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