From: nilknocgeo@earthlink.net
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote in message
news:lkqk0n$j50$3@news.albasani.net...
> conklin wrote:
>>"Wayne Hines" wrote:
>>>On Sun, 11 May 2014 19:55:07 -0400, conklin wrote:
>>>>"Nobody" 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.
>
>>>>>Thank you!
>
>>>>Crappy track is ok with you. Work for a RR?
>
>>>George, in addition to being an expert on airport finances, are you also
>>>a qualified railroad track inspector?
>
>>You act as if train derailments are acts of God, not dependent on bad
>>track. As long as the RR industry assumes accidents are normal and
>>victims
>>can be paid off with a few dollars after 5-10 years in court, then it is
>>just a cost of doing business and things will never be improved. Airline
>>accidents are approached quite differently and last year no one died in
>>domestic airline accidents. That would translate into zero oil train
>>derailments. But right now no one cares about oil trains. As is obvious
>>with your posts.
>
> No one acts as if derailments were acts of God. It's just that no one at
> all believes you until we hear the facts. You're unwilling to wait for
> facts.
Oil trains derail, that is a fact. Already railroads route oil trains
over their "best" track to lower risk. But the best track today is not up
to very high standards.
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
