From: nilknocgeo@earthlink.net
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote in message
news:lkikho$74a$1@news.albasani.net...
> conklin wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>conklin wrote:
>>>>"Wayne Hines" wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, 08 May 2014 08:44:50 -0400, conklin wrote:
>
>>>>>>The press is reporting today that the Feds are in fact going to give
>>>>>>those living on the routes of trains hauling crude oil some warning of
>>>>>>the dangers they might face. Or at least that seems the intent.
>>>>>>Given
>>>>>>the profit involved to the carriers, I am wondering why the Feds don't
>>>>>>also insist on track upgrdes on those routes.
>
>>>>>Perhaps there is no need for track upgrades on those routes.
>
>>>>Well, tell that to Lynchburg, VA....the track was fine. There was no
>>>>accident. It was all imagination.
>
>>>I must have missed the imaginary news story. Could we wait till there's
>>>an authoritative report backing up your allegations?
>
>>You mean give warning to local authorities? You must not read very much.
>
> No, I mean I'd like to wait until there is a report of track failure
> before
> I post on Usenet that it's track failure, you know, just what I wrote.
>
>>Today the NY Times points out that 10 of the 13 cars that derailed and
>>burned in Lynchburg, VA, were CPC-1232s, or the newer cars. And that
>>includes the car which dumped 30,000 gallons of crude oil into the James
>>river. There was also an earlier accident in which the "new" standard
>>cars
>>also failed. So it looks like even cars built under the improved
>>standards
>>are ineffective in preventing spills and fires. I doubt the train was
>>traveling very fast in downtown Lynchburg either.
>
> Tankers aren't puncture-proof. So, you want all this oil moved by truck,
> which has a far worse safety record?
I believe that even better cars + upgraded track. The old track standards
were ok for moving coal, but not for oil.
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
