3 ms·
You make a lot of good points but this one: > Policy around what constitutes a hazardous train and the requiring brakes upgrades were rules initially proposed
by vxNsr 4y ago
You make a lot of good points but this one:
> Policy around what constitutes a hazardous train and the requiring brakes upgrades were rules initially proposed in the Obama administration, watered down after lobbying, repealed under Trump and not resinstituted under Biden;
Is irrelevant to this situation, better breaks would not have fixed this situation as the actual cause of the derailment was a failed axel. The breaks thing is a partisan talking point meant to deflect blame from the current administration.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoI've read that it's possible that better brakes could have resulted in fewer cars derailing. https://www.statnews.com/2023/02/21/east-palestine-train-chemicals/ https://www.statnews.com/2023/02/21/east-palestine-train-che... > The current, age-old technology of hydraulic brakes meant that in the Norfolk Southern train’s case, when one car derailed, the entire train contracted and expanded like an accordion, sending many more cars off the rails. I'm not positive it's accurate though, as the other articles I've read which mention cars accordioning mention that this is due to car placement (lighter loads between the engine and the heavier tanker loads). https://www.wfmj.com/story/48419813/lawsuit-alleges-poor-railcar-placement-on-derailed-east-palestine-train https://www.wfmj.com/story/48419813/lawsuit-alleges-poor-rai...
- vxNsr 4y agoThe other point to make is this train wouldn’t have qualified for the Obama regulations anyway so the whole point is moot.