"We believe the rail industry should immediately consider a review of its rules and voluntarily agree to adhere to specific minimum standards. If such voluntary methods should prove unsuccessful, then the alternative may be increased Federal regulation. However, in the first instance we recommend that the Department examine the feasibility of the industry revising and amending its rules and observing them voluntarily." Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I believe appearances have been made before this committee pertaining to H.R. 16980, without totally exploring the needs or the alternatives, and without sufficient consultation between interested parties. Thank you for allowing me the privilege of appearance. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Croft. Are there any questions? Mr. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We thank Mr. Croft for appearing. I would only ask one thing. Any information relative to safety features or improvements and so forth developed in this railway research center is available to the short line as well as to the long line carriers, is it? Mr. CROFT. Yes, sir. Mr. WATSON. All of you share in that? Mr. CROFT. Yes, sir. Mr. WATSON. That is all. Thank you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask one question. I meant to ask it of Mr. Moloney when he was there but I did not get to him but he is still in the room. I will ask you. Do the penalties under the Locomotive Inspection Act, and this is what Mr. Watson brought up a while ago, do the penalties under the Locomotive Inspection Act or the Appliance Acts apply to the employee or to the carriers only? Mr. CROFT. I believe it is carriers only, Mr. Staggers. I have accompanied them on many inspections. I don't remember it applying to anyone other than the carrier. The CHAIRMAN. I think that is true. All these features of the act apply to the carriers only and not to the employees. Mr. WATSON. Of course, this legislation broadens that. It goes well beyond that; it includes employees and everybody else. I think it covers everything but the kitchen sink and I am not so sure about that. The CHAIRMAN. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you so much for coming here and giving us the benefit of your views. Mr. CROFT. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. This concludes the appearances on this bill. The record will remain open for 5 days for any statements that are to be put in. The committee will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock in executive session. (Correspondence referred to in the chairman's opening remarks, p. 1, follows:) Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, Washington, D.C., March 8, 1966. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR MR. CONGRESSMAN: I have your letter of March 7, with respect to the recent annual report of the Interstate Commerce Commission in connection with accident statistics. While much is available here with respect to questions involving the removal of firemen in yard and freight service, in the interest of insuring that you receive full information I am asking Mr. J. E. Wolfe, Chairman of the National Railway Labor Conference, to reply directly to you since he has been deeply involved in this matter and quite likely can give you a more accurate reply. With all best wishes, DANIEL P. LOOMIS, President. NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR CONFERENCE, Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR CONGRESSMAN STAGGERS: Mr. Loomis has asked me to reply to your letter of March 7, 1966 in which reference is made to certain statistics showing an increase in train and train-service accidents in 1964 over 1963, referred to in the recent report of the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Congress covering the fiscal year ended June 30, 1965. You inquire whether these statistics have been analyzed, and particularly whether available data indicate the extent to which the increase in accidents may be the result of removing firemen. I am delighted to have this opportunity to report to you on that subject because a great deal of misinformation has been circulated by some interests, apparently with the design of creating an entirely erroneous conception of the content and significance of the ICC statistical analyses. The Interstate Commerce Commission states at page 73 of its annual report to which you refer that the "major portion" of the increases in train and trainservice accidents was due to three causes: 1. "derailments caused primarily by faulty equipment" 2. "track conditions" and 3. "highway grade crossings" There is nothing in the Commission's analysis of its own statistics to indicate any relationship between accident trends and the presence or absence of firemen. Because of your interest, I attach a series of statistical tables, divided into five groups, A-E, which have been compiled from the latest available Interstate Commerce Commission data. Each group of tables is preceded by an explanatory textual analysis. The ICC statistics confirm the absence of any casual relationship between accident and casualty trends and the removal of firemen. You will note that the increases in casualties and accidents between 1963 and 1964 were, in general, of lesser magnitude than the increases between 1962 