From: otterpower@xhotmail.com   
      
   On 5/11/2014 6:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   > Sancho Panza   wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Good thing rights of way for pipelines can be assembled overnight!   
   >   
   Rights of way do not appear to be anywhere near the stumbling block that   
   government approvals are.   
      
      
   ---   
   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)