WestCoastRunner Posted May 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 You keep talking about the danger of all the crude oil being shipped by rail car, yet you oppose the solution...I consider it to be an important part of the topic of rail safety - that is, getting the crude oil off of the train cars. This thread is about transparency and openness about what is being transported through communities by railcars. Geez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 (edited) And as has already been stated, dangerous goods are marked on the cars for all to see. This is much to do about nothing. Now if you actually want to reduce the dangerous traffic...specifically the crude you mentioned, let's start building pipelines. Edited May 8, 2014 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 (edited) Providing information about when and how much hazardous material is being transported through someone's town will benefit any community across Canada.If so then provide a *concrete* argument why it is useful. You also are assuming that the "planners" are asking for this information. At this point all you have are a few mayors facing re-election that think they can sound good to voters by making unreasonable demands. This is not enough. Edited May 8, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 Who the hell really knows what that dangerous goods sign on the side of a transport truck or rail car means anyway? I wonder if it meant anything to the people in Lac Megantic if they saw that sign hurling at them as the train exploded. Even if they'd had the training to identify it, it was a lie anyway. What was on the manifest was not what was in the railcar. Why shouldn't people know what is going through their town? Most of them probably wouldn't give a damn anyway. Some others may seek safety precautions that would prevent another Lac Megantic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 (edited) Who the hell really knows what that dangerous goods sign on the side of a transport truck or rail car means anyway?The people that *need* to know understand them. People like fire fighters. Why shouldn't people know what is going through their town? Most of them probably wouldn't give a damn anyway. Some others may seek safety precautions that would prevent another Lac Megantic.Lac Megantic is a good example of why telling people when a train is coming through is a pointless waste of money. In case you forgot the train was supposed to be parked for the night so there is no way that people could have been "warned" that is train with explosives was coming through that night. I am in favor of increased safety regulations provided there is a rational reason to believe the safety regulation would be useful. No one has offered any remotely plausible argument for why knowing exactly when a train is coming through would allow people to do anything that they could not do without that information. Edited May 8, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 The people that *need* to know understand them. People like fire fighters. Lac Megantic is a good example of why telling people when a train is coming through is a pointless waste of money. In case you forgot the train was supposed to be parked for the night so there is no way that people could have been "warned" that is train with explosives was coming through that night. I am in favor of increased safety regulations provided there is a rational reason to believe the safety regulation would be useful. No one has offered any remotely plausible argument for why knowing exactly when a train is coming through would allow people to do anything that they could not do without that information. Whether the train was parked or not has nothing to do with anything. People have a right to know the risks they are being exposed to. And it seems trains have a relatively bad safety record. In the Lac Megantic case they lied about what was in the cars. I think if I lived in a town and found out that tons of lethal cargo was travelling through my downtown everyday, I think I might want to know what safety measures were in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 No one has offered any remotely plausible argument for why knowing exactly when a train is coming through would allow people to do anything that they could not do without that information. Knowing exact times would be invaluable when determining the sequence of events and liability after an accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 Whether the train was parked or not has nothing to do with anything. The train was parked OUTSIDE OF THE TOWN. It ended up there because of a mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 The train was parked OUTSIDE OF THE TOWN. It ended up there because of a mistake. And 47 people ended up burned to death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 And they still would have...because even under the regulation being floated here, no one would have known...because the train wasn't supposed to be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 If the regulations were proper, they would have known it was there. Trains travel on schedules just like planes do. Planes don't travel with dangerous goods aboard without manifesting what it is, how much there is, how it's packed etc etc. That's not saying you can't crash at YVR for instance, but if you everybody knows what you have on board with regards to dangerous goods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 You think that they mark the dangerous goods on trains....and they don't know what's in them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 You think that they mark the dangerous goods on trains....and they don't know what's in them? That's exactly what happened in Lac Megantic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 Knowing exact times would be invaluable when determining the sequence of events and liability after an accident.Lac Magnetic proves you wrong. The train made an unscheduled departure which means all times filed before would have no relevance to the investigators. The only thing that matters is understanding what went wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 (edited) That's exactly what happened in Lac Megantic.I doubt this is really true. Prior to Lac Magnetic no one really cared to look at the information already available so if anyone did not know it was their fault for not looking. If they care now the information available is more than enough for them to know what types of hazards they are being exposed to. Edited May 8, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 (edited) If the regulations were proper, they would have known it was there. Trains travel on schedules just like planes do. Planes don't travel with dangerous goods aboard without manifesting what it is, how much there is, how it's packed etc etc.The manifests are available for trains too. However airline companies don't provide "advance notice" to every little town they happen to fly over detailing what goods are on each specific flight and flight should railways. Edited May 8, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 I doubt this is really true. Prior to Lac Magnetic no one really cared to look at the information already available so if anyone did not know it was their fault for not looking. If they care now the information available is more than enough for them to know what types of hazards they are being exposed to. You can doubt it all you want, but it's documented. I know a little bit about this stuff and I wondered from day one why the explosion and fire was so intense based on what they manifest said was in those cars. What was in those cars wasn't what was in the manifest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 The manifests are available for trains too. However airline companies don't provide "advance notice" to every little town they happen to fly over detailing what goods are on each specific flight and flight should railways. No because flying over them is a little different than landing at their airport, where that advance notice is provided before the airplane even takes off from it's departure point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 What was in those cars wasn't what was in the manifest.Were the cars marked with the correct hazardous goods label? If the answer is no then they should have been. That does not mean "advance notice" is required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 Were the cars marked with the correct hazardous goods label? If the answer is no then they should have been. That does not mean "advance notice" is required. No they were not properly marked. Advance notice won't help in this case if you're going to lie anyway. Their system needs an overhaul. There are a number of issues here. Advance notice is needed if first responders are going to properly equipped to deal with a problem. Certain things are simply not allowed to be transported on passenger aircraft. Maybe certain things should not be allowed on trains going through built up areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 The first clue that alerted investigators was basically they knew diesel fuel just does not explode and burn like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 (edited) There are a number of issues here.Agreed. Mixing them up confuses issues. This op is about the demand that every town on a route be given advance warning of exactly what is in each train. This has nothing to do with rail companies that fail to comply with existing regulations. Advance notice is needed if first responders are going to properly equipped to deal with a problem.Wrong. All that is required is that railways report that any train on the tracks could have hazardous goods and what level of hazard could be involved. The town can then prepare. After that proper labelling on the cars is all first responders need if there is an incident. Edited May 8, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 Wrong. All that is required is that railways report that any train on the tracks could have hazardous goods and what level of hazard could be involved. The town can then prepare. After that proper labelling on the cars is all first responders need if there is an incident. Different types of material fires demand different procedures to put them out. A town cannot prepare for every single chemical unless they get some federal money to shore them up. Large cities may be able to afford this, but towns like Lac Megantic may not be able to accomplish that. It also seems that the tanker cars that blew up were not the proper ones to carry that kind of crude. So if you read the label or sign on the rail car, it did not reflect what actually was in those cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 (edited) I might want to know what safety measures were in place.What an insanely radical idea. Safety accountability. Pfft. Edited May 8, 2014 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 Why is a chemical spill different than a chemical attack in this case? Another brilliant red herring. That's two in this thread so far. Terrorist have a hard time transporting the amount of chemicals a train can. A terror attack is targeted and mostly localized, a train accident happens anywhere/anytime and the damage much greater. More train accidents have happened in Canada in the last year compared to terror attacks of the past 10 years. More people have died because of one train incident at Lac Megantic than terror related deaths of the past 10 years. Iam more likely to die by a train accident than a terror attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.