From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   conklin  wrote:   
   > wrote:   
   >>"conklin"  wrote:   
      
   >>>Is the geo car ever put on the end of these 100+car oil trains?   
   >>>If not, why not?   
      
   >>Because a.) the slack action at the end of a 100-car freight trains   
   >>is not safe for occupied passenger cars, and b.) they want to test as   
   >>many miles per shift as they can, so they want to operate on priority   
   >>trains. As I said, the usual practice is to run them as stand-alone   
   >>trains. The route is determined to meet FRA-mandated test frequency   
   >>requirements, which are based on track speed, tonnage, and haz-mat   
   >>tonnage, if I remember correctly, or to meet stricter self-imposed   
   >>standards set by the railroad.   
      
   >>Incidentally, the FRA has a website (safetydata.fra.dot.gov) where you   
   >>can run all sorts of reports that could help you avoid making ridiculous   
   >>assumptions about railroad operations and accidents. For 2011-2013,   
   >>track condition caused 27.3% of all mainline reportable accidents /   
   >>incidents, accounting for 45% of reportable damage. (Reportable damage   
   >>includes damage to railroad track and equipment only.) Breaking it   
   >>down further, about 6.8% of reportable mainline incidents and 5.6%   
   >>of reportable damage was due to conditions that should typically be   
   >>detected by a geometry car.   
      
   >>We're still waiting on causes for all of the big crude oil incidents that   
   >>have happened in the last year, but so far the available info seems to   
   >>suggest that 0% of them could have been prevented by measuring track   
   >>geometry from the back of unit crude trains...   
      
   >All I see here is excuses on why oil trains should not derail, when they do.   
   >Denial.  Comments implying that a few derailments now and then is ok, for   
   >financial reasons.  Just pay the dead and move on.  Cheaper than good track   
   >no?   
      
   Denial of what, George? Your ideas are absurd. It's not denial when several   
   people have told you repeatedly that any track inspection method that's   
   part of the consist can't tell you anything useful about dangerous track   
   conditions that would adversely affect the consist itself?   
      
   You've also been told that most derailments have nothing to do with bad   
   track, but refuse to accept that. You can't label something a "safety   
   improvement" that, in truth, doesn't address the problem you've identified.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)