Images de page


1962 THROUGH JANUARY 1965-Continued



Description of accident

Employees Killed Injured








Feb. 1, 1966 New York, New Haven and Hartford. Hy-rail jeep being driven downhill on city

street involved in collision with two

other vehicles, account brakes failed. Feb. 3, 1966

Carrier-owned truck struck in side by

Beard Sand & Gravel truck. Men thrown

from their seats. Apr. 6, 1966 Missouri Pacific

Highway accident. Apr. 7, 1966 Baltimore & Ohio.

Driving m/w truck from depot to toolhouse

when another vehicle ran a stop sign and

struck truck. Apr. 27, 1966 Southern Pacific.

Lost control of truck.. May 11, 1966 Monon...

Highway accident.. May 17, 1966 Baltimore & Ohio..

Carrier-owned truck skidded off wet pave

ment and struck telephone pole and

turned over on its side. June 7. 1966 Chicago & North Western.

Employee driving in auto on duty to another

job location struck at highway intersec

tion by truck. July 8, 1966 Long Island..

Struck head-on ceiling of truck.
July 13, 1966 Louisville & Nashville.

Highway accident.
July 22, 1966 Illinois Central.
Aug. 12, 1966 St. Louis-San Francisco.

do.. Aug. 22, 1966 Long Island..

Slipped on truck running board.
Do.... Clinchfield.

Struck knee climbing onto truck.
Aug. 29, 1966 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe. Motorist following too close to carrier-

owned truck and struck it. Rail falling

trom support killed member. Sept. 1, 1966 Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific.. Highway accident. Sept. 23, 1966 Baltimore & Ohio...

Carrier-owned truck collided with automo

bile which pulled out from side road

directly in front of truck. Oct. 3, 1966 Oregon Electric....

Ducking to avoid hitting branches, member

strained his back. He had been standing
in rear of carrier-owned truck that

stopped suddenly. Oct. 7, 1966 Long Island....

Employee in his own car, on company busi

ness, pulled aside to let a fire engine pass

and was struck in the rear by truck. Oct. 14, 1966 Great Northern..

Carrier-owned truck was following a Gov.

ernment sedan. Sedan pulled to side of
road on account of oncoming auto traveling
south in north lane collided with Govern-

ment sedan,
Oct. 17, 1966 Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Maintenance-of-way truck involved in high-

way accident. No details shown on form

T. Oct. 25, 1966 Pennsylvania...

Highway accident. An auto struck the car

rier-owned pickup truck in rear while

both were crossing a bridge. Oct. 26, 1966 Long Island....

Carrier-owned truck made sudden stop....

Employee suffered back strain.
Nov. 2, 1966 Missouri Pacific

Company-owned truck parked on south
side of road, backed out account no room
to turn. Trackman stepped in front of
backing truck out of view of rear-view

mirror. Jan. 23, 1967 Atlantic Coast Line..

Carrier-owned auto traveling in heavy

smoke and fog, involved in 5-car acci

dent. Feb. 2, 1967 Alton & Southern....

Rear axle came off-lost control of truck,

ran off pavement, and overturned on

Feb. 10, 1967 Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Maintenance-of-way truck pulled to right

side of road into a snow bank to avoid on-
coming speeding auto which went into an
S spin, striking and resting on left rear

wheels of m/w truck, Mar. 6, 1967 Illinois Central...

Driver of company-owned truck stopped on

signal from school bus and a low-boy

tractor-trailer ran into rear of truck. May 2, 1967 Illinois Central...

Hurt getting off truck to go to lunch and

stepped on edge of ditch. May 25, 1967 Boston & Maine..

Passenger automobile ran into back of car:

rier-owned truck returning employes to

headquarters. DO....... Chesapeake & Ohio... Hurt getting off truck. Placed foot in foot.

hole, tail gate swung toward truck, causing

foot to slide out of foothole. June 3, 1967 Chicago & Eastern Illinois....... Hurt from rolling oxygen tank in truck.












1962 THROUGH JANUARY 1965-Continued



Description of accident

Employees Killed Injured

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

June 13, 1967 Chicago & Eastern Illinois. Section laborer slipped and fell to ground. ...

while climbing onto back of truck. June 22, 1967 Illinois Central.

Unloading track panels from motor truck,

driver made hard application of brakes,
panels slid forward, causing member to

fall. July 21, 1967 Union Pacific...

Employe riding to job on back of mainte

nance of way truck which made a left luisboa

turn and employe fell off. Aug. 11, 1967 Gulf, Mobile & Ohio.

