Canadian Railroads > CN opposed :unattended crude" rules

The Financial Post has an article asserting that CN Rail opposed emergency rules drawn up after Lac-Megantic requiring that crude oil be attended or in yards during transit. The memo, obtained by Greenpeace, an opponent of fossil fuels, expresses a position that it would be nearly impossible to implement the rules.

The revised and current rules, drafted by the railway industry according to the article, dropped the requirement that the crude be attended.



http://business.financialpost.com/2014/01/10/cnrail-lac-megantic/

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Financial Post has an article asserting that
> CN Rail opposed emergency rules drawn up after
> Lac-Megantic requiring that crude oil be attended
> or in yards during transit. The memo, obtained by
> Greenpeace, an opponent of fossil fuels, expresses
> a position that it would be nearly impossible to
> implement the rules.
>
> The revised and current rules, drafted by the
> railway industry according to the article, dropped
> the requirement that the crude be attended.

If Greenpeace thought they found a "smoking gun" they didn't. They have no clue, just like the average person, of how the large railroads operate. Maybe they thought CN only used one man crews too.

One of the comments shows most peoples ignorance...two conductors???


Allen

Maybe, although I suspect GreenPeace's interest was showing that the Transportation Minister is a tool of the railways and energy interests. Even at what they consider to be the demonstrated public interest after Lac-Megantic.

(FWIW, I though the original emergency rules were way too knee-jerk, and fully expected the rail industry would propose moderate rule changes. It did seem that Ms Raitt caved in pretty quickly, though.)

The easiest rule would be no more oil trains and you work your way down from there. Rules should be safety based not agenda based.
If you don't like use of fossil fuels then work to ban them. Using safety based on a agenda whether is fracking, rail safety, pipeline safety eventually hurt the agenda as people see through the scheme.

Bob

robj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Using safety based on a agenda whether
> is fracking, rail safety, pipeline safety
> eventually hurt the agenda as people see through
> the scheme.
>
We see this playing out with the Enbridge pipeline spill into the Kalamazoo River. Enbridge continues to ask for extensions. Yet outside of the immediate area, nobody ever hears about it.

http://www.epa.gov/region05/enbridgespill/

d.