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

[BNSFNUT]

The Nov 7th New York Times has a story on the relationship between the F.R.A and the railroads focusing on the UP and its problems. It is in the national section and is availble on line at the Times web site. www.nytimes.com
Quite instresting.

[Junctionfan]

Big surprise there. Corruption in government and it's agencies are the reason why things will never change for the good. I know how much it costed to bribe the Republican party; $200, 000 but I wonder how much U.P payed to Ms. Munroe. I guess the F.B.I will have to find that one out. How much money would you like to bet that the F.B.I won't investigate it and their superiors will mysteriously be told to leave it be?

Whole thing reaks like a tra***rain.[V]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Big surprise there. Corruption in government and it's agencies are the reason why things will never change for the good. I know how much it costed to bribe the Republican party; $200, 000 but I wonder how much U.P payed to Ms. Munroe. I guess the F.B.I will have to find that one out. How much money would you like to bet that the F.B.I won't investigate it and their superiors will mysteriously be told to leave it be?

Whole thing reaks like a tra***rain.[V]

I can see we need to reel your leash in again Andrew.

LC

[Junctionfan]

Does it seem a little odd to you what they are implicating. The reason why I conclude it to be true because if it wasn't, I would think the editor would not release it unless the newspaper wanted to be sued for slander.

I maintain my opinion unless a retraction is made but I would like to see if the accused have their side to the story as well. If they don't give one, what are we to think?

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Big surprise there. Corruption in government and it's agencies are the reason why things will never change for the good. I know how much it costed to bribe the Republican party; $200, 000 but I wonder how much U.P payed to Ms. Munroe. I guess the F.B.I will have to find that one out. How much money would you like to bet that the F.B.I won't investigate it and their superiors will mysteriously be told to leave it be?

Whole thing reaks like a tra***rain.[V]

I can see we need to reel your leash in again Andrew.

LC

I think I'm in a cranky mood today; that could be the reason. To be fair to myself but to the accused, only time will tell if I am blowing it out of proportion and there maybe a retraction from the N.Y Times or there is a credible damnation happening.

[Overmod]

It isn't the article that was found libelous -- it was Andrew's somewhat excessive reaction to the 'revelations' it contained.

Don't forget that this is the same New York Times that recently commented on the subject of 'indemnification' in the context of the Point of Rocks incident -- with the same general well-directed innuendo blaming the railroad industry, but stopping just a wee bit short of actual claims that would be actionable. You're dealing with a long tradition of journalistic manipulation at the Gray Lady, as well as a very good legal department.

Those of us that grew up in the New York area have known not to draw conclusions -- either on matters of fact or on journalistic integrity -- by reading the New York Times alone.

Andrew is perhaps attributing Canadian-style political shenanigans to US agencies -- while that may be true some of the time, it is probably wise to confirm some of the details, and establish context, before rushing to judgment the rest of the time. Quite frankly, I would be surprised and disappointed to find that the FRA was making routine serious compromises on safety because of bribes by the railroads -- let alone becoming morally complicit in Terrible Accidents That Kill and Maim Innocent People Because Corners Were Cut. This is of a piece with the recent story (I heard the NPR version but I'd be prepared to bet there were carefully-synchronized others) about how railroads were trying to dodge financial responsibility for putting gates and other foolproof crossing protection on all the grade crossings in America -- the unspoken bias being clearly against railroads, and either playing on anticapitalist or antirailroad sentiment among the listening public...

I'm by no means saying railroads aren't complicit in lobbying, or in trying to manipulate Washington policy -- or even necessarily that they haven't been active in weakening stronger Federal oversight of 'significant' safety precautions. The point is that much more effective investigative journalism will -- and should -- be conducted in order to find direct or proximate cause. Innuendo just won't cut it, and I for one am indignant that the technique seems to have worked quite effectively on at least one subject...

What happened to the Walter Lippmanns of this world? I'm sick and tired of the prevalence of the debating-society mentality in what masquerades as 'objective' journalism (e.g. "news that's (supposedly) fit to print"). And no, I don't consider propaganda from the opposite point of view to be countervailing assurance that a 'fair and balanced' viewpoint will result from considering all sources together...

[martin.knoepfel]

"She and the railroad's chief Washington lobbyist, Mary E. McAuliffe, are longtime friends and have vacationed together on Nantucket several times since Ms. Monro joined the agency in 2001"

this behaviour is strange, to put it mildly. note that the FRA-empoyee considers it worth mentioning, she didn't got invited by a company she has to oversee. the latter would be a flagrant act of corruption.

