Early Sunday June 11 2023, a fire destroyed a section of the I-95
elevated structure through Philadelphia.

This structure had been reconstructed in a $212 million project that
ended in 2019.

There was a crash involving a tanker truck filled with flammable fuel on
a ramp beneath the structure; the fuel caught fire. The northbound
portion was destroy; the southbound portion partially destroyed and
probably isn't salvagable.

Over the years, there has been hysteria about "bomb trains" filled with
flammables or volatiles moving through central cities or metropolitan
areas (because cities grew up around railroads and that's where the
tracks are). Railroads are now required to install new signalling
systems for this kind of traffic. There are no restrictions whatsoever
on how tanker trucks get routed. They can be driven on local streets
right through center city.

The less this type of fuel can be moved on railroads, the more that's on
highways.

I'm still waiting for the news story that this is the fault of the
Shazam! kids. Again.

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 11:01:42 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Early Sunday June 11 2023, a fire destroyed a section of the I-95
> elevated structure through Philadelphia.
>
> This structure had been reconstructed in a $212 million project that
> ended in 2019.
>
> There was a crash involving a tanker truck filled with flammable fuel on
> a ramp beneath the structure; the fuel caught fire. The northbound
> portion was destroy; the southbound portion partially destroyed and
> probably isn't salvagable.

The Biden administration contracts with Chinese firm to rebuild Philadelphia overpass in 43 hours
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygu73eI4lJQ

tags: just kidding, it will take months to complete the American Way

------------

keep a song in your heart !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EvGn22Mplg

On 2023-06-13 11:01 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Early Sunday June 11 2023, a fire destroyed a section of the I-95
> elevated structure through Philadelphia.
>
> This structure had been reconstructed in a $212 million project that
> ended in 2019.
>
> There was a crash involving a tanker truck filled with flammable fuel on
> a ramp beneath the structure; the fuel caught fire. The northbound
> portion was destroy; the southbound portion partially destroyed and
> probably isn't salvagable.
>
> Over the years, there has been hysteria about "bomb trains" filled with
> flammables or volatiles moving through central cities or metropolitan
> areas (because cities grew up around railroads and that's where the
> tracks are). Railroads are now required to install new signalling
> systems for this kind of traffic. There are no restrictions whatsoever
> on how tanker trucks get routed. They can be driven on local streets
> right through center city.

We had a very comparable incident on the 401, just west of
Toronto/Mississauga/Brampton in the 90s. A drunk driver rear-ended a
gasoline tanker which caused the tanker to blow up when the gas ignited.
It was under the James Snow Bridge at the time, which was only a few
years old at the time. The explosion damaged the bridge so badly that it
had to be replaced entirely. There was also damage done to the 401,
which is unquestionably the main thoroughfare in southern Ontario,
causing detours around the site of the explosion that snarled traffic
for some time. The real tragedy though was that the tanker driver was
incinerated while the drunk driver had only minor injuries. (I never
heard what charges were laid against the drunk but I'm sure they were
nowhere near as severe as the suffering of the tanker driver.)
>
> The less this type of fuel can be moved on railroads, the more that's on
> highways.
>
Putting flammable cargoes on rail doesn't necessarily preclude the
possibility of catastrophes either. This disaster caused 25 deaths and
burned up much of the core of a small town in Quebec:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster

There were no fatalities in this one but 200,000 people had to be
evacuated from a major city:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Mississauga_train_derailment

> I'm still waiting for the news story that this is the fault of the
> Shazam! kids. Again.

Is that a euphemism for something?

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>On 2023-06-13 11:01 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Early Sunday June 11 2023, a fire destroyed a section of the I-95
>> elevated structure through Philadelphia.
>>
>> This structure had been reconstructed in a $212 million project that
>> ended in 2019.
>>
>> There was a crash involving a tanker truck filled with flammable fuel on
>> a ramp beneath the structure; the fuel caught fire. The northbound
>> portion was destroy; the southbound portion partially destroyed and
>> probably isn't salvagable.
>>
>> Over the years, there has been hysteria about "bomb trains" filled with
>> flammables or volatiles moving through central cities or metropolitan
>> areas (because cities grew up around railroads and that's where the
>> tracks are). Railroads are now required to install new signalling
>> systems for this kind of traffic. There are no restrictions whatsoever
>> on how tanker trucks get routed. They can be driven on local streets
>> right through center city.
>
>We had a very comparable incident on the 401, just west of
>Toronto/Mississauga/Brampton in the 90s. A drunk driver rear-ended a
>gasoline tanker which caused the tanker to blow up when the gas ignited.
>It was under the James Snow Bridge at the time, which was only a few
>years old at the time. The explosion damaged the bridge so badly that it
>had to be replaced entirely. There was also damage done to the 401,
>which is unquestionably the main thoroughfare in southern Ontario,
>causing detours around the site of the explosion that snarled traffic
>for some time. The real tragedy though was that the tanker driver was
>incinerated while the drunk driver had only minor injuries. (I never
>heard what charges were laid against the drunk but I'm sure they were
>nowhere near as severe as the suffering of the tanker driver.)
>>
>> The less this type of fuel can be moved on railroads, the more that's on
>> highways.

