Images de page
PDF
ePub

fatalities and injuries arise in train service accidents, not the train accidents to which Mr. Homer elsewhere refers almost exclusively.

Table 30 breaks down these casualties among classes of persons killed and injured. It is notable that although employees on duty form the largest class of persons injured, the largest class of persons killed is non-trespassers, that is, neither employees nor passengers. Most of these are killed in grade crossing accidents, a type of accident which the Department of Transportation does not expect to be affected by passage of the bill.

Table 31 shows employee casualties in a single year by class of employee. It is chiefly of interest as showing the wide distribution of casualties which the railroads must report. Among such classes are executives, chief clerks, ticket agents, stenographers, traveling auditors, switchboard operators, office boys, motor vehicle operators, and janitors, to name a few. There is no parallel in the reporting of accidents by other modes of transportation.

Table 32 shows damage to various classes of railroad property from various types of train accidents from 1961 to 1966. Table 33 is an estimate of the cost of railroad accidents for one year. Both tables show only that accidents are a heavy financial burden on the railroads. This is conceded. It is one reason why the railroads try so hard to promote safety.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kornegay.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Menk, I appreciate very much your coming back today. I did not hear all of your testimony the other day. I was busy in the office but I did hear the part of your testimony with reference to the ways and means and methods of testing trackage. As I recall, you have two track inspection cars that roll up and down the line and pickup the defect in the track, is that correct?

Mr. MENK. Well, first of all, all of your mainline is gone over by a track foreman every day to inspect the general condition of the mainline.

Now, the two cars that possibly you are referring to are rail detector cars. They are electronic devices that are constantly on our railroad, constantly moving over the rail at slow speed diagnosing the condition of the rail, its strength or weaknesses and, if it finds a weakness, it marks the rail and the rail is taken out.

This is the practice on all major railroads of the United States. We happen to own our own equipment. Other railroads contract it with the Sperry Rail Service. This was what I was referring to. This is to continually assure ourselves that our rail is in safe condition.

Mr. KORNEGAY. In other words, it is a continuous operation and goes on all the time?

Mr. MENK. Twelve months a year; yes, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. What means do you use to inspect the roadbed itself, the crossties and the foundations?

Mr. MENK. These are the track foremen, track supervisors we call them, who go over the railroad every day, 6 days a week.

Mr. KORNEGAY. How long have these railcars been in use?

Mr. MENK. How long?

Mr. KORNEGAY. How long?

Mr. MENK. Twenty years I suppose.

Mr. KORNEGAY. The proposition that disturbs me is that with all of this inspection going on, with the repairs and maintenance that would naturally come as a result of weak rails, weak or wornout crossties, why the incidence of accidents caused by the tracks has increased from 449 in 1961 to 1,038 in 1966. Is there any explanation for that rather substantial and graphic increase which is well over 100 percent?

Mr. MENK. Well, I don't have the explanation for it myself. This hasn't been our experience. I have no explanation as to why or what the criteria were or what the criteria are or what type of accidents these are. These are not casualties I might point out.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Well, they are labeled improper maintenance of way construction and that is broken down into track, other structures and/ or signal systems.

Mr. MENK. I don't have an explanation of the increase. There has been some increase in volume which could contribute to it and also the length of trains has increased.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Has there been any appreciable increase in the speed of trains from 1961 to 1966 ?

Mr. MENK. No.

Mr. KORNEGAY. And under "other way and structure," and I guess that includes trestles, bridges, and grade separations, maybe grade crossings and things of that sort, there is an increase from 137 in 1961 to 390 in 1966. There again you have a great jump.

Mr. MENK. This includes grade crossing accidents you say?

Mr. KORNEGAY. I don't know. The only designation on this chart is "other way and structure." I don't know whether that includes grade crossings or not.

Mr. MENK. This is Mr. Lang's testimony?

Mr. KORNEGAY. Yes, sir. There has been no dispute as to his figures as I understand it.

Mr. MENK. I am not qualified to dispute them, no. Trucks, 449 to 1,038. I have no opinion as to the reason for that increase. I don't know what he classifies as other way and structure. I don't know what that is.

