FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR RAILROAD SAFETY

TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1968

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2123, Ray, burn House Office Building, Hon. Harley O. Staggers (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

We have as our first witness this morning Mr. Louis W. Menk. For the record, we are in a continuation of the hearings on H.R. 16980. Mr. Menk, would you come forward, sir?

I would like to make this announcement now, that our intentions are to close these hearings tomorrow, and, if they are not closed by tomorrow noon, they will go tomorrow night until 7:30 and continue until they are finished, if it is the next day. I understand that we have two or three men who want to put their statements in the record and that there are one or two who want to appear. So that, the intention of the Chair is to finish tomorrow sometime. We will come in tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock to give extra time. I think everybody will have plenty of time. I don't think by the time we are through that anyone will say he has not had his say and that there has not been enough time for questioning.

I might announce now that we do start tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. I hope that we probably will get to one or two more this morning.

Mr. Menk, you may proceed, sir. You have given your statement, have you not? Your are just here for questioning. Am I correct in this?

FURTHER STATEMENT OF LOUIS W. MENK, PRESIDENT, NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM M. MOLONEY, GENERAL COUNSEL

Mr. MENK. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Friedel.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Menk, before I ask a question or two, do you have any answers to some of the questions that were asked yesterday or prior to the meeting on which you would like to make a statement?

Mr. MENK. Do I have any answers to the questions?

Mr. FRIEDEL. Yes.

Mr. MENK. I think it might be well if I did make a statement or two. One of the areas that Mr. Crotty, who represents the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, got into, among others, was the use of trucks. He made a considerable point of the fact that trucks as

they were were unsafe, that they carried tools with the men, that oftentimes they carried gasoline in the same truck, barrels of gasoline or other flammables.

This, insofar as my personal experience is concerned, is not so, and I have brought along some pictures of the type of truck that Northern Pacific is using, which is a two-cab affair where the driver and some employees ride in the front section, and the rest of the gang ride in the back section.

It is sort of a piggyback affair. They come in all sizes, half-ton, three-quarter, and these trucks are used in the maintenance of our property. In fact, we have built roads alongside of our right of way, along the railroad, in order that we could use these trucks.

There are two primary purposes for the trucks. One is, of course, to adopt the new technology. We have mechanized a lot of maintenance of way, but equally as important is to get the motor cars that have heretofore carried the employees to and from their work off of the railroad and away from the hazard of being struck by a train or derailing or something like that.

The statistics prove that this has lessened the number of motor car accidents. In fact, since 1958, it has cut them by 50 percent.

I would ask that the committee members, if they so desire, look at these. There are several types of these. One of the members of the committee said to Mr. Crotty "What you are suggesting is a bus.“ In actuality we do use some buses for large gangs.

The CHAIRMAN. May the committee take a look at those, please. Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Menk, there were remarks made that you use open trucks with no seats or benches and no rails and people might fall out. I have not seen the pictures yet.

Mr. MENK. Mr. Friedel, if you will look at the pictures, they are the trucks that we are using now. I personally have no knowledge of anybody using open trucks to transport people, trucks without seats in them. I don't know what happens on all the railroads, but insofar as my personal experience is concerned, and I have been the president of three railroads, I don't know of anything of this kind occurring.

There are the van-type trucks such as the Frisco Railroad uses with tool boxes under the seats, cushioned seats for the men to sit in, in the back of the van. In these trucks there are openings for communication between those in the rear and those in the front. They have first aid kits. They have fire extinguishers.

As I say, one of the primary purposes is to get the man off the railroad track and into what we consider to be a safer mode of transportation so that the truck, far from being an unsafe device, is as we see it a tool for the implementation of safety.

Mr. FRIEDEL. In other words, safety is foremost in your mind?
Mr. MENK. Indeed it is.

The CHAIRMAN. So you wouldn't mind any safety regulations being put in? You say that they are so safe so that you wouldn't mind standards being put in?

Mr. MENK. We have our own standards, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I am saying that you might have, but you wouldn't mind for the Nation, if we said, "We shall make these things safer"? Would you mind that?

Mr. MENK. I am not so sure I would mind or not mind it. If I felt that you could legislate safety, I would be here testifying for this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. We are not trying to legislate safety. We are trying to set some standards. I don't think any good-thinking man would say that he would be objecting to that. You say you have them, and we agree that you have them.

Mr. MENK. We have them.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Fine. You wouldn't object, then, to saying that we should have at least minimum Federal standards? Mr. MENK. There are minimum standards, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Nationally?

Mr. MENK. Set by the ICC, yes, sir.

Mr. FRIEDEL. You know that your railroad has safety standards, but how about other railroads? You wouldn't mind the minimum standards?

Mr. MENK. Well, it would depend on who administers the standards. This bill provides that our own employees be made inspectors. This, in my opinion, is taking away the prerogative of management, management that has done a good job in this area and has shown a consistent improvement actually. If the standards are to be administered by our own employees, somebody selected by an outside party, or if the standards with respect to employment are to be set without regard to the agreements that we have between our unions and between the management, then I would be opposed to this type of standards. The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRIEDEL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you opposed to the automobile safety standards that this committee passed or the airline safety standards that we have passed or the gasline safety standards that we are trying to pass? Are you opposed to all these things?

Mr. MENK. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. They have to be set by standards and somebody has to abide by them.