>Putting flammable cargoes on rail doesn't necessarily preclude the
>possibility of catastrophes either.

No, it doesn't. The point is to mitigate risk, not to increase. Which
has the greater risk of going wrong?

>This disaster caused 25 deaths and
>burned up much of the core of a small town in Quebec:

I have written extensively about Lac Magantic, but that was the fault of
an engineer with two decades of experience who damn well knew how to
properly tie down the train, failing to do so. Also, various brakes on
the locomotive weren't properly maintained, but that doesn't matter.
That's why the rules required that so many brakes be tied down. A
railroad is a harsh operating environment.

Despite entirely avoidable collisions like that, railroads are a far
safer operating environment than highways.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster

>There were no fatalities in this one but 200,000 people had to be
>evacuated from a major city:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Mississauga_train_derailment

Ok

>>I'm still waiting for the news story that this is the fault of the
>>Shazam! kids. Again.

>Is that a euphemism for something?

It's not a euphemism at all.

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 12:50:45 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
> >On 2023-06-13 11:01 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >> Early Sunday June 11 2023, a fire destroyed a section of the I-95
> >> elevated structure through Philadelphia.
> >>
> >> This structure had been reconstructed in a $212 million project that
> >> ended in 2019.
> >>
> >> There was a crash involving a tanker truck filled with flammable fuel on
> >> a ramp beneath the structure; the fuel caught fire. The northbound
> >> portion was destroy; the southbound portion partially destroyed and
> >> probably isn't salvagable.
> >>
> >> Over the years, there has been hysteria about "bomb trains" filled with
> >> flammables or volatiles moving through central cities or metropolitan
> >> areas (because cities grew up around railroads and that's where the
> >> tracks are). Railroads are now required to install new signalling
> >> systems for this kind of traffic. There are no restrictions whatsoever
> >> on how tanker trucks get routed. They can be driven on local streets
> >> right through center city.
> >
> >We had a very comparable incident on the 401, just west of
> >Toronto/Mississauga/Brampton in the 90s. A drunk driver rear-ended a
> >gasoline tanker which caused the tanker to blow up when the gas ignited.
> >It was under the James Snow Bridge at the time, which was only a few
> >years old at the time. The explosion damaged the bridge so badly that it
> >had to be replaced entirely. There was also damage done to the 401,
> >which is unquestionably the main thoroughfare in southern Ontario,
> >causing detours around the site of the explosion that snarled traffic
> >for some time. The real tragedy though was that the tanker driver was
> >incinerated while the drunk driver had only minor injuries. (I never
> >heard what charges were laid against the drunk but I'm sure they were
> >nowhere near as severe as the suffering of the tanker driver.)
> >>
> >> The less this type of fuel can be moved on railroads, the more that's on
> >> highways.
>
> >Putting flammable cargoes on rail doesn't necessarily preclude the
> >possibility of catastrophes either.
> No, it doesn't. The point is to mitigate risk, not to increase. Which
> has the greater risk of going wrong?
> >This disaster caused 25 deaths and
> >burned up much of the core of a small town in Quebec:

> I have written extensively about Lac Magantic

>
> Despite entirely avoidable collisions like that, railroads are a far
> safer operating environment than highways.
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster

> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Mississauga_train_derailment

> >Is that a euphemism for something?

