Come on now, you are hurting my one feeling! It is a feeling that is only reserved for the trains forum. It is very fragile. I am going to go sit in the corner and cry for awhile .......
This country has a choice to make. Either we are going to protect our way of life (this means that we don't train railroaders to fight terrorism and instead train them to be railroaders) or we are going to accept terrorism as a way of life. If the latter is the case then all of us will have to be trained to deal with terrorism. And all of us will be targets. Personally, I'd rather let the US Marines deal with the matter with two free hands and the biggest guns we can make.
dsktc wrote: Then both of you are imbeciles.Dave solzrules wrote: dsktc wrote: Great idea. We could invade a Middle Eastern country.But we've already done that.Dave solzrules wrote: Here's a novel idea, stop me if you've heard it, but let's say we kill the pricks before they have the chance to blow up a cyanide tank car or truck. Now I realize this may involve some proactive decisions, but I am confident that if we kill the terrorists before they kill us we won't have to worry about any of this. We could hold a Barbra Streisand concert in the middle of Houston with a million tanker cars all around have the greatest day of our lives! Just a thought from yours truly. I agree with FM. Maybe if we invaded a few more and actually conducted the invasion as a war and not a police action we wouldn't need to worry about things like this. Perhaps Babs could lead the charge in a stretched, pimped-out tank. Paris could bring up the rear and scare anyone who may think of a sneak attack.
Then both of you are imbeciles.
Dave
solzrules wrote: dsktc wrote: Great idea. We could invade a Middle Eastern country.But we've already done that.Dave solzrules wrote: Here's a novel idea, stop me if you've heard it, but let's say we kill the pricks before they have the chance to blow up a cyanide tank car or truck. Now I realize this may involve some proactive decisions, but I am confident that if we kill the terrorists before they kill us we won't have to worry about any of this. We could hold a Barbra Streisand concert in the middle of Houston with a million tanker cars all around have the greatest day of our lives! Just a thought from yours truly. I agree with FM. Maybe if we invaded a few more and actually conducted the invasion as a war and not a police action we wouldn't need to worry about things like this. Perhaps Babs could lead the charge in a stretched, pimped-out tank. Paris could bring up the rear and scare anyone who may think of a sneak attack.
dsktc wrote: Great idea. We could invade a Middle Eastern country.But we've already done that.Dave solzrules wrote: Here's a novel idea, stop me if you've heard it, but let's say we kill the pricks before they have the chance to blow up a cyanide tank car or truck. Now I realize this may involve some proactive decisions, but I am confident that if we kill the terrorists before they kill us we won't have to worry about any of this. We could hold a Barbra Streisand concert in the middle of Houston with a million tanker cars all around have the greatest day of our lives! Just a thought from yours truly.
Great idea. We could invade a Middle Eastern country.
But we've already done that.
solzrules wrote: Here's a novel idea, stop me if you've heard it, but let's say we kill the pricks before they have the chance to blow up a cyanide tank car or truck. Now I realize this may involve some proactive decisions, but I am confident that if we kill the terrorists before they kill us we won't have to worry about any of this. We could hold a Barbra Streisand concert in the middle of Houston with a million tanker cars all around have the greatest day of our lives! Just a thought from yours truly.
Here's a novel idea, stop me if you've heard it, but let's say we kill the pricks before they have the chance to blow up a cyanide tank car or truck.
Now I realize this may involve some proactive decisions, but I am confident that if we kill the terrorists before they kill us we won't have to worry about any of this. We could hold a Barbra Streisand concert in the middle of Houston with a million tanker cars all around have the greatest day of our lives!
Just a thought from yours truly.
I agree with FM. Maybe if we invaded a few more and actually conducted the invasion as a war and not a police action we wouldn't need to worry about things like this.
Perhaps Babs could lead the charge in a stretched, pimped-out tank.
Paris could bring up the rear and scare anyone who may think of a sneak attack.
