From: nilknocgeo@earthlink.net

 wrote in message
news:1150810053422162717.604051dpeltier-my-deja.com@news.aioe.org...
> "conklin"  wrote:
>> Is the geo car ever put on the end of these 100+car oil trains?  If not,
>> why
>> not?
>
> Because a.) the slack action at the end of a 100-car freight trains is not
> safe for occupied passenger cars, and b.) they want to test as many miles
> per shift as they can, so they want to operate on priority trains. As I
> said, the usual practice is to run them as stand-alone trains. The route
> is
> determined to meet FRA-mandated test frequency requirements, which are
> based on track speed, tonnage, and haz-mat tonnage, if I remember
> correctly, or to meet stricter self-imposed standards set by the railroad.
>
> Incidentally, the FRA has a website (safetydata.fra.dot.gov) where you can
> run all sorts of reports that could help you avoid making ridiculous
> assumptions about railroad operations and accidents. For 2011-2013, track
> condition caused 27.3% of all mainline reportable accidents / incidents,
> accounting for 45% of reportable damage. (Reportable damage includes
> damage
> to railroad track and equipment only.) Breaking it down further, about
> 6.8%
> of reportable mainline incidents and 5.6% of reportable damage was due to
> conditions that should typically be detected by a geometry car.
>
> We're still waiting on causes for all of the big crude oil incidents that
> have happened in the last year, but so far the available info seems to
> suggest that 0% of them could have been prevented by measuring track
> geometry from the back of unit crude trains...
>
> Dan

All I see here is excuses on why oil trains should not derail, when they do.
Denial.  Comments implying that a few derailments now and then is ok, for
financial reasons.  Just pay the dead and move on.  Cheaper than good track
no?

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