Eastern Railroad Discussion > DC: NS boss Alan Shaw to testify 3/22

Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy, local resident Misti Allison,  and others will testify at a Senate Hearing today which looks into the East Palestime OH derailment.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw, Ohio Governor Mike
> DeWine, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy, local
> resident Misti Allison,  and others will testify
> at a Senate Hearing today which looks into the
> East Palestime OH derailment.

Let's hope this leads to stiff regulations on PSR!!!!

Shaw shouldnt be the one to testify, Squires and his slash and cut people should be the ones to testify



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/23 09:54 by NSDTK.

I felt bad for Shaw inheriting this mess from Squires, but Shaw hasn't done himself or NS any favors with the non-answers he gave today or two weeks ago.  If these corporate types could just answer truthfully and to the point, without all the corporate speak, they'd get a lot better reception & press.  Ian jefferies is a class A douche for the record.

I hope Congress regulates the sh!t out of them.  This is what happens when you allow an industry to self-regulate and safety takes a backseat to profits.  FRA is silent & absent:  we don't have a regulation for this or that... ...well why the hell not, YOU're in charge of regulating safety of the RRs, make up some regulations!

nsrlink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
snip
>
> I hope Congress regulates the sh!t out of them. 
> This is what happens when you allow an industry to
> self-regulate and safety takes a backseat to
> profits.  FRA is silent & absent:  we don't have
> a regulation for this or that... ...well why the
> hell not, YOU're in charge of regulating safety of
> the RRs, make up some regulations!

FRA can and does establish regulations, citing what it believes to be applicable law. When a reg is proposed, it cites the supporting law, often in the first paragraph.  One frequent problem is Congress writes sloppy laws, sometimes with internal contradictions. And, the regulation writers may cite one part of a law to support their new regulation, while opponents cite another part of the same law to oppose it.  Or cite case law which gives a different spin.  And, opponents can tie up a proposed reg in court for years.

An administration can decide to push the regs beyond the plain letter of the law, like the Obama administration's EPA.  Or choose not to issue regs at all, ignoring or slow walking the laws already passed, like the Trump administration and Dodd-Frank banking laws.

Even when Congress writes sharp, specific laws with highly defined criteria, trouble can follow. After the 2008 banking crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank act.  Banks hated the stress tests, limits on buy backs and exec compensation, etc. An administration rolled back the rules applying to "midsize" banks because those banks didn't like the laws and saw them as over reach.  Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, etc were among the complainers who had the rules rolled back for themselves.

Guess what? Five years later these banks collapsed. For reasons that a good stress test would have revealed.

Post of the day for me. 


Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nsrlink Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> snip
> >
> > I hope Congress regulates the sh!t out of
> them. 
> > This is what happens when you allow an industry
> to
> > self-regulate and safety takes a backseat to
> > profits.  FRA is silent & absent:  we don't
> have
> > a regulation for this or that... ...well why
> the
> > hell not, YOU're in charge of regulating safety
> of
> > the RRs, make up some regulations!
>
> FRA can and does establish regulations, citing
> what it believes to be applicable law. When a reg
> is proposed, it cites the supporting law, often in
> the first paragraph.  One frequent problem is
> Congress writes sloppy laws, sometimes with
> internal contradictions. And, the regulation
> writers may cite one part of a law to support
> their new regulation, while opponents cite another
> part of the same law to oppose it.  Or cite case
> law which gives a different spin.  And, opponents
> can tie up a proposed reg in court for years.
>
> An administration can decide to push the regs
> beyond the plain letter of the law, like the Obama
> administration's EPA.  Or choose not to issue
> regs at all, ignoring or slow walking the laws
> already passed, like the Trump administration and
> Dodd-Frank banking laws.
>
> Even when Congress writes sharp, specific laws
> with highly defined criteria, trouble can follow.
> After the 2008 banking crisis, Congress passed the
> Dodd-Frank act.  Banks hated the stress tests,
> limits on buy backs and exec compensation, etc. An
> administration rolled back the rules applying to
> "midsize" banks because those banks didn't like
> the laws and saw them as over reach.  Silicon
> Valley Bank, Signature Bank, etc were among the
> complainers who had the rules rolled back for
> themselves.
>
> Guess what? Five years later these banks
> collapsed. For reasons that a good stress test
> would have revealed.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:

> FRA can and does establish regulations, citing
> what it believes to be applicable law. When a reg
> is proposed, it cites the supporting law, often in
> the first paragraph. 

FRA established EO 28 that banned personal cell phone use on their own, it later became law.
FRA could, today, establish limits on train length & tonnage if they wanted to, work out the finer details later.
FRA could establish tougher rules for hazmat movements as a starting point & come to some watered down final version later.
FRA could mandate today 2 people on trains with hazmat let the RRs figure out how to do it, -but they dont.
FRA doesn't have to cite a law to make a regulation or order.

They are very lax on what they even attempt to regulate. 
Detectors have been around since the 60s and no regulations on them at all?  Come on.  Oversight!?!? 
Zero regulation on train length or tonnage???  Why not?  How much is enough??

RSIA 2008 called for establishing fatigue management programs & the final rule was written in late 2022.  Why so long?
FRA just plays patty cakes with the railroads, they could do a lot more.
So many advisories, suggestions, urges, best practices, recommendations - just make a damned rule & do it.

nsrlink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
>
> > FRA can and does establish regulations, citing
> > what it believes to be applicable law. When a
> reg
> > is proposed, it cites the supporting law, often
> in
> > the first paragraph. 
>
> FRA established EO 28 that banned personal cell
> phone use on their own, it later became law.
> FRA could, today, establish limits on train length
> & tonnage if they wanted to, work out the finer
> details later.
> FRA could establish tougher rules for hazmat
> movements as a starting point & come to some
> watered down final version later.
> FRA could mandate today 2 people on trains with
> hazmat let the RRs figure out how to do it, -but
> they dont.
> FRA doesn't have to cite a law to make a
> regulation or order.
>
> They are very lax on what they even attempt to
> regulate. 
> Detectors have been around since the 60s and no
> regulations on them at all?  Come on. 
> Oversight!?!? 
> Zero regulation on train length or tonnage??? 
> Why not?  How much is enough??
>
> RSIA 2008 called for establishing fatigue
> management programs & the final rule was written
> in late 2022.  Why so long?
> FRA just plays patty cakes with the railroads,
> they could do a lot more.
> So many advisories, suggestions, urges, best
> practices, recommendations - just make a damned
> rule & do it.

FRA could also issue new rules on train braking for the much heavier train cars of today.  But they don't.

This might be an example of "regulatory capture" where the regulatory agency is so afraid of the industry it is supposed to regulate and the Congress people the industry controls that it is paralyzed. Doesn't make or even propose serious rules. has to check with lobbyists for the industry to assure it's OK.

I'm not picking on railroads and the FRA. The coal operators influence the mine safety administration and the Senators from coal country. Natural gas has a lot of friends.   Even though the FAA has a huge problem finding air traffic controllers for big airports, try shutting down a low volume, small airport tower and see what happens.  Etc.