Afer re-reading my post, I can understand your response to my post.
What I did not make clear is that government mandated "regulations" cost money to implement.
The 5th amendment states,
"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
In the Supreme Court decision of 2000, Nixon v. Shrink, Justice Stevens stated,
"I make one simple. Money is property."
Without some kind of "compensation" mechanism being included with the laws authorizing such regulations for the public use of "safety," then such regulations take money from private property owners for the public use without compensation and thus are unconstitutional.
If the citizens want "safety," the citizens are going to have to pay for it directly with their taxes.
"The Court said that requiring money to be spent to comply with a safety regulation is not an unconstitutional taking of property, even if the amount of money exceeded the value of the property. The Court said that a property owner 'has no property right to be exempt from fire safety laws.'"
This quote is describing the outcome of Third & Catalina Associates v. City of Phoenix, apparently a case dealing with a building which was to be updated to a more recent fire code but it would have cost more than the building's worth to remove the asbestos used originally. It seems fairly comparable to me -- with these train cars (and also the trucks I mentioned earlier) the government (rightly or wrongly) is expecting businesses to spend money without compensation to bring their property up to an expected level of compliance with regulations.