3 ms·
"Today, the rail administration says it lacks enough evidence that long trains pose a particular risk." This is ridiculous, in fact outrageous. We've been usin
by hilbert42 4y ago
"Today, the rail administration says it lacks enough evidence that long trains pose a particular risk."
This is ridiculous, in fact outrageous. We've been using trains and railroad technology for about two hundred years and the engineering is well understood. If procedures now require trains to exceed the once-understood safe limit of 1.4 miles then administrators should automatically set up a testing program to determine new
parameters and operational safety limits.
What's the purpose of having regulators who cannot act proactively before an accident? If operational parameters change from the accepted norm or standard then then a reappraisal of the regulations should happen automatically.
- LeanderK 4y agoIt really is unbelievable considering what the train was hauling. It wasn't just a long coal train: > It had five locomotives at the front and 136 cars trailing behind, about half hauling hazardous material: propane, isobutane, ethyl alcohol, phosphoric acid and molten sulfur heated to 235 degrees Fahrenheit. I could have killed a lot of people. It seems really dangerous to play fast and loose with those rules while also carrying super dangerous cargo. It's very easy to imagine the wrong composition of those dangerous trailers getting derailed.