Mr. KORNEGAY. On your line, the Northern Pacific, you say there has been no appreciable increase in accidents caused by rail failure.

Mr. MENK. As a matter of fact, last year we didn't have a major

derailment.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Now, what consideration is being given by the railroads in moving from wooden ties to concrete ties?

Mr. MENK. Well, if you are going to build a new railroad out of face it is practical and economical to put in concrete ties, but concrete ties are put in on 31-inch centers as a result of the capacity for the bearing weight.

Wooden are I believe on 19-inch centers so that, if you are going to disperse them, you have the problem of tie centers and it isn't economical. It costs about $12 a tie to put in a concrete tie versus about $6 for a wooden tie. The concrete tie is no more safe than is the wooden tie. The economics are that it lasts about 11 years longer so far as we can calculate. Hopefully we will be building, well, we will in the very near future be building a 55-mile line in Mr. Adams' State, as a matter of fact, and we are studying the matter of putting in concrete ties because it is a new railroad and it will be probably economical to do so. Mr. PICKLE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KORNEGAY. I see my time is up. Otherwise I would be glad to yield.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Broyhill. Mr. BROYHILL. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

I will yield to my friend from North Carolina, Mr. Kornegay.

Mr. KORNEGAY. I will yield to my friend from Texas.
Mr. PICKLE. I thank both of my colleagues for yielding.

I was interested in this question, if you contemplate a new stretch of 50 miles in the State of Washington using concrete ties does this contemplate a new roadbed too entirely?

Mr. MENK. Yes, sir. It will be a whole new railroad. It's in the Walluke Slope.

Mr. PICKLE. As a matter of statistics, in general has your system built many new roadbeds in the last 30 or 40 years?

Mr. MENK. No, sir.

Mr. PICKLE. We are using in effect the same roadbed and crosstie system as we had 50 years ago?

Mr. MENK. No, that isn't so. We are using heavier rail. It has been relaid. We are using crossties with longer life. We are using a better ballast section. In my opinion we are providing better maintenance for our railroads today than we ever had.

Mr. PICKLE. I am sure that that is right, sir. I do not mean to imply anything to the contrary but what I am trying to establish is, is it not a fact that we are using generally the same type of roadbed, the same type of crosstie that we used 75 years ago and for the most part what we are doing, though we are modernizing it, is just patching the present system.

Mr. MENK. No, sir. We are upgrading it all the time.

Mr. PICKLE. Well, you are upgrading slowly.

Mr. MENK. 75 years ago you had 56 pound rail. That is 56 pounds to a yard. Our standard is now 132 pounds to a yard.

Mr. PICKLE. Rail might be one factor. Of course as the trains get heavier you use heavier rails and I could see that you would gradually be updating and modernizing it; but you are still just keeping up what you had 75 years ago in essence. You would agree!

Mr. MENK. No, I don't. It's on the same location and everything but it is an entirely new railroad as compared to 75 years ago. It is entirely new. The whole ballast section, the ties are all new, everything is new as compared to 75 years ago. The rails are anchored. You didn't anchor a rail 75 years ago. We have anchors and improved tie plates. It is an enirely different railroad but it is in the same location.

Mr. PICKLE. A wooden tie would last how long?

Mr. MENK. Our average is 39 years. A treated wooden oak hardwood tie will last about 39 years.

Mr. PICKLE. Now, if a treated wooden tie would last 39 years you haven't changed a whole lot then?

Mr. MENK. We didn't have treated wooden ties 75 years ago.
Mr. PICKLE. You haven't updated it very much.

Mr. MENK. There has been an awful lot. I can give you some statistics.

Mr. PICKLE. Would you change your ties if they are going to last 39 years and put it down for 3 or 4 years and say, "I need a new model?"

Mr. MENK. Oh, no, we wouldn't do that at all.

Mr. PICKLE. I don't want to argue the point but I know of course you keep it as up to date as you can. I wouldn't question that. I do think there has been a great deficiency in my judgment with respect

to the roadbed, the crossties, even the rails, and I think this is one of the reasons why we have had difficulty in maintaining passenger service.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina has expired. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Adams.

