From: otterpower@xhotmail.com
On 5/9/2014 9:17 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> 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?
>
Better than either of those would be a modern well-equipped pipeline.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
