From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   conklin  wrote:   
   >   
   >"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote in message   
   >news:lt3apl$tkg$2@news.albasani.net...   
   >> conklin  wrote:   
   >>>"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
   >>>>conklin  wrote:   
   >>>>>"Wayne Hines"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>>>The official report has been released:   
   >>   
   >>>>>>http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/medias-media/communiques/rail/201   
   /R13d0054-20140819.asp   
   >>   
   >>>>>>Although it suggests a combination of factors led to the disaster,   
   >>>>>>it does appear an insufficient number of handbrakes were applied.   
   >>   
   >>>>>The NYTimes summary stated that the RR was known to have safety issues   
   >>>>>and no one did anything about it.  A badly done engine repair cause   
   >>>>>the fire in the engine which started the chain reaction.   
   >>   
   >>>>So we're going to be hearing that apology from you at some point that   
   >>>>the train derailed due to bad track? Will we be getting that admission   
   >>>>from you any time soon?   
   >>   
   >>>Actually the report did mention significant sections of bad track en   
   >>>route,   
   >>>with 10 mph speed limits.  Such a line had no business hauling oil trains.   
   >>   
   >> That's funny. It's noted that the ballast was generally in good condition   
   >> and that rails at curves were replaced with rail manufactured in 2003.   
   >> They had been measuring geometry although one note says that when they   
   >> were trying to restore track from 15 mph to 25 mph operation, there was   
   >> a location in which the newly installed ballast hadn't been tamped. On   
   >> page 119 of the report, it's noted that severely worn rail heads prevent   
   >> the recording of a correct profile. Also, MM&A didn't install joint bars   
   >> which prevent vertical rail wear.   
   >>   
   >> It's all irrelevant as the runaway train had reached speeds of 65 mph,   
   >> so even if it was all 15 mph track (no one said 10 mph track) or all 25   
   >> mph,   
   >> the track condition is irrelevant to the derailment.   
   >>   
   >> Since the professional track inspectors don't note this as a cause of the   
   >> derailment, I'd like you to admit that you have zero expertise and have   
   >> been flat-out wrong for the last year and each and every time you've said   
   >> this in the past.   
   >>   
   >> Let's hear that admission, George, right now.   
   >   
   >Would an interstate in such bad shape that speed limits were reduced to 15   
   >mph be used to haul dangerous cargo?   
      
   Would that be relevant to a truck that caused a terrible collision because   
   the driver drove the wrong way down a ramp and ended up facing fast traffic?   
      
   Is it possible to pound this point through your incredibly thick skull?   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)