From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   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?   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)