You're giving the FRA far too much credit here, as if employees cannot work safely without the nanny government getting involved. Regulatory action doesn't prevent accidents.

Aside from the wreck itself, the other examples don't offer anything persuasive that would support the need for signal system modifications or a second person in the cab. They have nothing to do with the recent accident! Those examples made the case for remedial training and software modifications for their train dispatchers and computer system, and maybe remedial training for MOW employees.

I'm all for a safe working environment, but EO29 appears to be written by somebody who has no clue what happened in this accident. The engineer claims to have been in a daze, with later reports saying he was going to be evaluated for sleep disorders. Wouldn't this have been a much more appropriate topic to be addressed in EO29, not just for Metro North, but for all carriers?



ex-BN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.