Carrier-owned truck forced to stop suddenly
and threw employe against front side of

truck. Aug. 16, 1967 Union Pacific.

Highway accident. Aug. 23, 1967 Texas & Pacific.

Automobile forced to cut back in traffic in

front of carrier-owned truck. Sept. 18, 1967 Missouri Pacific.

Tractor trailer rig turned over in front of

Missouri Pacific truck which ran into the

wreck. Sept. 24, 1967 New York Central.

Highway accident... Oct. 18, 1967 South Pacific..

Another vehicle made sudden left turn in

front of company truck. Nov. 7, 1967 Union Pacific.

Privately owned truck moved north from

trailer parking area and struck carrier
maintenance of way truck moving west
on roadway transporting employees to

roadmaster's office to report for duty. Nov. 17, 1967 Pennsylvania...

Company-leased truck made safety stop at

an intersection when another truck

skidded and struck company truck. Nov. 27, 1967 do..

Rail highway truck left the highway and

moved on its wheels down an embank

ment. Nov. 1967 Southern Pacific....

Lost control of truck (carrier owned) due

to loss of air from tire. Jan. 5, 1968 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe...-... Carrier section truck struck electric pole.

Tools and materials in truck slid forward

striking the men, Jan. 15, 1968 Great Northern....

A truck turned off highway in front of

carrier-owned 6-man truck, Do. Reading

Truck skidded on ice....
Feb. 7, 1968 Chicago & Eastern Illinois. Section laborer, getting out of rear of truck

stepped on ladder, ladder moved and he
fell to the ground.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Source: Form T reports to ICC.

very short.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Crotty. I have several questions here, just to clarify the language.

I believe I will forgo them at this time, and I hope the members of the committee will keep any questions, if they do have questions,

I am hoping to get to Mr. Menk of the Railroad Association. I know that he wants to get away today.

Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, may I make an inquiry at that point?
Mr. Brown. I though that you were going to say that you

would submit the questions in writing. With reference to that, we have asked Mr. Lang and a couple of others to submit information to the committee for the record. I hope that whatever information Mr. Lang, and others who testify before the committe, submit can be given to each member of the committee. If the information is presented to the committee, I hope that we can get copies of it, instead of waiting to read it in the record after the hearings have been printed at the conclusion of the legislative consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that could be arranged, and I might say this in connection with the questions that I have: I would submit them in writing to you, Mr. Crotty, for the classification of the record.

At this point, then, are there any questions? Mr. FRIEDEL. Just a couple. I want to thank you, Mr. Crotty, and I think it is a very well documented statement you have, but on page 5 of your statement, you say at the present time: "Only in four States, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York, do we have anything approaching effective means of bringing about a safer condition of tracks and bridges.

Now, how do those four States compare with the other 46 States ? Mr. Crorty. I am sorry I missed part of your question, Mr. Friedel. You asked about the States that I mentioned. How their laws compare with other States?

Mr. FRIEDEL. Submit it for the record, but we would like to have a comparison. In other words, I get out of your statement that the other 20-some States do not have the protection, and their accident rates are much, much higher. I would like to have the breakdown, for the record. You don't have to do it right now, but submit it for the record.

Mr. CROTTY. I will be glad to do that. (The information requested was not available at time of printing.)

Mr. Harvey. Mr. Chairman, could I just take this opportunity to welcome Mr. Crotty here! He is from our great State of Michigan, and I wish to apologize to him and to his colleagues for being late in attendance this morning, but I had other business in my office that just compelled me to be there. I am sorry also that I missed a part of his statement, but I want to assure him that we will give very, very careful consideration to all of it, and say that we are very proud to have him here this morning, to submit this very fine statement.

Mr. Crorty. Thank you, Mr. Harvey:
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions down this way?
Mr. MACDONALD. I have one.

Before I ask my question, Mr. Crotty, I would like to congratulate you on a very fine statement, but on page 5, I find your statement of your 7,000 accidents resulting from defective or improperly maintained tracks, bridges, or other facilities.

Am I correct in that? Because there are two sentences, and in one, you say, that there are numerous accidents, and then in the second sentence, you say there are 7,000 annually.

This is on page 5.

Mr. CROTTY. Yes; well, the 7,000 annually would include reportable accidents attributed to all causes.

Mr. MacDONALD. All causes. Not just defects in structure.
Mr. CROTTY. Yes.
Mr. MACDONALD. Or the railway.
Mr. Crotty. They would be a part of the 7,000 figure.

Mr. MACDONALD. Yes; and my last question is how is an accident defined ? I mean, what is an accident?