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Menk, we are pleased to have you before the committee. Following on Mr. Pickle's question, I wanted to ask you whether or not there is any area in your line where you have gone for new welded rails or corrected your roadbed for high speed train operation?

Mr. MENK. Yes, sir. The Northern Pacific has pioneered in welded rail. All new rail laid today is welded. We do not now in my judgment have a market for high speed transportation as there is I think in the Boston-Washington corridor. I think some day between Portland and Seattle, between Chicago and the Twin Cities, in many other large urban areas that rail-ground transportation will become the only

answer.

Mr. ADAMS. And what speed is your roadbed and rail system capable of handling over major stretches? You have been talking about your updating process.

Mr. MENK. Under the ICC it is 67 miles an hour.

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you.

Mr. Moloney, I noticed in your statement on page 11 that you have questioned the difference on section 4 which I inquired of the Administrator about the other day as to the relationship between State and Federal control under section 4 of the bill.

Is it your position that section 4 of the bill read in conjunction with the other sections of the bill would mean that the Federal Government would not control for safety purposes railroad crossings, in other words, both as to separation of grade and as to devices at crossings? Mr. MOLONEY. Mr. Adams, I think I pointed out in my statement that the bill itself is not entirely clear in that respect but that in the testimony of the spokesmen for the Department of Transportation they made it clear that it was their intent and purpose that the regulatory power and authority in the grade crossing area would reside in the States.

Mr. ADAMS. And is that the interpretation that you place on it also?

Mr. MOLONEY. On the bill?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes.

Mr. MOLONEY. I am unable to interpret it positively one way or the other.

Mr. ADAMS. In other words, you do not place an interpretation on it as a position for the railroads?

Mr. MOLONEY. As to whether the States would have it?

Mr. ADAMS. Or not.

Mr. MOLONEY. Under the bill, as you will recall, Mr. Adams, it says that the States may regulate in areas where it does not conflict with Federal regulations.

Mr. ADAMS. I just want to know looking at all of the terms of the bill and in particular, section 4, what the position of the railroads is, to think that highway crossings and so on which is the greatest source at the present time of accidents according to all the statistics either

can be regulated by the Federal Government, can't, or you don't have a position on it either way because you can't decide from the bill.

Mr. MOLONEY. No, I thought I attempted to make it clear in my statement where I asked questions as to why give the Secretary the broad safety authority in other areas and then with respect to grade crossings say that he shall not have it which is the intent of the DOT.

I think if the Secretary is going to be given-and we hope that will not be the case-this broad and unlimited safety authority then we think he should take over the grade crossings too.

Mr. ADAMS. The last question I have is with regard to section 11(c) which regards reports submitted by railroads and the degree to which accident reports could be used and this is in your statement on pages 16 and 17.

You make statements that these should not be distributed and so on. What is your position with regard to whether or not these reports can be examined by members of the public as we do with regard to the FAA and other accident reports?

Mr. MOLONEY. It may be a little unsual-I am not sure-but we have had a rather bad experience over the years with the accident reports filed by the railroad and they in one way or another becoming available, shall I say, to ambulance chasers, and I use that term advisedly. I think most members of this committee are familiar with the fact that the railroad accident may take place in the State of Georgia and you would be represented by a lawyer from Mr. Menk's home town.

They have been used for stirring up litigation. They have been used in ways that have lead certain lawyers to run into difficulties with their own bar associations.

We feel that to the extent that the reports are used the less likelihood that you get the free and full disclosure to the agency investigating, the less likelihood that it would receive the full and complete disclosure that leads to a healthy investigation.

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Skubitz.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the defendants a couple of questions.

Mr. Menk, I reread your statement and was impressed with some of the statements that you made.

For example, "We are concerned with safety."

"Safety is the bread and butter to the railroads." "Freight that is damaged" * * * "we pay for."

"Greater safety means an increased profit to the railroads as well as benefit to the employees and shippers."

Those are excellent statements. You would think that the railroad executives were sitting awake nights to think of new ways to bring about safety and thus improve profits. Yet the facts indicate that accidents are increasing, that derailments are increasing, that freight cars are more defective than ever and more accidents are occurring at grade crossings.

I would like to ask why this tremendous increase in derailment is the cause poor supervision?

« PrécédentContinuer »