Or Jakarta, Cairo, Islamabad...
carnej1 wrote: QUOTE: "Once the funding source is nuked, those of the Satanic mindset will have nothing but rocks to throw, and that'd be the end of that."- So futuremodal is advocating nuking the Saudis? Methinks that plan won't go over too well in Houston and Dallas (let alone DC)......................................
QUOTE: "Once the funding source is nuked, those of the Satanic mindset will have nothing but rocks to throw, and that'd be the end of that."- So futuremodal is advocating nuking the Saudis? Methinks that plan won't go over too well in Houston and Dallas (let alone DC)......................................
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
spokyone wrote:If a city wants to relocate tracks, that city should pay at least 90% of the cost. No federal or state grants allowed. Then let the voters decide.
If a city wants to relocate tracks, that city should pay at least 90% of the cost. No federal or state grants allowed. Then let the voters decide.
Barb's last name is actually Strei-.
CANADIANPACIFIC2816
KCSfan wrote: solzrules wrote: Here's a novel idea, stop me if you've heard it, but let's say we kill the pricks before they have the chance to blow up a cyanide tank car or truck. Now I realize this may involve some proactive decisions, but I am confident that if we kill the terrorists before they kill us we won't have to worry about any of this. We could hold a Barbra Streisand concert in the middle of Houston with a million tanker cars all around have the greatest day of our lives! Just a thought from yours truly. Hi Sol,I am still laughing. I share your logic, truly admire your ability to cut through the BS, and greatly appreciate your humor. Keep it up Big Guy. Mark
Hi Sol,
I am still laughing. I share your logic, truly admire your ability to cut through the BS, and greatly appreciate your humor. Keep it up Big Guy.
Mark
Thanks a bunch Mark. It's good to know that I am not the only one everyone thinks is nuts.....
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
Carl Prine is wrong. If I recall correctly a Federal Appeals Court judge overturned an earlier District Court judge's ban on CSX trains running through Washington, DC with hazmat materials.
The rest of the country recently got a taste of what a ban on CSX freight trains running through Washington, DC would be like, even trains that don't carry hazardous materials. When the bridge over the Anacostia River was closed for repairs CSX was forced to reroute many of its trains from the via circuitous routes over its own lines as far west as Cincinnati while a few trains detoured over the NS H Line (formerly the Norfolk & Western Shenandoah Division) and the NS B Line, Manassas - Riverton Jct., VA. These detors were expensive and time consuming so just think what would happen if CSX had to permanently reroute all of its freight trains with hazardous material around Washington, DC.
One mideast country isn't enough. We'll need to dispatch a few more before we see real results regarding terrorism. Once the funding source is nuked, those of the Satanic mindset will have nothing but rocks to throw, and that'd be the end of that.
BTW - Any chance we could get Rosie O'Donnell to sing a duet with Babs for the *climantic ending*?
Datafever wrote:Perhaps, but I dare say that it would be more difficult to determine in advance exactly what route a truck was going to take. And I would think that getting access to a truck to plant explosives would be more difficult than it would be to gain access to a train.
Perhaps, but I dare say that it would be more difficult to determine in advance exactly what route a truck was going to take. And I would think that getting access to a truck to plant explosives would be more difficult than it would be to gain access to a train.
Good point, and by the same token it's easier for the alarmists to finger point against a RR with a fixed plant .
My local community recently passed a "no thru truck" ordianance, allowing local deliveries inside the city limits only.
I think that is aimed more towards noise and congestion than it is a matter of safety, but it still parallels the spirit of the 'all non essential freight must detour around' idea, so I don't think the trucks are being ignored completely in this matter.
Datafever wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: Datafever wrote: There are significant differences between trucks and railroads. If you are going to worry about terrorists driving a truck into a metropolitan area and then exploding it, well, the terrorists would have to be able to procure the hazmat first. If a train is trundling through a metropolitan area, the bad guys only have to figure out how to cause extreme damage - they don't need to procure the hazmat because it is already where they want it. I'd have to say this same arguement would hold true for hazmat material in a truck too. Wouldn't it? Perhaps, but I dare say that it would be more difficult to determine in advance exactly what route a truck was going to take. And I would think that getting access to a truck to plant explosives would be more difficult than it would be to gain access to a train.But your point is well taken anyway.
