37 States Experience Fewer Train Accidents During First Six Months of 2006

[Anonymous]

37 States Experience Fewer Train Accidents During First Six Months of 2006 As Train Derailments and Collisions Show Significant Declines

Thursday, September 14, 2006 (Washington, DC) Thirty-seven states experienced fewer train derailments and collisions during the first half of 2006 as compared to the same period last year Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph H. Boardman announced today noting that railroads were doing a better job focusing on safety performance.

A review of the preliminary statistics compiled by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for January through June 2006 reveals that railroads had 262 fewer train accidents, or a 16.1 percent reduction, when compared to the first half of 2005, Boardman said. Specifically, the number of derailments decreased by 13.6 percent and train-to-train collisions fell 34.1 percent. A total of 16 states saw a decrease of 10 or more train accidents, including Texas (28), Ohio (14), New Jersey (11), and California (10), Boardman said.

“It is encouraging that railroads are making improvements in many areas of rail safety," Boardman said. "But more needs to be done to make our trains and grade crossings truly safe."

The data shows that train accidents caused by human error—the leading cause of all train accidents--declined 22.9 percent, Boardman said. Train accidents caused by track issues decreased 13.4 percent, and those caused by equipment failure and signal problems fell by 13 percent and 28.6 percent, respectively. In addition, the number of highway-rail grade crossing collisions was unchanged, but grade crossing fatalities rose by 5.8 percent. Trespass fatality numbers are also unchanged from the same period in 2005.

Boardman said that aggressive implementation of FRA’s National Rail Safety Action Plan was a contributing factor in the overall improvement in railroad safety. The Action Plan targets the most frequent, highest-risk causes of train accidents; increases the use of data to focus the FRA’s inspection and enforcement resources; and accelerates research and development activities that have the potential to mitigate the largest risks.

A state-by-state list comparing the train accident data from the first six-months of 2006 to the first six-months of 2005 can be found on the FRA web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/pubaffairs/FRA1206Spreadsheet.pdf

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/press-releases/111

Dave

[ndbprr]

I'd be more interested in what percentage of trains derailed.  For example: If last year there were 10,000 trains and ten derailed and this year there were ten trains and four derailed wouldn't that be more indicative of what actually was going on?

[greyhounds]

I'd be more interested in what percentage of trains derailed.  For example: If last year there were 10,000 trains and ten derailed and this year there were ten trains and four derailed wouldn't that be more indicative of what actually was going on?

The purpose of the press release was to make the F.R.A. and its programs look good.  Maybe they do deserve a lot of credit, they certainly derserve some credit. 

But the purpose of a press release is to get favorable publicity, not to provide full, complete, honest, accurate (honest and accurate are not the same thing.), information.

[edblysard]

You would have to quantify your request.

Do you want to know about every single derailment?

That would be like asking for the number of automobiles that had flat tires this morning.

Then where, and under what circumstances they had the flats, and how much damage was done because of the flat.

Did it happen on the freeway at speed, and cause a major pile-up…or did it happen in the driveway and the only damage is to that one tire?

Same thing with trains.

Count on this…right now there is a train on the ground somewhere in the US…most likely some where in your state.

Not all derailments are FRA reportable, depending on the dollar damage to the car and track structure.

Yard derailments are rarely reportable, and if so, are so frequent they would need a special section at the FRA just for them.

That section would have to be broken down by dollar value, then to failure types.

Did it derail because of a switch being line wrong, or simple track failure?

Was it debris in flange way, or man failure the cause?

Wheel defects, excessive flat spots, so forth and so on.

 

By adding in every single derailment, you would skew the usable results from the information.

The percent of derailments would skyrocket to the point that it would render the usefulness of the report null and void.

Imagine how your morning new traffic report would seem if every single flat tire was reported as a traffic accident?

 

Keep in mind that wheels and track are the parts of train we can not monitor on a constant basis, and the parts that take the most consistent wear and abuse.

We have had our HiRail inspect track, only to have the next following train find a sun kink or broken rail an hour later.

 

So you may want to clarify your question to reflect say, the number of cars damaged, or the dollar amount of the damage done, maybe to the down time for the track to be out of service, something along those lines.

Ed

I'd be more interested in what percentage of trains derailed.  For example: If last year there were 10,000 trains and ten derailed and this year there were ten trains and four derailed wouldn't that be more indicative of what actually was going on?