Palestine residents live in limbo months after fiery train derailment
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/east-palestine-residents-live-in-limbo-months-after-fiery-train-derailment

On 2023-06-13 12:50 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-06-13 11:01 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Early Sunday June 11 2023, a fire destroyed a section of the I-95
>>> elevated structure through Philadelphia.
>>>
>>> This structure had been reconstructed in a $212 million project that
>>> ended in 2019.
>>>
>>> There was a crash involving a tanker truck filled with flammable fuel on
>>> a ramp beneath the structure; the fuel caught fire. The northbound
>>> portion was destroy; the southbound portion partially destroyed and
>>> probably isn't salvagable.
>>>
>>> Over the years, there has been hysteria about "bomb trains" filled with
>>> flammables or volatiles moving through central cities or metropolitan
>>> areas (because cities grew up around railroads and that's where the
>>> tracks are). Railroads are now required to install new signalling
>>> systems for this kind of traffic. There are no restrictions whatsoever
>>> on how tanker trucks get routed. They can be driven on local streets
>>> right through center city.
>>
>> We had a very comparable incident on the 401, just west of
>> Toronto/Mississauga/Brampton in the 90s. A drunk driver rear-ended a
>> gasoline tanker which caused the tanker to blow up when the gas ignited.
>> It was under the James Snow Bridge at the time, which was only a few
>> years old at the time. The explosion damaged the bridge so badly that it
>> had to be replaced entirely. There was also damage done to the 401,
>> which is unquestionably the main thoroughfare in southern Ontario,
>> causing detours around the site of the explosion that snarled traffic
>> for some time. The real tragedy though was that the tanker driver was
>> incinerated while the drunk driver had only minor injuries. (I never
>> heard what charges were laid against the drunk but I'm sure they were
>> nowhere near as severe as the suffering of the tanker driver.)
>>>
>>> The less this type of fuel can be moved on railroads, the more that's on
>>> highways.
>
>> Putting flammable cargoes on rail doesn't necessarily preclude the
>> possibility of catastrophes either.
>
> No, it doesn't. The point is to mitigate risk, not to increase. Which
> has the greater risk of going wrong?
>
It depends on which statistician you ask ;-) If they have an agenda,
they will find whatever data best supports that agenda.

>> This disaster caused 25 deaths and
>> burned up much of the core of a small town in Quebec:
>
> I have written extensively about Lac Magantic, but that was the fault of
> an engineer with two decades of experience who damn well knew how to
> properly tie down the train, failing to do so. Also, various brakes on
> the locomotive weren't properly maintained, but that doesn't matter.
> That's why the rules required that so many brakes be tied down. A
> railroad is a harsh operating environment.
>
> Despite entirely avoidable collisions like that, railroads are a far
> safer operating environment than highways.
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster
>
>> There were no fatalities in this one but 200,000 people had to be
>> evacuated from a major city:
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Mississauga_train_derailment
>
> Ok
>
>>> I'm still waiting for the news story that this is the fault of the
>>> Shazam! kids. Again.
>
>> Is that a euphemism for something?
>
> It's not a euphemism at all.

Then who are the Shazam! kids? I vaguely remember a show called Shazam!
from 30 or 40 years ago but never saw it and have no idea what
connection any Shazam! kids have to overpasses collapsing. In other
words, your reference went completely over my head :-)

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>. . .

>Then who are the Shazam! kids? . . .

I made a reference to a plot point in the two recent Shazam! movies.

In article <u6a0ch$3ker9$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Early Sunday June 11 2023, a fire destroyed a section of the I-95
> elevated structure through Philadelphia.
>
> This structure had been reconstructed in a $212 million project that
> ended in 2019.
>
> There was a crash involving a tanker truck filled with flammable fuel on
> a ramp beneath the structure; the fuel caught fire. The northbound
> portion was destroy; the southbound portion partially destroyed and
> probably isn't salvagable.
>
> Over the years, there has been hysteria about "bomb trains" filled with
> flammables or volatiles moving through central cities or metropolitan
> areas (because cities grew up around railroads and that's where the
> tracks are). Railroads are now required to install new signalling
> systems for this kind of traffic. There are no restrictions whatsoever
> on how tanker trucks get routed. They can be driven on local streets
> right through center city.
>
> The less this type of fuel can be moved on railroads, the more that's on
> highways.
>
> I'm still waiting for the news story that this is the fault of the
> Shazam! kids. Again.

The "everyone needs to ride bikes everywhere" nazis are do celebration
dances over the loss of I-95. They think this means Philly will turn
into a bike-only town now or something.

> BTR1701
> > Adam H. Kerman
> >
> > Early Sunday June 11 2023, a fire destroyed a section of the I-95
> > elevated structure through Philadelphia.
>
> The "everyone needs to ride bikes everywhere" nazis are do celebration
> dances over the loss of I-95. They think this means Philly will turn
> into a bike-only town now or something.