Mr. MENK. That is correct, but I don't think you can compare the airline industry with the railroad industry.

I think you have to have standards, and I don't object.

The CHAIRMAN. If we have to have standards, why don't we make them uniform to all transportation?

Mr. MENK. Again, sir; if they are made with the cooperation of the railroads who are the professionals in this business

The CHAIRMAN. We want it to be just that. We don't want it to be anything else.

Mr. MENK. Then I agree with you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And we could have said that a long time ago because we don't want to force anything on private industry in the land except they are consulted and have their say and have the right of appeal. Mr. MENK. Then this would be satisfactory to me.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Just one more question, Mr. Menk.

There was a charge made that they used radios working on the roadbeds and used these air hammers and, because of the use of the air hammers, they cannot hear the radio, and there is a danger here. Now, do you have any statement on that?

Mr. MENK. Yes, sir. I do. I consider the radio an instrument to facilitate safety, and I think we have surrounded the use of the radio with appropriate rules that would overcome any situation such as noise, such as dead spots, and so forth and so on.

There are particular rules that allude to this type of operation. We have rules in effect that, if they are in a situation or doing work where the noise of some machine overcomes the ability of the user to hear the radio, then he must put out a live flag in both directions in addition to having train orders out which prescribe that the train stop and not pass a red signal until he gets a proceed signal from the foreman in charge.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask this. Mr. Moloney might be the one to answer this. I believe in your testimony, and that was last Monday

Mr. MOLONEY. I cannot remember the exact date.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe you said that the maintenance-of-way foremen, using radio, informed the engineer of an oncoming train that the line was not clear of track repair equipment; he had first said it was clear and found out that there was one piece left on there and tried to get hold of the engineer and couldn't get hold of the engineer. Mr. MOLONEY. I think that is correct. I may say that we

The CHAIRMAN. I believe according to your testimony here that he was unable to make contact with the engineer. You then blamed the resulting accident not on the inadequacy of radio as a safety system, but on employee error, is that correct?

Mr. MOLONEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. But yet the radio failed, and he couldn't make contact at all, and from this, doesn't it appear that the radio worked once but failed to work the second time? It did work once?

Mr. MOLONEY. The record shows, the investigation of the Interstate Commerce Commission shows that the radio did work, that two other trains in addition to the one that the track foreman communicated with heard the radio conversation, two other train crews heard it.

The CHAIRMAN. Not at the same place. They weren't located at the same place this train was.

Mr. MOLONEY. They passed over the same track and by the same point.

The CHAIRMAN. At the same time?

Mr. MOLONEY. Obviously not at the same time.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I am talking about. The conditions. were different.

Mr. MOLONEY. I don't think the conditions were different.

The CHAIRMAN. The time was different. There was something the matter that at this time it failed.

Mr. MOLONEY. No, sir. I don't think that that investigation shows any failure.

The CHAIRMAN. You do know that four men were killed, do you not?

Mr. MOLONEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you do know that if the flagman went out there and stopped the train, those four men would have been living today?

Mr. MOLONEY. Yes, sir; and if that train had not been scheduled to run, those men would have been living today.

The CHAIRMAN. We are not going to be so absurd as to say that. We know that if the flagman had been there, the men would be living today.

Mr. MOLONEY. No, sir. I don't know that.

The CHAIRMAN. You have good reason to believe that?

Mr. MOLONEY. I have good reason to know that if the flagman were there and far enough down the line and if the train knew that the man was in that place, if all of these conditions dovetailed, the accident could have been avoided; but I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that there are records of accidents where flagging has taken place.

The CHAIRMAN. We can find anything that is an exception to the rule. You and I know that, but you and I know that, if there had been a flagman there, and he wouldn't have been there unless he knew the men were down the track, that would have been his purpose.

Mr. MOLONEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And he would have tried to warn the men unless he had fallen asleep or God had stricken him dead, but the chances are, if he had been there, he would have stopped the train, and the four men would have been living.

All we are talking about is that there has been some laxity, something has happened, and there has been some failure. You say it was human error. That could be, but if there had been a flagman there, the chances are only one in a million, probably, that he wouldn't have stopped the train."

Mr. MOLONEY. I would have no way to measure the chances.

The CHAIRMAN. Neither do I, but the chances would have been much greater. You and I know that.

Mr. MOLONEY. I think the Interstate Commerce Commission records show that they said that the accident was caused by the foreman of that gang giving erroneous information as to the condition of the track at the time.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you admit that. You said that after he said it was clear and it was recognized, found out that there was another piece of equipment on there, he tried to get ahold of the trainman and couldn't get ahold of him then.

Mr. MOLONEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Also as to the noise of the machinery, the mechanized crew, it has been testified that it seriously interferes with any discussions, including transmission by the radio, when they are using this machinery. I don't know. I am just trying to say that there were some things happened here that we don't know about.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Will the chairman yield?

The CHAIRMAN. Surely. You go ahead.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Chairman, are you trying to establish the point that perhaps we ought to have radio equipment and flagman

The CHAIRMAN. No, I am asking for them to be safe, Mr. Skubitz, and you are, too, and I know that. Four men were killed and they would be living today. If it was your son or son-in-law or somebody else, you would say, "What is going on in this Nation?"

Mr. SKUBITZ. When there is a need, yes.