We often hear of equipment that was "banned from interchange". I get that and it
doesn't surprise me. So here's the thing ... if something like the Allied trucks are
banned from interchange it is probably the result of a failure (probably repeated)
that caused an accident/derailment/something important. And I get it that the RR
doesn't want to get rid of "serviceable equipment". So why was (is?) it acceptable
to put your RR employees at risk by using them in stuff like MOW service?
Yes, you get some extra miles "for very little cost" ... but wouldn't a single
employee injury make that savings not worth it? Why wouldn't just one lawsuit
for "negligence" void all of those savings?
The same would be true of truss rods, brake equipment, lighting changes, ladders
and ladder placements, etc. etc. etc. It doesn't seem to make "solid" economic
sense in the long run. Why wouldn't the unions have objected?
What am I missing?