I read the entire article in the NYT and I do not see anything close to - let alone short of - libel. the article raises several questions an puts UP in a bad light, that is true. the NYT seems to be rather pro-car, because they apparently believe a railroad should stop at grade-crossings, not the car- oder truck-driver. I do not share this opinion. Nevertheless, the singel intervention of the FRA in favour of UP my seem innocent to some people. the numer of the said interventions is in my opinion no more innocent at all.

BTW: why was UP a big donator to the Bush-campaign if they were not satisfied the first Bush-Administration had treated them?

best thing to do is a congressional committee calling the FRA-empolyees to testify under oath, whether Mr, Monro said what the NYT wrote she said.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

It isn't the article Mark found libelous -- it was Andrew's somewhat excessive reaction to the 'revelations' it contained.

What happened to the Walter Lippmanns of this world? I'm sick and tired of the prevalence of the debating-society mentality in what masquerades as 'objective' journalism (e.g. "news that's (supposedly) fit to print"). And no, I don't consider propaganda from the opposite point of view to be countervailing assurance that a 'fair and balanced' viewpoint will result from considering all sources together...

Gotta agree with that. The whole "from a clash of lies the truth shall emerge" never works...

LC

[Anonymous]

UP will grow up someday,I hope!

[Junctionfan]

To be devil's advocate, if the story is bunk, why hasn't the journalist been repromanded?

[Anonymous]

Working for a railroad, and knowing quite a few of the local inspectors, I can say that it is highly unlikly that these inspectors are letting anything slide. I cannot speek for the people higher up, but on the ground level they are not letting things slide.

As far as fines go, the FRA usually does not give out fines unless something is a blatant violation or a repeat offense. For example, if an inspector looks at an engine and notices an exhaust leak, it will be written up as a defect, meaning that the engine cannot be used until the exhaust leak is fixed. The only time a fine would come in to play is if the same engine had the same exhaust leak the next time the inspector looked at it.

Most of the inspectors are pretty good people. Most of them will take the time to explain the defective conditions, why it is a defective condition, and how to fix it. Almost all of them will answer questions about unclear issues, and not hold it against you.

And don't believe that it is rare for an inspector to find a defect. They will always find something. Always. I once had a MP&E inspector write up an engine that was in the shop for the conditions I told him it was in the shop to repair. They always find something. They will keep looking until they find something. And for those who are not railroaders anything can be a defect. Light bulb burned out in the unused nose of a locomotive, knuckle that does not completly open when the cut lever is raised, a hinge broken on an electrical cabinet door, the edge of a step not painted in a contrasting color, all of these are FRA defects. It is not just major stuff these guys find. Most of the time it is things like those listed above. And when they find them, you just smile, fix it, and thank them for finding it in the first place.

[Junctionfan]

That's kind of thing is what I would expect from the National Inquirer ("Elvis returns with Alien friends" kind of article) not the N.Y Times.

[espeefoamer]

Partial quote from M.W. Hemphill:"Without those links,the story ranks somewhere between gossip and reckless disregard for the truth."
This is nothing new for the New York Times[:(!].

[Junctionfan]

In that case, I retract my comments until further notice which case I will either quote from it or apologies.

[gfjwilmde]

[:(!]Some of my coworkers thought I was crazy to think that the F. R. A. was on the take from the rail companies and possibly with this regime's suggested insistance. [:(!]Well, this article in the New York Times verifies what I and some others have felt strongly about...THE RAIL COMPANIES CAN GIVE A [censored] LESS ABOUT OUR LIVES OR THE LIVES OF THE PUBLIC (RIDING OR ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAYS)!!! That's the main reason why there are laws on the books or laws pending that will limit the amount some one can sue for damages to these compaines, even if it can be proven that they were negligent in their responsibilies to maintain their equipment to the highest standards by the law. It's happening in the medical field and now it's happening here. If anyone remembers the airline, Value Jet, they filed for bankruptcy after that fatal crash in Florida some years ago, and guess what they call themselves now[?]...[%-)]...AirTran. Yep, those same idiots[:o)], with some of those same maintainers[D)](after the sacrificial lambs were handed over), just under the cloak of a new name...GO FIGURE!!?? Well kiddies, that what the rail company executive want to do with us...[B)]SACRIFICE US TO THE LOWEST BIDDER AND PUT THE PUBLIC AT RISK[8]...with this regime's approval of course. GOD HELP US ALL!!!![X-)]



Glenn
A R E A L RAILROADER....

