From: jock@soccer.com   
      
   On Mon, 12 May 2014 00:43:46 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"   
    wrote:   
      
   >Sancho Panza   wrote:   
   >>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.   
   >   
   >You can't just open pipelines, and as we've been discussing on Usenet,   
   >there's no perfect safety with pipelines either. They lack protection   
   >from backhoes. So you're deluding yourself.   
      
   Da Man has been reading my posts after all.   
      
   And were we dicussing thiings other than on Usenet?   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)