Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very true, although I personally find the overuse of the whole woke/wokesters terminology tiresome. Everyone posting in this thread has a pile of possessions made out of plastic, including whatever device they are using to post on. This is a risk we took when we decided to develop a huge appetite for the plastic products that are made from these chemicals. There might be a price to pay once in a while. It's not just corporate greed. It is everybody's greed that creates situations like this.
It's not though, because it's not transporting te chemicals in and of itself that creates the danger, it's transporting them in an unsafe manner. If double-walled tanks would prevent leaks during accidents, and it's only the railroad company fighting using them, then how are we all responsible?
The concerns over freight train length go back a long way.
The steam locomotives of the World War II cs could handle no more than about 70 freight cars; but the development of multiple-unit controls (more than one diesel-electric locomotive under the control of one throttle and one engineer) gave the railroads a strong incentive to run longer, heavier, and less-frequent freight trains. The technology was later refined to allow the operation of separate pusher (helper) engines in mid-train -- but under the control of the crew up front; rhese are refered to as "slave units'. Further progress brought about the elimination of the caboose and the replacement of five-person crews with two persons, both in the locomotive cab.
In fairness, both the use of defect detectors (mentioned in a previous post) and the use of heavier rail, continuously welded, rather than in 40-foot lengths joined by "fish plates", have reduced the necessity of a brakeman to inspect running gear from the cupola of a caboose. But in an age of two-mile-long freight trains and diminished contact with both law enforcement/public safety and the ,eneral population, it might be time to ask ourselves whether things have gone too far.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 02-20-2023 at 01:37 PM..
The railroad industry lobbyists spend millions a year trying to get safety regs rolled back. They fought using double-walled tanks for these dangerous chemicals, which most experts say would have prevented the chemicals from leaking out in the first place. They fought speed limits being lowered when transporting dangerous chemicals. They fought 2-man crews in the cab.
As I said, this particular company cut it's worforce by 40% over the last decade. One employee said lack of maintenance workers, which were cut, was one of the main reasons for these accidents. While their stock price rose 1000% during that time period. They have profits of billions a year.
They decided it's cheaper to let accidents happen and pay off the victims, then it is to transport chemicals safely. The payoffs are built into their operating costs.
Sorry, in my world that is plain greed. They should be demonized, they have chosen profits over people.
Yeah, if you actually think CEOs of large companies are sitting back and considering whether their employees are being properly paid, that they're not cutting as many corners as possible in order to maximize profits, you are sadly naive.
The utopia you speak of just doesn't exist. But feel free to call me names in order to make yourself feel better, if that's what gets you out of bed in the morning. Glad to be of help, buddy (oh, and that's not to you, ocn, but to "the world is a wholesome wonderful place where people do what is right" guy above. Yeah, hard decisions. I think the hardest would probably be cutting back from like a dozen vacation homes to maybe like 8. I know, it's a rough world out there).
And I'm not talking anything specific about this train problem. I know nothing about it. But it should be obvious that this country has a greed problem, that is the only point I was making.
Last edited by Basiliximab; 02-20-2023 at 01:53 PM..
Yeah, if you actually think CEOs of large companies are sitting back and considering whether their employees are being properly paid, that they're not cutting as many corners as possible in order to maximize profits, you are sadly naive.
The utopia you speak of just doesn't exist. But feel free to call me names in order to make yourself feel better, if that's what gets you out of bed in the morning. Glad to be of help, buddy (oh, and that's not to you, ocn, but to "the world is a wholesome wonderful place where people do what is right" guy above. Yeah, hard decisions. I think the hardest would probably be cutting back from like a dozen vacation homes to maybe like 8. I know, it's a rough world out there).
And I'm not talking anything specific about this train problem. I know nothing about it. But it should be obvious that this country has a greed problem, that is the only point I was making.
Why would I call you names? You seem to be agreeing with me that giant corporations put profits over people anyway. What utopia did i speak of? I never said anything about wonderful places or utopia. I talked about giant corporations putting profits over people. We can at least try to demand regulations to make the transport of these chemicals safer. But we have to vote for people who aren't anti-regulation at the expense of safety.
The term "regulation" is being (mis)used to refer to two entirely different activities here:
ECNOMIC regulation refers to the control of market entry/exit and pricing; it was often cited as necessary to protect small enterprises from "ruinous competition" if a larger firm invaded their "traditional" markets and territory. Economic regulation fell out of favor with the public in the Seventies, culminating in the Staggers (deregulation) Act of 1980 (promoted by a Democratic Congressman and signed into law by a Democratic President). One unanticipated side effect was to reduce the ranks of formerly-regulated motor carriers.
