« PrécédentContinuer »
TABLE C.-TOTAL CASUALTIES-TRAIN, TRAIN SERVICE, AND NONTRAIN ACCIDENTS, RAILWAYS OF ALL
TABLE D-CASUALTIES IN RAILROAD ACCIDENTS, RAILWAYS OF ALL CLASSES, 1961-67
964. 965. 1966. 1967 2
Train accidents, all persons
1,535 151 1,581
1,732 191 1,028
1,219 191 864
1,055 214 900
1961. 1962 1963. 1964. 1965. 1966
1,114 170 754
924 Train service accidents, employees on duty ? 85 11,053
11,138 102 10, 844
10.94 110 11, 110
11, 22 99 11, 491
11, 594 99 11,043
11, 14 94
10, 717 10.814 Nontrain accidents, employees on duty 35 8,292
8, 327 47 7,926
7,973 39 7, 823
7,862 47 7,989
8,036 41 7,113
7,154 44 7,076
1961 1962 1963. 1964 1965 1966.
1 Percent change 1963-67, decrease 46.7.
TABLE E.-CASUALTIES TO EMPLOYEES ON DUTY-TRAIN, TRAIN SERVICE, AND NONTRAIN ACCIDENTS, CLASSI
1 Reportable injuries not comparable due to changes in reporting rules effective Jan. 1 1961.
TABLE F.-CASUALTIES TO EMPLOYEES ON DUTY, PER MILLION TRAIN-MILES, TRAIN AND TRAIN SERVICE ACCI
DENTS, RAILWAYS OF ALL CLASSES, 1961-66
Source: Reports of the Department of Transportation and Interstate Commerce Commission.
TABLE G-DERAILMENTS AND TRAIN ACCIDENTS ATTRIBUTED TO DEFECTS IN OR FAILURES OF WHEELS AND
TABLE H.-TOTAL CASUALTIES PER BILLION GROSS TON-MILES-TRAIN, TRAIN SERVICE, AND NONTRAIN
ACCIDENTS, RAILWAYS OF ALL CLASSES, 1961-67
Mr. FRIEDEL. I want to thank you, Mr. Daulton, for a very informative statement.
On page 1 of your statement, you said you have "been a member of the Steering Committee of the Safety Section of the Association of American Railroads” and you said, “I am acquainted with what they and their railroads are doing to promote a safer place for their men to work and to eliminate needless suffering and death.".
Can you outline to this committee what you do in line with the freight cars, trackage, bridges? What regulations do you have as far as safety on the railroads themselves! I am not talking about regulations; but what do you do?
Mr. DAULTON. What does this Steering Committee of the Safety Section of the Association of American Railroads do with respect to equipment and trackage and so on? Mr. FRIEDEL. Yes; that is not under the ICC regulations.
Mr. DAULTON. Well, if some new design is come up with by the car manufacturers or the railroads themselves, the steering committee of the safety section considers it and makes their recommendations with regard to the safety aspects of the equipment.
Mr. FRIEDEL. How often do you go over your trackage? Someone mentioned that at least once a year, if not more, they go over their bridges. These are the things that I would like to know. What are the standards of the railroads in looking after their equipment?
Mr. DAULTON. Well, track and bridge inspection on all railroads comes under the engineering department.
Mr. FRIEDEL. I could go into others, but I am trying to find out what the guidelines are for the railroads to look after their equipment as far as safety is concerned.
Mr. DAULTON. Well, as I mentioned, the inspection of tracks and bridges comes under the engineering department. What their practices are I cannot tell you exactly at this time. Inspection of locomotives is under Federal law. Inspection of certain areas of equipment is also under Federal law, such as the safety appliances.
All cars are inspected on interchange. That is, when one road delivers them to another they are inspected for defect. So far as inspections of properties for fire and housekeeping hazards, we have just completed on the L. & N. an inspection of the entire system this year and that was conducted by an assistant general manager.
The inspections of yards and terminals on the L. & N., I personally do. I walk the yards from end to end, take pictures of anything I see that needs correcting, and it is handled immediately for correction.
Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Moss.
Mr. Moss. I have not yet had the opportunity to complete the reading of the statement but I do have some questions on table B.
You are reporting here gross totals in the period 1961 through 1967. What percentage of the total work force does that represent? Has there been an increase in work force in these years or a decrease in work force ?
Mr. DAULTON. Sir, table B says number of persons. That is all persons whether they are employees, people in grade crossing accidents, or trespassers. That is not related solely to employees.
Mr. Moss. Well, is it related significantly or substantively to railroad employees?
Mr. DAULTON. Sir, at the moment I can't answer you. Mr. Moss. I think you should be prepared to answer that question. That is rather a simple one. You have cited the figures. You must know whether they come from workers or whether they come from people at grade crossings. You must have some idea.
Mr. DAULTON. Well, the ICC, now the FRA, issues monthly and annually exhaustive studies and I do not happen to have that with me. I could make the information available to you.
Mr. Moss. Well, I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that we have as a percentage of work force the pattern of the year 1961 to 1967 of killed and injured. I ask that the record be held open to receive that.
I think that is a significant fact and one that the committee should be conversant with.
Will you supply that for us? Mr. KUYKENDALL. Will the gentleman yield at that point for an additional question?
Mr. Moss. Yes, sir.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Only if you agree, Mr. Moss, we in this particular percentage would want the casualties of the work force only, in other words, leave out pedestrians, so to speak.
Mr. Moss. I am asking his percentage of work force.
Mr. Moss. Other than work force. Unless they were a part of the working group employed by the railroad they woud not be included.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. We have been getting casualty figures that included a lot of other people. I would like to see it separated.
Mr. Moss. Yes, I think we require the separation and the pattern during this period of 8 years of percentage increase or decrease in work injuries. I am not interested in billion ton miles or locomotive hours or any of that.
You have x number of employees. During the course of a year a percentage of them experience accidents. I am interested in those figures.
Mr. Daulton. Mr. Moss, sir, table C does not answer the question which you have asked but it does give the casualties to employees on duty and casualties to all persons.
Mr. Moss. It doesn't give the percentage.
Mr. Moss. And if you got a fairly constant and it would appear to be a relatively constant figure where you cite an 11.9 decrease and maybe you have had a 20-percent decrease in personnel, that may mean one thing. If you had an increase in personnel it may mean another. I want to know that.
Mr. Daulton. We will furnish the figures. Mr. Moss. That is all the questions I have. (The information requested follows:)