He's a pretty sensationalism seeking Times reporter. Didn't sound much like Boxer had many facts and was ambushed on the "outrageous" news that there wasn't fireman on every run, that always makes for good copy. She's an old friend of UTU and somewhat susceptible to a view that two sets of eyes are actually any better.

The caveat on this policy by Metrolink, has been wheere possible and where warranted, they would place the second man. And, there are probably some locations and on train size that make sense.

I suspect that the FRA probably thinks it's nonsense, given the two sets of eyes is safer hypothesis is not supported by much evidence. Could it be that the sleepiness, boredom, distracting conversation can make the second set of eyes useless, or even distracting, and has little or no effect on overall safety or rules compliance? If you think this is not true, then try firing helpers for a couple of years? And, of course, several "second sets of eyes" of Conductor's had even turned in Sanchez for what they considered unsafe and non compliant behavior, and nothing was done.

I've let a few people know that the Metrolink's plan to staff up with internal oversight needs more Road Foreman--- Because "that" second set of eyes, should be much more effective supervision, including regular and random ride alongs. Then, that second set of eyes, would be someone evaluating performance and maintaining higher standards of compliance with the rules.

And, then, of course, there is your response, which while predictable, was at least less defensive of the standard of low to mediocre as the highest possible safety compliance goal by personnel employed in rail passenger operations......