From: nilknocgeo@earthlink.net   
      
   "Adam H. Kerman"  wrote in message   
   news:lt3apl$tkg$2@news.albasani.net...   
   > conklin  wrote:   
   >>"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
   >>>conklin  wrote:   
   >>>>"Wayne Hines"  wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>>The official report has been released:   
   >   
   >>>>>http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/medias-media/communiques/rail/2014   
   R13d0054-20140819.asp   
   >   
   >>>>>Although it suggests a combination of factors led to the disaster,   
   >>>>>it does appear an insufficient number of handbrakes were applied.   
   >   
   >>>>The NYTimes summary stated that the RR was known to have safety issues   
   >>>>and no one did anything about it.  A badly done engine repair cause   
   >>>>the fire in the engine which started the chain reaction.   
   >   
   >>>So we're going to be hearing that apology from you at some point that   
   >>>the train derailed due to bad track? Will we be getting that admission   
   >>>from you any time soon?   
   >   
   >>Actually the report did mention significant sections of bad track en   
   >>route,   
   >>with 10 mph speed limits.  Such a line had no business hauling oil trains.   
   >   
   > That's funny. It's noted that the ballast was generally in good condition   
   > and that rails at curves were replaced with rail manufactured in 2003.   
   > They had been measuring geometry although one note says that when they   
   > were trying to restore track from 15 mph to 25 mph operation, there was   
   > a location in which the newly installed ballast hadn't been tamped. On   
   > page 119 of the report, it's noted that severely worn rail heads prevent   
   > the recording of a correct profile. Also, MM&A didn't install joint bars   
   > which prevent vertical rail wear.   
   >   
   > It's all irrelevant as the runaway train had reached speeds of 65 mph,   
   > so even if it was all 15 mph track (no one said 10 mph track) or all 25   
   > mph,   
   > the track condition is irrelevant to the derailment.   
   >   
   > Since the professional track inspectors don't note this as a cause of the   
   > derailment, I'd like you to admit that you have zero expertise and have   
   > been flat-out wrong for the last year and each and every time you've said   
   > this in the past.   
   >   
   > Let's hear that admission, George, right now.   
      
   Would an interstate in such bad shape that speed limits were reduced to 15   
   mph be used to haul dangerous cargo?   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)