Leave Rail Safety to Railroaders

There is a growing trend in America where wealthy political commentators and media personalities suddenly decide they are experts on railroading.

Steve Forbes did it.

The Washington Post editorial board did it.

Now, lifelong lobbyist and D.C. influencer Grover Norquist is doing it.

And every time they do, they prove the same thing. They don’t know jack about this industry, the people who work in it, or the dangers that come with it.

Rail safety is not optional for railroaders. It is life and death.

SMART-TD President Jeremy Ferguson explained that clearly earlier this year in his response to the Washington Post’s attack on the Railway Safety Act. Safety regulations exist because railroad corporations have repeatedly shown they will cut safety when it helps profits.

That is proven time and time again in the history of railroading in America.

Don’t Fake Your Qualifications On This Territory

This year, every few weeks, another outsider with no railroad experience decides to lecture railroad workers about what “real” rail safety should look like.

Grover Norquist’s recent Washington Times column is just the latest example.

Norquist completely misrepresented the federal two-person crew rule. He framed it as though unions are demanding railroads add extra workers onto trains and pass the cost onto consumers.

He accused rail unions of trying to enrich themselves by supporting the Railway Safety Act. Apparently, he misread his talking points from the AAR and thinks the RSA is trying to “ add a second crew member to freight trains that already operate safely with one.”

I guess he didn’t bother having someone with knowledge of railroading OR the bill itself proofread his article before publishing it.

His whole argument is that the union is pushing this bill so that overnight we will double our membership, and therefore our dues money. He is obviously a subject matter expert that we should all listen to and take notes!

As we all know, freight trains already operate with two-person crews every day across America. The Railway Safety Act does not add another crew member. It simply prevents the railroads from reducing crews to one person, or eventually none at all.

Don’t Talk East Palestine If You Don’t Understand It

Anyone who actually understands railroading knows crew size becomes critical when disaster strikes.

The train that derailed in East Palestine had a three-person crew. Those railroaders immediately secured the train, coordinated with dispatchers, helped establish evacuation zones, and protected first responders from walking into a hazardous materials disaster blind.

Compare that to Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, where a one-person crew operation ended in catastrophe. A runaway train exploded in the center of town, killing 47 people and destroying much of the community.

Crew size does not stop every derailment. But it absolutely affects what happens afterward. Railroaders and anyone else with common sense and no political agenda understand that.

Norquist also claimed automated track inspection technology is obviously superior to human inspection, treating the issue like it is a settled fact.

Again, this is what happens when outsiders pretend they know more than the people doing the work.

Track Inspection Is Not Where You Cut Corners

Automated Track Inspection, or ATI, can help inspect more track more quickly. Railroaders are not against this technology for that use.

But there is a difference between speed and quality.

When railroaders are riding equipment in the middle of the night with a lantern in one hand, paperwork and a radio in the other, they want to know the rail underneath them was inspected carefully by trained human beings, not just scanned quickly by a machine looking for major defects.

Because when that rail breaks, railroad workers are the ones who end up in the closed casket.

And here is the part Norquist ignored, or doesn’t know because he’s faking his qualifications:

Studies have shown ATI systems can miss up to 73% of the defects trained human inspectors are able to identify.

That is not “obviously better.” That is not “irrefutable.” That is a serious concern.

Technology should support track inspectors. Not replace them.

But railroad corporations want fewer workers because fewer workers mean lower labor costs. And too many of these media personalities with no railroad experience keep repeating those corporate talking points like they are facts.

Americans should ask themselves why so many wealthy commentators and editorial boards are suddenly so desperate to attack rail safety legislation.

The answer is simple:

Because they do not have to live with the consequences, and don’t know any better than to weigh in on shit they have no knowledge of.

Stay In Your Lane

Grover Norquist has spent decades in Washington politics. He grew up comfortably as the son of a corporate executive, went straight to Harvard, and built a career in political influencing and lobbying.

He is not a railroader.

And if he wants to avoid embarrassing himself, he should stop pretending he understands an industry he has clearly never experienced firsthand. Workplace safety means more than avoiding papercuts for us.

Railroaders will handle railroading.