home bbs files messages ]

Just a sample of the Echomail archive

<< oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]

 Message 2733 
 Adam H. Kerman to conklin 
 Re: safety improvements why not for oil  
 19 May 14 13:07:16 
 
From: ahk@chinet.com

conklin  wrote:
>"Glen Labah"  wrote:
>>"conklin"  wrote:

>>>So let us wonder what would be the results would have been of Federal
>>>inspection of the track in Lynchburg, VA?

>>If it is legal for a freight train to operate over it, then it would
>>have had to meet some standard or other.  At some point in time, it
>>would to have had to have been inspected.  The frequency of inspection
>>depends on the type of track.

>>This article explains a bit about track inspectors and track inspection:

>>http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20Reference/ABCs%20of%20Rail
oading/2006/05/Track%20classifications.aspx

>And oil trains need to be limited to what type of track?  Presumably they
>cold run on any.

Uh, track maintained to whatever standard it's claimed to be maintained to
pulled by locomotives whose engineers don't exceed speed limits, just like
any other train?

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

<< oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]

(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca