Norfolk Southern Cars Derail in Pittsburgh

https://www.wpxi.com/news/local/norf...BMSHVZPM5XWHII

Good thing they were empty, but these derailment seem like the new Somali pirate stories and they're only now getting coverage because of East Palestine.

A few administrations worth of folks letting Norfolk Southern off the hook. Sad.

https://www.wpxi.com/news/local/norf...BMSHVZPM5XWHII

Good thing they were empty, but these derailment seem like the new Somali pirate stories and they're only now getting coverage because of East Palestine.

A few administrations worth of folks letting Norfolk Southern off the hook. Sad. Originally Posted by HDGristle

Well, we all know regulations to help prevent these things had been put in place, but then were unceremoniously removed by the political plague of 2017-2020. Not surprising we're seeing it more often.

Well, we all know regulations to help prevent these things had been put in place, but then were unceremoniously removed by the political plague of 2017-2020. Not surprising we're seeing it more often. Originally Posted by tommy156

That's yet more false statements from you.
Why do you continue to spread misinformation like this?

What regulation that was removed or allowed to sunset caused this or any other?

Well, we all know regulations to help prevent these things had been put in place, but then were unceremoniously removed by the political plague of 2017-2020. Not surprising we're seeing it more often. Originally Posted by tommy156

Not quite. Those rules on electronic brakes would not have been relevant to the East Palenstine case which was not considered a high-hazard cargo train under that definition. Nor this one, from what I understand.

And if they were te timeline for compliance was further into 2023 I believe.

But Norfolk Southern and their lobbying have absolutely helped kill or defang any real attempts to further regulate them.

Not quite. Those rules on electronic brakes would not have been relevant to the East Palenstine case which was not considered a high-hazard cargo train under that definition. Nor this one, from what I understand.

And if they were te timeline for compliance was further into 2023 I believe.

But Norfolk Southern and their lobbying have absolutely helped kill or defang any real attempts to further regulate them. Originally Posted by HDGristle

Yeah, but if the Ohio train had been classified as a "high-hazard cargo train", the 2008-2016 guy's policy would have prevented it. Nothing the 2017-2020 guy did would have.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/feb/17/occupy-democrats/obama-era-safety-rule-high-hazard-trains-was-repea/

Yeah, but if the Ohio train had been classified as a "high-hazard cargo train" Originally Posted by tommy156

But it wasn't. So you just admitted you posted completely false information earlier in the thread about these regulations.

Yes, and why wasn't it? Because the regulations were lifted. Nothing I posted was "false information". Had the regulations still been in place, it would have had a more stringent classification. This isn't rocket science.

Eh, if the reg was in place AND it was classified as such AND the brakes were in place... sure.

However, that's 3 If's and only 1 needs to be false for the argument to fail. And even if I give you the first one as part of a hypothetical, 2 and 3 aren't correct based on those rules (weight, speed and cargo) and the timing of the brake upgrades.

Unlike others I'm not going to try to pie you in the face for it or toss it in a trophy case of hollow internet victories that inflate my ePeen and bring it up to justify my own existence.

Yes, and why wasn't it? Because the regulations were lifted. Nothing I posted was "false information". Had the regulations still been in place, it would have had a more stringent classification. This isn't rocket science. Originally Posted by tommy156

Wrong. You posted completely false information

Hell, even Gristle pointed that out

And yet only one of us bothered to explain how/why in a way that resembles a legitimate discussion or conversation.

And yet only one of us bothered to explain how/why in a way that resembles a legitimate discussion or conversation. Originally Posted by HDGristle

The information he posted was so blatantly false no explanation was needed

Your opinion is appreciated, as always.

The information he posted was so blatantly false no explanation was needed Originally Posted by berryberry

'ang on for half-a-mo there, mate.

It wasn't "blatantly false" - just his-own
OPINION based on misunderstood facts.

No need for attacks and what-not... from anybody.

... Getting tougher and tougher for fellows
to give opinions here... When quite honestly
- It Surely Shouldn't Be So Tough...

Just sayin'

#### Salty

He posted false information Salty. More than once

Doesn't matter if he misunderstood the actual facts or intentionally spread misinformation, my statement was 100% accurate. Pointing out false information is not attack on anyone.

False information is false information