lol jesus
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
He is a mad man, stop him.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
WHY??????????????????????
-
Because brakes are not responsible for most derailments. Sagging or corroded tracks are.
-
Still no reason to remove safeguards
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So the next train wreck that creates an environmental disaster should trigger major lawsuits against the administration?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But why. What possible positive impact could rolling back have?
-
it saves train companies money at the price of some future disaster that wouldve been prevented corporate greed working as intended
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
the benefit is not having a train car blow up next to people's homes. but i guess since trains rarely run through affluent white neighborhoods then fuck'em, right?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If the AAR, and FRA are against it, it was a stupid idea to start with. Those guys have never met a rule or regulation they didnt like.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How much more a gallon are you willing to pay for this?? Also "brakes" are not the problem.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Holy shit, it's already caused a giant smokestack!!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.