New York Times story on F.R.A. and UP

[gabe]

This whole story sounds remarkably similar to Justice Scalia's hunting trip with Vice President *** Cheney. Many of the arguments championed by those saying that the relationship at issue in and of its self does not create a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing seem to echo Justice Scalia's commentary regarding his accusers.

Gabe

FYI: Given the way I have seen some earlier statements taken, I will give a qualifier now rather than wait for someone to make a political statement: my statement is not indicative of a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Justice Scalia or the Vice President. I just find it most interesting that the rebuttals expressed by Justice Scalia and those suggesting that the article is baseless have similar aspects to them.

[edblysard]

So, Larry,
According to your Bio, your a journalist, so, as one, you are implying that, because my railroads superintendent goes golfing with the FRA inspector, and they go to lunch together, (by the way, I think the FRA guys pick up the tab) that by that assocation , I should infer that the FRA is going to take it easy on us?
Darn, after all these years thinking they would fine me if I screwed up...

Ed

[gfjwilmde]

Hey good citizens. Some of you know me from past postings, so I'm not going to go in depth of who I work for. I can tell you this, that I have had problems in the past reporting what I would consider defects on the locomotive equipment that I considered 'safety issues'. Some were defects that wouldn't necessarily cause harm to any human beings, but from an opperational stand point, I deemed it to be unsafe. Yet, there were times that the equipment was kept out of sight (not inspected in our terminal), or I was politely 'ordered' not to make mention of the defect, no notation of the defect or not to inspect it 'at all'. Some of the defects were so obviously severe (and many were repeaters), that I and some of my machinist coworkers refused to sign the document that goes along with the locomotives signifying who did the inspection on said units. As it turns out, the foreman or contractor's supervisor(s) would fill out that line on the document, having never looked at the unit, but relying on us to tell them what problems, if any, were noticed. It got to a point, on one train set, the defect wasn't resolved fast enough 'for me', so some of us made phone calls to the F. R. A. describing the defect. Well, the F. R. A. came out to the shop (after a week of calling), and wouldn't you know it, the train set in question was suddenly not there...FOR A MONTH!! Finally, the train set's locomotives were given truck change outs, but it shouldn't have had to come to that. In my opinion, if the F. R. A. was serious about their work of keeping the riding public safe, then they should have been more diligent in responding to our complaints and even more diligent into finding the whereabouts of the train set in question, to have it available for a proper inspection by their inspectors. So yeah, I've witnessed the 'other side' of what lenghts a rail company will go to get their money's worth out of its employees and its equipment, and the unconcern by the regulatory agency that is suppose to see to it that they don't. With all do respect to many of you that have higher education, but it may be true not to believe everything that you read or hear, and yet, the truth is there if you are willing to read or hear it. WAKE UP PLEASE!!!![X-)][banghead]



Glenn
A R E A L RAILROADER....