It should not have taken the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration two years to make the common-sense ruling against one-person crews for America’s major freight railroads.

However, the ruling, having been finalized April 2, is better late than never. The prospect of one-member crews for what have become ever-longer trains - many carrying hazardous cargoes - was a preposterous idea that never should have been proposed.

Although railroads disagreed and continue to disagree, the plan was a prescription for tragedy.

Railroad communities such as Altoona and Johnstown can at least breathe a little sigh of relief that there will be an extra crew member aboard, should the crew member otherwise in charge become incapacitated or distracted for whatever reason.

It is not difficult to imagine the terrible consequences possible if a runaway train stemming from a lone crew member’s sudden disability were bearing down here, with people in its path unaware of what was about to befall them.

Several times in the past, the Mirror editorialized against the one-crew member proposal. People here need to remain watchful, though, that the idea, or something as potentially damaging as it, does not again rear its ugly head with the same unwanted outcomes.

As an Associated Press article published in the Mirror’s April 3 edition reported, more than 13,000 comments about the new rule were received by the Federal Railroad Administration. Out of that total, only about 60 opposed the rule, and it is not difficult to deduce the sources of that opposition.

The April 3 article reiterated that rail unions have long opposed one-person crews because of safety and job concerns, although many short-line railroads already operate with one-person crews without problems.

Nevertheless, labor agreements requiring two-person crews have been in place for approximately 30 years at major railroads, and in that three-decade span, freight trains have become longer, and no doubt are carrying a wider variety of dangerous cargoes than when those two-person agreements first were negotiated. It makes sense for railroads, communities and the general public not to condone practices that carry the potential for catastrophe. Yet, as the April 3 article noted, railroads have a history of resisting new regulations.

“The railroads argue that the size of train crews should be determined by contract talks, not regulators or lawmakers, because they maintain there isn’t enough data to show that two-person crews are safer,” the article said.

But the topic “railroad safety” vaulted to center stage in February 2023 as the result of the fiery derailment in Ohio, virtually next-door to that state’s border with Pennsylvania.

That derailment and its aftermath have not become forgotten topics here in the Keystone State, especially in places like Altoona and Johnstown, through which freight trains pass daily - and more than once.

“FRA is doubling down on an unfounded and unnecessary regulation that has no proven connection to rail safety,” argues Ian Jefferies, president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads trade group.

Not so.

The concerns are valid and the new rule is correct, although not a panacea.

ALTOONA MIRROR