Not likely, as there's nowhere to stash your Draco on a bike.

> Rhino
> > Adam H. Kerman
> >
> > There was a crash involving a tanker truck filled with flammable fuel on
> > a ramp beneath the structure; the fuel caught fire. The northbound
> > portion was destroy; the southbound portion partially destroyed and
> > probably isn't salvagable.
>
> We had a very comparable incident on the 401, just west of
> Toronto/Mississauga/Brampton in the 90s. A drunk driver rear-ended a
> gasoline tanker which caused the tanker to blow up when the gas ignited.

I remember years back when they banned double tanker trucks in Michigan,
in part because of an incident in my home town, where the truck pulled into
a gas station too fast and the 2nd tanker trailer tipped over onto a car and
burst into flames, killing the people in the car.

https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.8d622a1d739b09b4e0e578bbb84853c4?rik=iHuuPG9%2fAhuOSw&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

On 6/13/2023 8:01 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Early Sunday June 11 2023, a fire destroyed a section of the I-95
> elevated structure through Philadelphia.
>
> This structure had been reconstructed in a $212 million project that
> ended in 2019.
>
> There was a crash involving a tanker truck filled with flammable fuel on
> a ramp beneath the structure; the fuel caught fire. The northbound
> portion was destroy; the southbound portion partially destroyed and
> probably isn't salvagable.
>
> Over the years, there has been hysteria about "bomb trains" filled with
> flammables or volatiles moving through central cities or metropolitan
> areas (because cities grew up around railroads and that's where the
> tracks are). Railroads are now required to install new signalling
> systems for this kind of traffic. There are no restrictions whatsoever
> on how tanker trucks get routed. They can be driven on local streets
> right through center city.
>
> The less this type of fuel can be moved on railroads, the more that's on
> highways.
>
> I'm still waiting for the news story that this is the fault of the
> Shazam! kids. Again.

There was a similar incident not that long ago in the SF Bay Area in
"The Maze", an area where multiple highways intersect just east of The
Bay Bridge. Snarled traffic for years afterwards.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:22:26 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>Putting flammable cargoes on rail doesn't necessarily preclude the
>possibility of catastrophes either. This disaster caused 25 deaths and
>burned up much of the core of a small town in Quebec:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster
>
>There were no fatalities in this one but 200,000 people had to be
>evacuated from a major city:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Mississauga_train_derailment
>
>
>> I'm still waiting for the news story that this is the fault of the
>> Shazam! kids. Again.
>
>Is that a euphemism for something?
>
Two points:
(1) I didn't have to read your URL to know which Quebec town had half
its downtown fried when a freight train's brakes failed at the top of
a hill and the derailment took out most of that town's main street

(2) the Mississauga derailment caused the evacuation of 200,000+
people and was the largest evacuation in North America until Katrina.

My future wife was a struggling early 20-something printer's courier
who made illegal runs into the evacuation zone to remove printing that
had been completed but not yet delivered to customers outside the
evacuation zone. While I'm from Vancouver she told me all about her
experiences during the evacuation several times and in detail.

(I most recently heard it discussed in a public meeting where the
proposal was to build a liquid hydrogen plant next door to a chlorine
plant both served by rail. Obviously the concern was more with moving
the liquids to and from the rails and a possible collision on the
tracks. It was NOT comforting to be told that the chlorine plant is
slated for closure in 2030.....the whole thing would probably be fine
if they were a block away from each other but next door neighbors?!?)

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 13:07:47 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>> Putting flammable cargoes on rail doesn't necessarily preclude the
>>> possibility of catastrophes either.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. The point is to mitigate risk, not to increase. Which
>> has the greater risk of going wrong?
>>
>It depends on which statistician you ask ;-) If they have an agenda,
>they will find whatever data best supports that agenda.
>
>>> This disaster caused 25 deaths and
>>> burned up much of the core of a small town in Quebec:
>>
All bets are off when it's human error which Lac Magantic CERTAINLY
was.