[Anonymous]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/10/ny.times.reporter/

[Anonymous]

I'd be more concerned with possible relationships between the railroads and the STB. It's possible that due to the unfortunate mergers of the 1990's the remaining Class I's have just gotten to big to get a handle on the day to day idiosyncrasies of operations. Isn't it more likely that UP's accident problems are a result of too few or still too green crews? To suggest that FRA officials would ingore safety concerns to placate allegedly cozy relationships between FRA and UP personnel is ludicrous on the surface.

[Junctionfan]

Very well; I will keep my promise and apologies, my mistake.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

I'd be more concerned with possible relationships between the railroads and the STB. It's possible that due to the unfortunate mergers of the 1990's the remaining Class I's have just gotten to big to get a handle on the day to day idiosyncrasies of operations. Isn't it more likely that UP's accident problems are a result of too few or still too green crews? To suggest that FRA officials would ingore safety concerns to placate allegedly cozy relationships between FRA and UP personnel is ludicrous on the surface.

FM-

The STB has nothing to do with the subject of this thread which is allegations concerning the FRA's effectiveness as a safety regulator. It has NOTHING to do with STB regulations which are primarily financially related. Your bent towards changing reality in this area is well known, but we aren't discussing that here. If you wi***o discuss the STB feel free to start a new thread.

LC

[Anonymous]

In my experience with FRA inspectors they do their job, sometimes with a bit too much enthusiasm. If there is anything improper going on I'm sure the Inspector General or Justice will get after it given the nature of the NYT article.

LC

[dehusman]

Here is the UP's response from their website:

http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/response.shtml

[Junctionfan]

Is there a response from the FRA including Ms Monroe?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Is there a response from the FRA including Ms Monroe?

Not yet. Check FRA website tomorrow. www.fra.dot.gov

LC

[Anonymous]

From my experience with FRA inspectors, they take their job very seriously and look things through very thoroughly. When I was remote training I had the same one watch me work two seperate days. He walked up and checked to make sure my safety equipment was being worn properly, etc.
I do believe that big business will do anything to make a profit including cutting its own feet out from under it, so it wouldn't suprise me to see railroads trying seduce FRA inspectors with high paying jobs to take their attention off the point at hand.

[Anonymous]

The FRA inspectors that I have been in contact with over the year have always been upstanding straight shooting individuals that tried for fulfill their job obligations in a firm and fair manner.

There has been much more 'hanky, panky' amongst big city news paper reporters and columnists in trying to make 'sensational journalism' than there has been any colusion between the FRA and the railroads.

[PNWRMNM]

Junction,

You need to learn that the popular media is seldom objective. We have had several recent examples of the media grossly distorting the facts in their efforts to sell us John Kerry. It is only for the past 50 years or so that newspapers have even claimed to be honest brokers of information. Before that they were obviously and overtly political. They still are, they just wont admit it. The NY Times is just the worst of a bad lot. Dont take them too seriously!

Mac

[edblysard]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

To be devil's advocate, if the story is bunk, why hasn't the journalist been repromanded?

Reprimanded by who?
Remember, the story had to go across the desk of at least one editor, at least once or twice, before it was approved to run in the paper, so at least one other person, someone in a position of power, decided it was fit to print.

The only people who can reprimand both the writer, and the paper, is you, the reader, and you can do so only by not purchasing their product.

As for the FRA and UP being in bed together...well, considering the fines they pay every year, I doubt it.

The two FRA field agents who are assigned to our area routinely play golf, and go out to lunch with our superintendent and trainmasters....and have routinley riped us up when they find a violation.

But, as was pointed out in another reply, they perfer the persuasion first attitude over the fine and prosecute attitude.

It works a lot better if you can get a carrier to voluntarily repair or replace something, or alter/enforce a opperating rule on their own, especially if you can show them it is to their benifit to do so in the long run.

Case in point: locomotive sill steps and running boards.
As was pointed out in another reply, the edge of sill steps and running boards are required to be painted a highly contrasting color, or indicated with a reflective tape.

How many railroaders, or the general public, for that matter, realized the steps are dangerous, and need to be seen easily at night?

How many people here knew that not having the edge of the steps highlighted was a FRA defect?

Or that using a locomotive that has the step light burned out, even in daylight, is a violation?

