http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/safety/2014-safest-year-on-record.html?channel=60
Safest year to date.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Your point is?
23 17 46 11
It must be a mistake. After all, we don't have PTC, ECP, on board sensors (derailed equipment, hot axle, etc) or any of the other gizmos or procedures called for by safety experts in government or on this forum deployed nation wide in everyday use.
Jeff
jeffhergertIt must be a mistake. After all, we don't have PTC, ECP, on board sensors (derailed equipment, hot axle, etc) or any of the other gizmos or procedures called for by safety experts in government or on this forum deployed nation wide in everyday use.
On the other hand, we still had over 1700 accidents in 2014, no few of which might have been either avoided or mitigated by sensors, gizmos, procedures or other things...
I would also play devil's advocate a bit and note that this report appears to be statistics-based, with no indication of severity of accidents being noted in the release. That might well mean, for example, that there were even better safety gains in some areas -- say, those associated with better safety awareness gotten from better or more effective safety meetings or training -- but the numbers were dragged down by "exploding" oil trains and the like. As I understand the methodology, an incident involving a crushed toe 'counts' the same as a sky full of progressive combustion for purposes of the analysis. Non-statisticians might view this somewhat differently...
WizlishI would also play devil's advocate a bit and note that this report appears to be statistics-based, with no indication of severity of accidents being noted in the release.
Those stats exist on the FRA web site.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
jeffhergert It must be a mistake. After all, we don't have PTC, ECP, on board sensors (derailed equipment, hot axle, etc) or any of the other gizmos or procedures called for by safety experts in government or on this forum deployed nation wide in everyday use. Jeff
+1
There often is a case for regulation-improved safety since not all the benefits wind up in the pocket of those who have to pay for the improvment. The problem is the path idea to implementation is often a hot mess, particularly of late.
Those stats are probably low. In the fire business, if you die as a result of a heart attack or other such issue within 24 hours of an incident, it counts as a line of duty death.
Last year we were under 100 deaths nation-wide in the fire service, but less than 30 were actual traumatic incidents. The rest were health-related or the result of accidents enroute or returning.
If a company official is killed in an accident on a public highway, does that count against railroad safety?
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
If he is on duty, yes.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman If he is on duty, yes.
The oil&gas + trucking industry are ever so slowly following the rail industry's lead...but the media won't get the hint or understand the big difference in safety performance. Still, any death or injury is not acceptable and there is a long way still to go.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.