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