Mark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The actual wording of EO29 and the justifications
> cited for signal modifications and a second
> crewmember are pretty bizarre.
> [www.fra.dot.gov]
>
> The FRA cites several recent incidents: the fatal
> wreck last week, a derailment caused by track
> defects, a MOW employee killed because a train
> dispatcher trainee screwed up and removed the
> track blocks, another incident where a train
> dispatcher erroneously removed track blocks, and a
> CSXT freight train derailment on Metro-North
> trackage in which the cause has not yet been
> determined.
>
> There's no other evidence cited that points to
> locomotive engineers failing to remember to slow
> down for permanent speed restrictions. I agree
> that Metro-North has safety issues to contend with
> but if anything their train dispatchers and the
> MOW folks are more deserving of an Emergency
> Order.


So the FRA comes out with an E.O. that would prevent a repeat of Metro North's deadlist wreck (zero passenger fatalities in 30 years until this crash) and your arguement against it is that they cited other problems? Do you mean to say the FRA E.O. should not be implemented? Sources say Metro North has had a poor safety record in recent years. I'm sure the FRA's mention of other areas was to bolster their reasoning in taking decisive action towards MN.

I am glad we have the FRA that's mission is to protect employees and the public. Of course I don't agree with everything they do and as an employee sometimes they are a pain in the butt. However I prefer that to living and working in a third world country with little saftey oversight.