Because of the FRA, all of my railroads locomotives have reflectorized tape on the step edges, and the hand rails, at night, you can see them for a long ways away

You should see the FRA field manual, its huge....

For a group of people whose boss is supposedly "on the take", they sure are a bunch of nosey, dedicated people.

Ask any engineer what one of the first things he or she looks at when they board their locomotive.

Bet you its the FRA defect and Locomotive inspection report.

They do a walkaround, not only to satisfy themselves that the locomotive is good to go, but because they are going to have to put their name on the inspection report, and if the FRA checks the report against the locomotive, and finds you cheated, guess who gets fined?

Not the carrier...the engineer.

They can pull your license if they feel like it.

They will find something wrong when they show up on property, trust me.

Why?

Because its their job to do so.

If their boss is vacationing with the safety director at UP, it sure dosnt slow her troops down when they show up to inspect things.

Dosnt slow them down on NS, BSF,CSX, KCS or the little ole PTRA either.

Ed

[Anonymous]

I'm going to hate myself for even wading into this, but...
Mark, the NY Times was doing exactly what I would hope the press is supposed to do. It is showing us how cozy the regulated (one of them, anyway) and the regulator are.
Whether the head of the FRA and a powerful figure in the industry are vacationing together is more than idle gossip.
Try this: What if you learned, before the election, that the chief NYT politics reporter had spent the entire summer windsurfing with John Kerry? There is no proof, as you seem to require, that they ever sat down to discuss how to make Kerry look good. But would you have any faith that the reporter was doing his job responsibly?
Or how about a fire inspector going around to a hotel that seems to have a number of exits blocked, and she wants to talk to the manager about it. The manager says he has a $320,000 a year job he needs to fill, and the inspector looks like just the candidate. You don't find that a little unsettling?
The Times' reporter has picked an odd field in which to work, in some respects. And it is always fun to beat up on the Times or the liberal media. But Sunday's piece was interesting and important.

Larry

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

I'd be more concerned with possible relationships between the railroads and the STB. It's possible that due to the unfortunate mergers of the 1990's the remaining Class I's have just gotten to big to get a handle on the day to day idiosyncrasies of operations. Isn't it more likely that UP's accident problems are a result of too few or still too green crews? To suggest that FRA officials would ingore safety concerns to placate allegedly cozy relationships between FRA and UP personnel is ludicrous on the surface.

FM-

The STB has nothing to do with the subject of this thread which is allegations concerning the FRA's effectiveness as a safety regulator. It has NOTHING to do with STB regulations which are primarily financially related. Your bent towards changing reality in this area is well known, but we aren't discussing that here. If you wi***o discuss the STB feel free to start a new thread.

LC

LC,

Wrong again The gist of this thread is the allegation made by NYT that a supposedly cozy relationship between UP and the FRA is somehow responsible for several accidents on UP. I would offer that it is over-mergers that have led to the foundation for the propensity of such accidents, not FRA neglegence. If not for the accidents, the NYT wouldn't even bother producing a byline on the subject. It is typical of the blue-haired press that they try to infer a causal relationship involving safety agencies, rather than the more obvious causal relationship involving economic oversight agencies.

[Anonymous]

Mark,
I was just afraid you weren't going to respond. Not much fun quarreling if people refuse to quarrel back (and by the way, I have to go and actually work for a while, so won't be able to do much more back and forth).
You did not pile on the lib media as such; the other posts did and people in general love to tra***he Times./
But as for the rest of it: The appearance of a conflict of interest is just as bad as the conflict itself (and is certainly newsworthy). These people weren't meeting at an industry conference - they were *vacationing* together. And there is something very, very wrong (illegal or not) about any sort of enforcement officer discussing employment while on official business.
As you know, I am a reporter. My employer, quite naturally, requires that I not discuss a job with the mayor while covering city government. (And no reporter should be socializing with John Kerry in the manner indicated.) Once I begin even thinking about a city job, I have to declare it and immediately switch to another beat.
The NYT story really, didn't say that the friendship caused the wrecks, or anything like it. But it did say, basically, that, gee, it looks like the UP has some safety issues here and, golly, they sure get along well with the enforcers.
It kind of reminds me of the famous saying by the Inquirer's greatest editor, in regards to conflicts of interest. I'm going to paraphrase Gene Roberts just slightly here. He said he didn't care if his reporters dated elephants, as long as they didn't cover the circus.
i