Having participated in the rule making process for several years when I was a minor BLE official, it sounded like you were speaking from the same situation. I was a registered commenter, which is required to participate in the process, and you have to have a bona fide reason to be a commenter. After retiring several years ago, I assume this has expired (for me). Thus, I for one no loner consider myself and the rest of us little guys as part of "we who participate in changing statutes and regulations" because we are for all intents and purposes outside of the rule making process. Flapping one's gums on the media or flicking fickle fingers over fancy keyboards in chat rooms etc. doesn't count.

I knew Sanchez because of having him as a re-entry engineer for a few trips, and he was a total f***ing flake. Atk was warned by many OP people of this, and I suspect Atk was relieved when he went to Metrolink/Veolia (I also suspect the BNSF was glad when he went to Atk).

So now I have some questions for YOU: why did the person chairing the investigation into his accident declare, before even banging the gavel to open the first meeting, that signal visibility was not even going to be be considered. This in the face of the dismal visibility history of the incandescent colorlight type signals involved? Second: why did Metrolink quietly change all of this type of signal on its system to LED colorlight types within two weeks after said accident? The visibility of LED colorlight signals is not an issue.