and 1963, despite the fact that approximately 20.1 percent of all freight and yard operations were conducted without firemen in 1964, wehereas firemen were employed on practically all freight and yard locomotives in both 1963 and 1962. Thus, the removal of firemen was accompanied by an improvement in the trend of casualties and accidents. A comparison of the 1965 results (based on preliminary data just published by the Interstate Commerce Commission) with those for 1964, reflects a substantially lower rate of increase in train accidents than occurred between 1963 and 1964. More important, these preliminary data indicate that there will be a substantial decline in the number of casualties from 1964 to 1965. In 1965 approximately 47.7 percent of railroad operations in freight and yard service were conducted without firemen, an increase of almost two and one-half times the magnitude of the 1964 operations without firemen. Therefore, the increase in the percentage of operations conducted without firemen has coincided with a reduction in casualties. The 1965 accident data to which I refer (with the exception of January and February) are based on the preliminary reports of the Interstate Commerce Commission. These data are subject to upward adjustment because of late reporting and corrections. However, differences between the preliminary reports and the final reports in the past have been greater with respect to the train accident data than the casualty data. This is primarily because of the fact that final determination of whether or not a train accident is reprotable depends upon an arbitrary amount of damage to railroad property. In 1964 the difference between the preliminary and final number of reported train accidents amounted to 3.3 percent. The difference in total casualties was 2.3 percent, and the difference in casualties to employees on duty was 1.9 percent. Adjustments of this magnitude in the 1965 preliminary figures would not appreciably change the percentage relationships or trends, and would not impair the validity of the conclusion that there is a downtrend in the number and rate of casualties. For several reasons, the casualty statistics (fatalities and injuries) to which I have referred are a more important and significant measure of changes in relative safety than train accident statistics. Many train accidents occur without any personal injuries. While, of course, we are concerned with damage to equipment and property, our first concern is with the personal safety of individuals. The reportability of a train accident is determined solely by the amount of damage to railroad property. Currently the dividing line is $750. If an accident results in damage of $750 or less it is not a reportable train accident. If the damage is more than $750 it is a reportable train accident. The increasing cost of railroad equipment and the increasing cost of repairs because of higher costs of materials and supplies and increased wages could, without regard to any other factor, result in an increase in reportable train accidents without any change in the over-all frequency of accidents, fatalities, or injuries in the railroad industry. The changing composition of railroad service, resulting from a decline in the volume of passenger service and the increase in the volume of freight and yard services has contributed to the increase in train accident frequencies over the past several years. This is explained in somewhat more detail in the attachments. The question of the impact, if any, of the removal of firemen in freight and yard service, commencing in May of 1964, on the safety of operations of the American railroads was thoroughly aired during the hearings before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce in the summer of 1965. It was also given considerable attention in the January 1966 report of the National Joint Board. This Board was created and functioned pursuant to the Award of Arbitration Board No. 282, which, as you know, was established by Public Law 88-108. The four-man National Joint Board was composed of one member each from the Engineers' and Firemen's Unions and two members from the carriers. The evidence adduced at the Senate hearings and the facts included in the Joint Board Report, which are corroborated by the recently available 1965 preliminary statistics included in the attached compilation, strongly indicate that there is no relationships between increases (or decreases) in casualty and accident frequencies and the removal of firemen in freight and yard service. In conclusion, I wish to express my appreciation for your interest in this very important subject. It has given me an opportunity to present to you what we consider to be a comprehensive review of the casualty experience of the railroad industry. If you desire additional information, or there is anything in this presentation that requires clarification, do not hesitate to call upon me, because it is my sincere desire to make it absolutely clear that we have found, and the available data confirms, that railroad accidents and casualties are not attributable to the absence of firemen. Very truly yours, J. E. WOLFE, Chairman. ANALYSIS OF CURRENT SAFETY STATISTICS A. EFFECT OF THE CHANGES IN THE LEVELS OF COSTS IN REPORTING OF TRAIN ACCIDENTS A factor which has contributed to the higher