SAFETY regulation came about in the economic desperation of the Great Depression of the 1930s, when (usually) small-time operators were tempted to sacrifice safety in order to turn an often-much-needed buck.
NO ONE ia seriously considering undermining safety regulation (save in the paranoiac mindset of the usual suspects out there in deep Left Field) -- it's just as credible as the lie that "the GOP is going to take away Gramps and Nonna's Social Security".
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 02-20-2023 at 05:03 PM..
Reason: E
The term "regulation" is being (mis)used to refer to two entirely different activities here:
ECNOMIC regulation refers to the control of market entry/exit and pricing; it was often cited as necessary to protect small enterprises from "ruinous competition" if a larger firm invaded their "traditional" markets and territory. Economic regulation fell out of favor with the public in the Seventies, culminating in the Staggers (deregulation) Act of 1980 (promoted by a Democratic Congressman and signed into law by a Democratic President). One unanticipated side effect was to reduce the ranks of formerly-regulated motor carriers.
SAFETY regulation came about in the economic desperation of the Great Depression of the 1930s, when (usually) small-time operators were tempted to sacrifice safety in order to turn an often-much-needed buck.
NO ONE ia seriously considering undermining safety regulation (save in the paranoiac mindset of the usual suspects out there in deep Left Field) -- it's just as credible as the lie that "the GOP is going to take away Gramps and Nonna's Social Security".
Why would I call you names? You seem to be agreeing with me that giant corporations put profits over people anyway. What utopia did i speak of? I never said anything about wonderful places or utopia. I talked about giant corporations putting profits over people. We can at least try to demand regulations to make the transport of these chemicals safer. But we have to vote for people who aren't anti-regulation at the expense of safety.
The post was in agreement with you, not disagreeing; (2nd paragraph, at the end in paranthesis).
What we have yet to find out here is why, if the trackside detector indicated an overheated axle bearing in danger of disintegrating, the train, (which had three people in the cab instead of the usual two) continued without stopping, in violation of both operating rules and common sense.
From the General Code of Operating Rules, and as replicated in Employees' Timetables:
Rule S In case of doubt or uncertainty, the safe course must be taken.
So unless they were overruled by a superior, that crew has to justify their decision to proceed.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 02-20-2023 at 09:12 PM..
The term "regulation" is being (mis)used to refer to two entirely different activities here:
ECNOMIC regulation refers to the control of market entry/exit and pricing; it was often cited as necessary to protect small enterprises from "ruinous competition" if a larger firm invaded their "traditional" markets and territory. Economic regulation fell out of favor with the public in the Seventies, culminating in the Staggers (deregulation) Act of 1980 (promoted by a Democratic Congressman and signed into law by a Democratic President). One unanticipated side effect was to reduce the ranks of formerly-regulated motor carriers.
SAFETY regulation came about in the economic desperation of the Great Depression of the 1930s, when (usually) small-time operators were tempted to sacrifice safety in order to turn an often-much-needed buck.
NO ONE ia seriously considering undermining safety regulation (save in the paranoiac mindset of the usual suspects out there in deep Left Field) -- it's just as credible as the lie that "the GOP is going to take away Gramps and Nonna's Social Security".
It’s already been undermined, that’s what I’ve been saying. I gave you examples of regulations they have successfully fought and are still fighting. Their lobbyists have fought for and won increased speed limits, one person cabs, longer and longer trains with more and more cars, and tanks that won’t leak in an accident. How can you fail to see how cutting the workforce 40% is undermining safety? There wasn’t enough maintenance workers to properly maintain the trains per an employee, and they moved the detectors from every ten miles to every twenty.
There was a bill wending its way through that would have required double walled tanks for dangerous chemicals and other safety requirements. It was killed by the Trump administration and their anti- regulation stance. Not that I’m blaming Trump, it’s decades that we have let lobbyists succeed in undermining railroad safety. But to act like I’m predicting something for the future rather than what’s already happened just means you’re not really digesting my posts. If those regulations had been in place this wouldn’t be a thread right now.
The post was in agreement with you, not disagreeing; (2nd paragraph, at the end in paranthesis).
Sorry about that, tone is sometimes hard to tell.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
