aboard a Soviet frigate in 1975 to comandeer his ship. There was a man who lived for years in Paris' Charles De Gaulle Airport. But neither film is attempting to tell these actual stories.

Conversely, "Apollo 13" IS attempting to tell a true story, and despite some creative licenses (everyone watching the Neil Armstrong's first steps from the Lovell home, and Swigert and Haise's arguement) it was considered fairly accurate.

That's how the brakes work when the cars are coupled into a train for out on the main. For yard movements, the brakes are bled off, and the air reservoir on each car allows the brakes to be operated by the hand brakes on the individual cars.

the rappelling truly looked absurd... i was half expecting a stray tree branch to slap him off and throw the chopper off balance (for a nice Hollywood fireball crash).

for the same reason, it would be even more absurd to hover the chopper closer to the train -- the trees beside the track looked to be too close.

the much less absurd suggestion of getting a team to hop over from the front train seems so much more feasible in comparison. granted, it's still risky, but with maybe 5 guys or so, perhaps with a rig set up (and plenty of safety ropes), it would be considerably easier than getting 1206 to latch on from behind and getting Frank (a 50 year old man!) to run-and-hop over half a mile of moving train roofs.

btw, i think it's not impossible to do what Frank did. still incredibly risky, since train roofs are probably rather unstable. at that speed, it's probably like skateboarding down a gravelly slope. any sudden jerks or a mistimed jump while along a slight curve and Frank would be sailing forward at 70mph. nonetheless, relativity allows him to run on top of a 70mph train and even jump across the gaps -- the same physics are applying as for someone running/jumping inside a train. just the height makes it far less stable.