 |
Re: Bipartisan Senate rail safety bill proposed - changes hazmat notification & handling, train length limits, minimum crew size, inspection improvements
Author: BOB2
Date: 03-04-2023 - 09:03
Guest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Unions argue the longer trains are more prone to
> problems, including breaking apart in the middle
> of a trip, and these monster trains also can clog
> rail lines, because they may extend farther than
> the current sidings for pulling off the main
> tracks."
>
> What the Union keeps ignoring is according to the
> NTSB the Journal that failed was 23 cars from the
> head end. It had been spotted flaming almost 20
> miles prior. Two people were on the head end of
> that train. What were they doing? Doesn't sound
> like they were properly inspecting their train on
> curves or whenever else possible, which is one of
> their primary duties.
>
> Hard to take them seriously about two man crews
> when there's one present and they still fail to do
> their job.
>
> Also neither train size nor weight appear to be
> contributing factors either. Most of this bill
> bill is simply a Union wishlist. Never let a
> crisis go to waste, right?
None of your anti union diatribe and/or your untrue claims about the crews perfromance answers any of those basic issues raised in the passage you quoted, which are, in fact, true.
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Unions argue the longer trains are more prone to
> problems, including breaking apart in the middle
> of a trip, and these monster trains also can clog
> rail lines, because they may extend farther than
> the current sidings for pulling off the main
> tracks."
>
> What the Union keeps ignoring is according to the
> NTSB the Journal that failed was 23 cars from the
> head end. It had been spotted flaming almost 20
> miles prior. Two people were on the head end of
> that train. What were they doing? Doesn't sound
> like they were properly inspecting their train on
> curves or whenever else possible, which is one of
> their primary duties.
>
> Hard to take them seriously about two man crews
> when there's one present and they still fail to do
> their job.
>
> Also neither train size nor weight appear to be
> contributing factors either. Most of this bill
> bill is simply a Union wishlist. Never let a
> crisis go to waste, right?
None of your anti union diatribe and/or your untrue claims about the crews perfromance answers any of those basic issues raised in the passage you quoted, which are, in fact, true.
