To answer your previous point,
Yes - it would be worse to have a derailement instead.
Case in point that supports your arguement:
The section of track from White River Jct to Bellows Falls that the T2000 sh_t canned on the NECR is the same section of track where the recent derailment in Hartland, VT occurred.
Case in point that support the CSX Conductor point of view:
So do you think the NECR fixed the track after the T2000 visit or just reduced the track speed????? Ask anyone with an NECR Track Bulletin.
There is no mention of "new" rail or tamping being done. But there is a reduction from 40 MPH to 25 MPH.
Again - its a bain, a necessary evil. Never said it was unjust or unnecessary. Railroads in the northeast are all struggling to make a profit, so every bump in the road hurts. Unfortunately sometimes they take a calculated risk and defer track maintenance. Another problem is the economics and politics of track maintenance. Being proactive and repairing track requires a large capital outlay, and thus someone higher up, be it stockholders or whomever, need to be convinced the $1 million+ is justified. Yet at the same time a derailment gets covered by insurance so the costs don't come out of the same operating or capital budget.
Yes its silly (sometimes unsafe) but its the same anywhere in the corporate world. How long did Firestone wait to fix their tires? How many Ford Pintos burned before they changed the gas-tanks? Why does Microsoft software have bugs? In any business, there is pressure to save money and thus an ill-effect can be to cut corners and take risks. Its an evil of the capitalist society we live in.