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 15:01:38 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Early Sunday June 11 2023, a fire destroyed a section of the I-95
>elevated structure through Philadelphia.
>
>This structure had been reconstructed in a $212 million project that
>ended in 2019.
>
>There was a crash involving a tanker truck filled with flammable fuel on
>a ramp beneath the structure; the fuel caught fire. The northbound
>portion was destroy; the southbound portion partially destroyed and
>probably isn't salvagable.
>
>Over the years, there has been hysteria about "bomb trains" filled with
>flammables or volatiles moving through central cities or metropolitan
>areas (because cities grew up around railroads and that's where the
>tracks are). Railroads are now required to install new signalling
>systems for this kind of traffic. There are no restrictions whatsoever
>on how tanker trucks get routed. They can be driven on local streets
>right through center city.
>
>The less this type of fuel can be moved on railroads, the more that's on
>highways.
>
>I'm still waiting for the news story that this is the fault of the
>Shazam! kids. Again.

The only oddity in this case is that there has been zero information
as to what exactly and how this happened. Interestingly no one is
asking either.

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:17:02 AM UTC-5, NoBody wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 15:01:38 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >Early Sunday June 11 2023, a fire destroyed a section of the I-95
> >elevated structure through Philadelphia.
> >
> >This structure had been reconstructed in a $212 million project that
> >ended in 2019.
> >
> >There was a crash involving a tanker truck filled with flammable fuel on
> >a ramp beneath the structure; the fuel caught fire. The northbound
> >portion was destroy; the southbound portion partially destroyed and
> >probably isn't salvagable.
> >
> >Over the years, there has been hysteria about "bomb trains" filled with
> >flammables or volatiles moving through central cities or metropolitan
> >areas (because cities grew up around railroads and that's where the
> >tracks are). Railroads are now required to install new signalling
> >systems for this kind of traffic. There are no restrictions whatsoever
> >on how tanker trucks get routed. They can be driven on local streets
> >right through center city.
> >
> >The less this type of fuel can be moved on railroads, the more that's on
> >highways.
> >
> >I'm still waiting for the news story that this is the fault of the
> >Shazam! kids. Again.
> The only oddity in this case is that there has been zero information
> as to what exactly and how this happened. Interestingly no one is
> asking either.

No names of company or driver.

In article <u6a0ch$3ker9$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Over the years, there has been hysteria about "bomb trains" filled with
> flammables or volatiles moving through central cities or metropolitan
> areas (because cities grew up around railroads and that's where the
> tracks are). Railroads are now required to install new signalling
> systems for this kind of traffic. There are no restrictions whatsoever
> on how tanker trucks get routed. They can be driven on local streets
> right through center city.

There was a story on the local news today about trains that just stop
willy-nilly on the tracks for several hours -- sometimes a day at a time
in some neighborhoods -- and sometimes blocking first responders from
rendering help to people who live in the affected neighborhoods. This
goes on all over the country according to the report.

A former Democratic congressman (he was gerrymandered out of existence
by the state legislature) said he once introduced a bill to penalize any
railroad company that does that, but they just laughed at him because
they said they "own congress." He said the best he could do was get a
bill through forcing them to keep up with the times it happens, so that
might "shame them into doing something about it."

Since it still goes on all the time he said that apparently wasn't
enough.

super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>Over the years, there has been hysteria about "bomb trains" filled with
>>flammables or volatiles moving through central cities or metropolitan
>>areas (because cities grew up around railroads and that's where the
>>tracks are). Railroads are now required to install new signalling
>>systems for this kind of traffic. There are no restrictions whatsoever
>>on how tanker trucks get routed. They can be driven on local streets
>>right through center city.

>There was a story on the local news today about trains that just stop
>willy-nilly on the tracks for several hours -- sometimes a day at a time
>in some neighborhoods -- and sometimes blocking first responders from
>rendering help to people who live in the affected neighborhoods. This
>goes on all over the country according to the report.

The likely railroad existed since the mid to late 19th century. A
community is obligated to plan the siting of fire stations based on the
likelihood of blocked grade crossing then build accordingly, or pay for
the grade separation at specific locations, or both. If you need fire
house on the other side of the tracks, then pay for it. Don't blame the
railroad.

That being said, yes, a properly controlled railroad keeps trains
rolling and doesn't leave them sitting idle for hours at a time.

>A former Democratic congressman (he was gerrymandered out of existence
>by the state legislature) said he once introduced a bill to penalize any
>railroad company that does that, but they just laughed at him because
>they said they "own congress." He said the best he could do was get a
>bill through forcing them to keep up with the times it happens, so that
>might "shame them into doing something about it."

Nevertheless, states have passed laws that fine railroads for
unreasonable delays. This doesn't require national legislation.

>Since it still goes on all the time he said that apparently wasn't
>enough.