Murphy Siding wrote: Datafever wrote: There are significant differences between trucks and railroads. If you are going to worry about terrorists driving a truck into a metropolitan area and then exploding it, well, the terrorists would have to be able to procure the hazmat first. If a train is trundling through a metropolitan area, the bad guys only have to figure out how to cause extreme damage - they don't need to procure the hazmat because it is already where they want it. I'd have to say this same arguement would hold true for hazmat material in a truck too. Wouldn't it?
Datafever wrote: There are significant differences between trucks and railroads. If you are going to worry about terrorists driving a truck into a metropolitan area and then exploding it, well, the terrorists would have to be able to procure the hazmat first. If a train is trundling through a metropolitan area, the bad guys only have to figure out how to cause extreme damage - they don't need to procure the hazmat because it is already where they want it.
There are significant differences between trucks and railroads. If you are going to worry about terrorists driving a truck into a metropolitan area and then exploding it, well, the terrorists would have to be able to procure the hazmat first. If a train is trundling through a metropolitan area, the bad guys only have to figure out how to cause extreme damage - they don't need to procure the hazmat because it is already where they want it.
I'd have to say this same arguement would hold true for hazmat material in a truck too. Wouldn't it?
But your point is well taken anyway.
Trucks can be realitively easily hijacked and stolen at any truck stop and most any commodity that is transported will eventually pass through any truck stop. Hazmat placarding, while giving emergency personnel an idea of what they are facing, also give terrorist an insight of what to hijack without having to have any inside information.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
n012944 wrote: Datafever wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: Datafever wrote: There are significant differences between trucks and railroads. If you are going to worry about terrorists driving a truck into a metropolitan area and then exploding it, well, the terrorists would have to be able to procure the hazmat first. If a train is trundling through a metropolitan area, the bad guys only have to figure out how to cause extreme damage - they don't need to procure the hazmat because it is already where they want it. I'd have to say this same arguement would hold true for hazmat material in a truck too. Wouldn't it? Perhaps, but I dare say that it would be more difficult to determine in advance exactly what route a truck was going to take. And I would think that getting access to a truck to plant explosives would be more difficult than it would be to gain access to a train. Seems pretty easy to me. All the terriorists would have to do would sit outside a chemical factory that is shipping the hazmat that they want to use. As the trucks leave they have someone with a fake police car pull over the truck and make the driver get out. Once the truck is pulled over it is very easy for a terrorist to take control and take the truck to a target of choice.Bert
Datafever wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: Datafever wrote: There are significant differences between trucks and railroads. If you are going to worry about terrorists driving a truck into a metropolitan area and then exploding it, well, the terrorists would have to be able to procure the hazmat first. If a train is trundling through a metropolitan area, the bad guys only have to figure out how to cause extreme damage - they don't need to procure the hazmat because it is already where they want it. I'd have to say this same arguement would hold true for hazmat material in a truck too. Wouldn't it? Perhaps, but I dare say that it would be more difficult to determine in advance exactly what route a truck was going to take. And I would think that getting access to a truck to plant explosives would be more difficult than it would be to gain access to a train.
Seems pretty easy to me. All the terriorists would have to do would sit outside a chemical factory that is shipping the hazmat that they want to use. As the trucks leave they have someone with a fake police car pull over the truck and make the driver get out. Once the truck is pulled over it is very easy for a terrorist to take control and take the truck to a target of choice.
Bert
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
An "expensive model collector"
The G is fully aware of such "opportunities." The U.S. Open golf tournament was held in Chicago in 2003, at Olympia Fields country club. Along the western edge of the course runs the former IC mainline (density 5 -- now CN, also used by NS, Amtrak and Metra electric trains) on a high fill. The golf course used to have its own train station, and there is a Metra station within 200 yards of the clubhouse, which has a 15-acre footprint. There were in excess of 60,000 people a day attending that golf tournament.
