From: ahk@chinet.com
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/
13d0054-20140819.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.
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