Why aren't state highway departments paying fines for chronic occurances
of congested highways given that highways were built with the promise
that they would generally be free from congestion and we didn't need all
that freight traffic to move on railroads? Or are you personally being
your usual hypocrital self?

In article <u6i7ke$sq1l$2@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> >Since it still goes on all the time he said that apparently wasn't
> >enough.
>
> Why aren't state highway departments paying fines for chronic occurances
> of congested highways given that highways were built with the promise
> that they would generally be free from congestion and we didn't need all
> that freight traffic to move on railroads? Or are you personally being
> your usual hypocrital self?

You just couldn't post without some uncalled for hostility at the end
could you.

Maybe a therapist and/or some meds could help.

On 6/16/2023 10:54 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>> Over the years, there has been hysteria about "bomb trains" filled with
>>> flammables or volatiles moving through central cities or metropolitan
>>> areas (because cities grew up around railroads and that's where the
>>> tracks are). Railroads are now required to install new signalling
>>> systems for this kind of traffic. There are no restrictions whatsoever
>>> on how tanker trucks get routed. They can be driven on local streets
>>> right through center city.
>
>> There was a story on the local news today about trains that just stop
>> willy-nilly on the tracks for several hours -- sometimes a day at a time
>> in some neighborhoods -- and sometimes blocking first responders from
>> rendering help to people who live in the affected neighborhoods. This
>> goes on all over the country according to the report.
>
> The likely railroad existed since the mid to late 19th century. A
> community is obligated to plan the siting of fire stations based on the
> likelihood of blocked grade crossing then build accordingly, or pay for
> the grade separation at specific locations, or both. If you need fire
> house on the other side of the tracks, then pay for it. Don't blame the
> railroad.
>
> That being said, yes, a properly controlled railroad keeps trains
> rolling and doesn't leave them sitting idle for hours at a time.
>
That reminds me of a story I heard. My father was on a business trip to
the middle of nowhere Australia and was in the local bar. Said bar was
next to a one-line railroad track that went from A to B without being
connected to any other lines. A dispatcher for the railroad comes in
and asks if anyone has seen the train. He's literally lost the only
train on a single track that only goes between two points. Later it was
found that the engineer had simply stopped the train near a bar in
another wide spot in the road town and was having a few drinks. :D

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 6/16/2023 12:04 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 6/16/2023 10:54 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Over the years, there has been hysteria about "bomb trains" filled with
>>>> flammables or volatiles moving through central cities or metropolitan
>>>> areas (because cities grew up around railroads and that's where the
>>>> tracks are). Railroads are now required to install new signalling
>>>> systems for this kind of traffic. There are no restrictions whatsoever
>>>> on how tanker trucks get routed. They can be driven on local streets
>>>> right through center city.
>>
>>> There was a story on the local news today about trains that just stop
>>> willy-nilly on the tracks for several hours -- sometimes a day at a time
>>> in some neighborhoods -- and sometimes blocking first responders from
>>> rendering help to people who live in the affected neighborhoods. This
>>> goes on all over the country according to the report.
>>
>> The likely railroad existed since the mid to late 19th century. A
>> community is obligated to plan the siting of fire stations based on the
>> likelihood of blocked grade crossing then build accordingly, or pay for
>> the grade separation at specific locations, or both. If you need fire
>> house on the other side of the tracks, then pay for it. Don't blame the
>> railroad.
>>
>> That being said, yes, a properly controlled railroad keeps trains
>> rolling and doesn't leave them sitting idle for hours at a time.
>>
> That reminds me of a story I heard.  My father was on a business trip to
> the middle of nowhere Australia and was in the local bar.  Said bar was
> next to a one-line railroad track that went from A to B without being
> connected to any other lines.  A dispatcher for the railroad comes in
> and asks if anyone has seen the train.  He's literally lost the only
> train on a single track that only goes between two points.  Later it was
> found that the engineer had simply stopped the train near a bar in
> another wide spot in the road town and was having a few drinks.  :D
>
That would relieve the boredom.

super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>Since it still goes on all the time he said that apparently wasn't
>>>enough.

>>Why aren't state highway departments paying fines for chronic occurances
>>of congested highways given that highways were built with the promise
>>that they would generally be free from congestion and we didn't need all
>>that freight traffic to move on railroads? Or are you personally being
>>your usual hypocrital self?

>You just couldn't post without some uncalled for hostility at the end
>could you.

Oh no. I didn't have any in the post, but you were being such a
hypocrite I decided to add it.

>Maybe a therapist and/or some meds could help.

How does that solve your problem?