I am told over 60 percent of the hazmat that moves through Chicago via rail passes that location. Any hazardous materials shipments on that line that week were run at night, when the area was empty of spectators. And during the day, the trees on the fill and adjacent to the tracks were filled with federal agents wearing full camo and carrying automatic weapons. The G wanted to make sure that some sicko didn't use this international event as a stage to "make a statement."
Of course, once the event was over, the security level in the area was lowered back to normal levels.
Poppa_Zit wrote:This writer's last "save-the-world-from-itself" effort was to outlaw selling gasoline within 50 miles of a populated area.
Sounds like he's a Greenpeace recruit in the making.
bobwilcox wrote: rrnut282 wrote: How much do you want to bet that "they" didn't think about that. Many cities have dedicated truck routes to keep trucks in defined corridors away from residential neighborhoods and downtown. Now someone thinks that they can apply the same to railroads. I'm with Tree68, it's WAY TOO EASY do drive a truckload right to the target. Remember, it was only a small to medium sized straight truck parked on the street that brought down the building in Oklahoma City.Think about trucks delivering gasoline. Gasoline is about as hazordous as it gets and their is a gas station near you.
rrnut282 wrote: How much do you want to bet that "they" didn't think about that. Many cities have dedicated truck routes to keep trucks in defined corridors away from residential neighborhoods and downtown. Now someone thinks that they can apply the same to railroads. I'm with Tree68, it's WAY TOO EASY do drive a truckload right to the target. Remember, it was only a small to medium sized straight truck parked on the street that brought down the building in Oklahoma City.
How much do you want to bet that "they" didn't think about that.
Many cities have dedicated truck routes to keep trucks in defined corridors away from residential neighborhoods and downtown. Now someone thinks that they can apply the same to railroads. I'm with Tree68, it's WAY TOO EASY do drive a truckload right to the target. Remember, it was only a small to medium sized straight truck parked on the street that brought down the building in Oklahoma City.
Think about trucks delivering gasoline. Gasoline is about as hazordous as it gets and their is a gas station near you.
Isn't that my point? Why worry about RR's which require specific knowledge to operate and/or bypass the fail-safes built into the system when it's much easier to (learn how to )drive a truck. By the way, the nearest gas station is about 1.7 miles away. It would have to be a big boom to break out the windows of my house. One year from now, I'll have a 100M gallon/year ethanol plant .25 miles away on the other side of the mainline. What, me worry?
futuremodal wrote:If only AG's fantasy about the predecessors to those aforementioned railroads having also paid at least 90% of their construction costs, then at least he'd have a leg to stand on with his DM&E bashing.AG, you're legless.
If only AG's fantasy about the predecessors to those aforementioned railroads having also paid at least 90% of their construction costs, then at least he'd have a leg to stand on with his DM&E bashing.
AG, you're legless.
Legless? I think you've become totally detached.
If the other poster wants to play "let them pay as they go", in angst against the nimbys then lets level the playing field completely, and treat RR's the same way. One good turn deserrves the other.
As for your speculation that i was trying to favor the other railroads you list ,FM you are baseless as well as toothless . I was just making an "anti-anti-nimby" rant, nothing more
And while gasoline may cause quite an explosion, there is little cause for concern beyond the immediate blast area. For many chemicals, the problem is not the explosiveness, but the airborne pollution.
rrnut282 wrote:How much do you want to bet that "they" didn't think about that. Many cities have dedicated truck routes to keep trucks in defined corridors away from residential neighborhoods and downtown. Now someone thinks that they can apply the same to railroads. I'm with Tree68, it's WAY TOO EASY do drive a truckload right to the target. Remember, it was only a small to medium sized straight truck parked on the street that brought down the building in Oklahoma City.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.