Quote: Originally Posted by manda Quote: Originally Posted by I think notObviously something was missed during the inspection, therefore somebody didn't do their job right, negligence in all of it's glory. If they can't repair and maintain the rails that quickly, they should not have been used until repairs over the whole track were done...and the inspections should have been more thorough. Now there is a huge health threat for the residents, and a ginormous fish kill because somebody thought that their job was a cake walk.
I can't see why it is Manda. CN Rail just bought BC Rail, how do you expect a company to maintain and fix decades of apparent neglect in less than a year. Plus that rail was inspected 3 months ago. So explain how CN Rail should be accused of criminal negligence.
I see, and all these derailments should be subject to criminal negligence, including when the government owned CN Rail, right?
Maple, Ont. -- November 1998, about 350 workers at a CN Rail yard are evacuated when three cars derail, one containing anhydrous ammonia. No one is hurt.
Foleyet, Ont. -- June 1996, about 350 residents are evacuated. Two of 18 derailed CN cars carried anhydrous ammonia, but there is no leak.
Humboldt, Sask. -- November 1995, 5,000 residents advised to stay inside after CN train derails. Three cars are carrying anhydrous ammonia, but none leak.
Brandon, Man. -- October 1995, about 1,000 people flee a mall and surrounding businesses after a tanker truck carrying anhydrous ammonia flips and starts leaking.
Bonfield, Ont. -- February 1995, about 20 people evacuate their homes after nine cars of a CP Rail train leave the tracks. Two cars carry anhydrous ammonia, but there is no leak.
Longlac, Ont. -- May 1992, about 1,500 people are forced from their homes for three days after a CN Rail derailment involving a leak of anhydrous ammonia.