train accident rates reported by the Interstate Commerce Commission during the last several years is the increase in the cost of labor, materials and equipment. The Interstate Commerce Commission defines a train accident as one in which damage to property or equipment exceeds $750. In computing such damages the railroads take into consideration the cost of equipment damaged and the cost of repairs. Due to higher wage rates and increases in the cost of materials and equipment, many accidents which were formerly unreportable, because the damage involved was less than $750, are now reportable accidents. Train accident rates reported by the ICC may thus be increased without any increase in the actual number of such accidents. The following table (A-1) contains significant cost statistics for the Class I Line-Haul Railroads for the years 1961 through 1964. Repairs to right-of-way and equipment are made by the maintenance of way and shop employees. From 1961 to 1964 there was a 7.8 percent increase in the average straight time hourly rates of pay of maintenance of way employees and a 6.0 percent increase in the hourly rates of pay of employees engaged in the maintenance and repair of equipment. In September of 1965 the average straight time hourly earnings of maintenance of way employees stood at $2.579, 8.0 percent above 1963 levels; and those of maintenance of equipment employees were $2.867, 7.1 percent above 1963 levels. In 1963 the average cost of freight cars purchased by the American railroads exceeded their average cost in 1961 by 23.9 percent. Equipment costs are known to have increased in 1964 and 1965, although published data is as yet unavailable for these years. The effect of these increases in costs upon the number of train accidents reported to the Interstate Commerce Commission are reflected in the fact that while the number of reported train accidents on all United States railroads increased 28.1 percent during the period 1961 to 1964, the number of casualties in train and train-service accidents increased only 4.6 percent. Source: Interstate Commerce Commission statements M-300 and statements of railways. B. EFFECT OF REDISTRIBUTION OF OPERATIONS AMONG THE SEVERAL CLASSES OF SERVICE Since 1961, as during prior years, there has been a decline in the volume of passenger service and a concomitant increase in the volume of freight and yard services. This redistribution of the operations among the several classes of services is shown on the following table (B-1). Passenger gross ton-miles declined by 9.3 percent over the period 1961 to 1964, while gross freight ton-miles increase by 12.4 percent; and net freight ton-miles increased by 16.2 percent. The effect of these changes in the redistribution of service on total accident and casualty levels may be judged from the accident and casualty rates shown in the second following table (B-2). Train accident rates in freight and yard service are from three to four times as high as in passenger service. Casualty rates in freight service are three times as high as in passenger service, and casualty rates in yard service are nearly seven times as high as in passenger service. With no change in the hazards of any of the three classes of service, levels of total accidents and casualty frequencies would have increased merely as a result of the redistribution of the service that has occurred since 1961. TABLE B-2.-TRAIN ACCIDENT RATES AND CASUALTY RATES TO TRAIN AND ENGINE SERVICE EMPLOYEES IN TRAIN AND TRAIN-SERVICE ACCIDENTS PER MILLION LOCOMOTIVE AND MOTOR TRAIN-MILES, BY CLASSES OF SERVICE 1 Rates by class of service computed by dividing accidents on all railroads by train-miles for Class 1 Line-Haul Railroads. Rates for all services computed by dividing accidents on all railroads by train-miles on all railroads. 2 Not available. 3 Class I line-haul railroads, except 1964, for all services is for all railroads. Source: Interstate Commerce Commission Annual Accident Bulletins, Statements M-400, and Statistics of Railroads. C. CASUALTIES TO ALL CLASSES OF PERSONS AND TO EMPLOYEES ON DUTY Because of the factors discussed in Part A, casualty statistics (fatalities and injuries) are a more significant measure of changes in relative safety than train accident statistics. The four tables in this series summarize the casualty experience of the United States railroads for the years 1961 through 1965, and for the eight months period May to December inclusive for the same years. For the years 1961 through 1964 casualties are segregated between those occurring in train and train-service and in nontrain accidents. The only statistics presently available showing 1965 casualties (except for January and February) are reported on ICC Statements M-450 entitled "Preliminary Report of Railroad Accidents and Resulting Casualties". This statement does not segregate casualties between train, train-service and nontrain accidents (except for casualties occurring to passengers on trains). Therefore, for 1965 only casualties in train, train-service, and nontrain accidents combined are available. The first two tables show casualties to persons of all classes. This includes casualties to employees on duty, passengers on trains, all classes of persons in highway-grade crossing accidents, and other classes of persons. Casualties to 95-388-6826 |