Question, what you stated isn’t a question, but rather a statement. In any and all incident investigations no matter the business, one must learn that there is no such thing as an accident. What are perceived as accidents are predictable and preventable events. The five whys need to be asked to determine the root cause.

In the case of heritage program operations, one must balance the return on investment compared to the risk. Where is the risk with a heritage program? Clearly, public interest adds more members of the public that aren’t wary of railroad safety of rules written in blood. Add this risk with brazen railfans that go for extreme behavior to get the perfect picture. Tunnel vision on the part of the public can be a major factor, the fact that we all know here that equipment speed and movement can be deceptive. The misconception that railroads as portrayed by the mass media as nothing more than being a literal parallel with a road and when strikes occur, the media labels such strikes as rail-pedestrian interactions. In most cases, these are trespassing incidents, not pedestrian strikes, for which railroads must pay in and out of court settlements that they shouldn’t pay.

Having been involved in a number of railroad-road, railroad-trespass, railroad-employee injury claims, fatalities, and the like, risks aren’t really getting any smaller. Ambulance chancing lawyers love to go after perceived deep pockets, even in cases where railroads should be cleared of liability, railroads find it easier to pay. This case-law makes risk greater, drives up costs and really pushes the need for such programs to take extreme precautions. Things aren’t what they used to be, changes are inevitable. Sometimes the ROI doesn’t pencil out for companies like UP. COVID didn’t pencil out for UP based on the hiatus in 2020 as the ROI really wasn’t there in an uncertain time.