Mr. CROTTY. Well, the criteria for a reportable accident has changed somewhat in recent years, as a result of changes in reporting.

It used to be that the vast majority—and when I say "it used to be," 5 or 6 years ago, the vast majority of accidents affecting maintenance

of-way employees was not required to be reported. The reporting procedures have been changed in very recent years, and we are now getting a much larger reporting of the whole picture, but an accidentand I am not an authority, Mr. Macdonald, as to just on this score but Mr. Homer advises me that a train accident is reported when the damage exceeds $750.

And also, it is reportable if an employee is injured and is absent from duty for a period of 24 hours or more, or a casualty.

Mr. MACDONALD. I just think that is a fantastic number of accidents, really, and I subscribe to your statement.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions of this witness?
Mr. Brown. I have a question.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brotzman?
Mr. BROTZMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman,

I have one quick question. Our society seems to be pretty well oriented to radio and television type of communications, as you will readily acknowledge, and I want to be sure I understand.

Is it your position that radio should not be used at all in communications, or is it that the technique is imperfect? Would you respond to that?

Mr. CROTTY. I think that at this point in time, sir, the radio could be used to supplement the protection that has been furnished by proven methods in the past, which is the use of flagmen, the use of train order, written train order. That the radio could be used to supplement these practices, to improve railroad operations where it would contribute in that manner, but that it should not be used as a substitute.

Mr. BROTZMAN. You are talking about some combination of existing practices, plus radio?

Mr. CROTTY. Yes.

Mr. BROTZMAN. Your answer to my question is, then, you think that radio should be used to some extent, right?

Mr. CROTTY. I think it may have its place as a supplement, rather than as a substitute.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions on this side?

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, may we correct the record in one respect? Something was said yesterday, just very short.

The CHAIRMAN. Surely.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Well, we were asked the question, I believe by Mr. Adams, but I am not certain about this, as to whether, either under the administration bill or our proposed amendments, railroad crossings would be covered. I gave an incorrect answer. Under our amendments, it would not be covered. It is questionable whether it would be covered under section 3(a) (1) of the administration bill.

Mr. Adams. Would the chairman yield for a moment on that?

I think that was my question yesterday, and I just want to be certain that by your testimony the railroad crossings are not covered under the present bill, or your amendments; is that correct?

Mr. BERNSTEIN. It is not covered under our proposed amendments. There is question in my mind as to whether it is covered under the broad language of section 3(a)(1).

Mr. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Brown. I have a question, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brown. Mr. BROWN. Is it your idea that if this legislation is passed, we will wind up with Government track inspectors walking the railbeds to see both ties and track are adequately maintained?

Mr. CROTTY. No, I wouldn't envision that that would be the final development, Mr. Brown, but I would hope that some Federal body would require that the railroads themselves adequately police their property and maintain it in what we believe would be a safe condition.

Mr. BROWx. How would this be done?
Would it be done by a certification from the railroad?

Mr. CROTTY. First, the railroads would have to be required to set up a work procedure which would entail inspection at specified periods of time, and then the results of this inspection would have to be reported to some governmental agencies, to assure that its laws or regulations were carried out.

Mr. Brown. But you do not envision Federal inspection of the railbeds?


Mr. Brown. And the inspection would be conducted, then, as it is now, by railroad employees?

Mr. CROTTY. This is generally true. It might be that inspection by some governmental agency, where accidents had resulted in casualties, might be desirable.

Mr. Brown. Do you envision that this would require more employees on railbed inspection?

Mr. CROTTY. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. A more frequent railbed inspection, or a more thorough railbed inspection? I am not sure I understand.

Mr. CROTTY. I think it would be both more frequent and more thorough,

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions here!
Mr. Kyros?
Mr. Kyros. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Crotty, I want to commend you for a very clear statement. Let me ask you this, sir. Is the legislation before us necessary to enact in its present form in order to get safety regulations in the railroad industry? Isn't it possible, perhaps through negotiations between labor and management, to achieve the same thing?

Mr. CROTTY. Well, the railroads have been operating for over a century in this country, and most of these railroad brotherhoods, including my own, have been existent for almost that length of time, and we have not been able to achieve this worthy objective through collective bargaining:

And it would appear that some allover regulation is needed, so it would apply alike on all railroad properties, rather than be confined to the separate railroad properties.

Mr. Kyros. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kuykendall ?

Mr. KUYKENDALL. I will be brief, since I do think that the area that you covered is so terribly important. I regret that we don't have an extra 2 hours, but I see we don't, Mr. Chairman.

« PrécédentContinuer »