Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingThe current article in Trains Magazine about Death Valley Scotty mentions that back in 1905, there was an average of 9-10 railroad workers killed working on the railroads every day. That's somewhere around 3500 workers killed on the job per year. Railroading is still a dangerous job, but not anything like back then. I have no idea what the yearly railroad workplace fatalities are today- maybe 1/10 of that in 1905? Would the great gains in railroad safety have been more a product of improved equipment, or improved working procedures and rules?
All of the above.
Data taken from the FRA's Office of Safety Analysis website:
For calendar 2011 there were 21 railroad employees killed in 16 accidents.
In total there were 710 people killed on RR property in 650 incidents. By far the most people killed were trespassers followed by contractor personnel. I assume, but do not know, that the term "trespasser" includes street crossing incidents.
Crossing accidents are a stand alone catagory.
23 17 46 11
The simple answer Murphy is : YES. The knuckle coupler and the air brake were the two major breakthroughs for safety and efficiency followed by automatic block signal systems and interlockings coupled with advancements of telegraph and telephone communications.. Because of the efficiencies and the fact that with fewer accidents closing down the railroad and cost of cleanups, you'd think the railroads would be quick to embrace these advances but it was more often unions and the public pushing for safety. The whole dynamics of rolling stock, engines, track, signal systems, communications tied to an undersandig that safety was not only good for the health and well being of employees but also for the bottom line in meeting customer needs and public relations brought safety to be a major program on all railroads.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Yes, of course rules and regulations evolved as knowedge was gained. Again, many were brought about by unions who wanted to keep their ranks alive and working!.
Besides union rules, insurance rules and government regulations, I think instant news coverage may have a part in it, too. If a worker is killed or seriously injured today, it hits the evening news right away. In reading about things like tunnel and bridge construction in the 1800's, I'm often struck by the tallies of how many workers lost their lives on some of these projects,sometimes in the hundreds. There seemed to be a low regard for human life back then, but when the news is several days late, it's just a statistic from a distant place and doesn't register so strongly emotionally.
Actually, I think people took it more for granted that life had many perils (which it did), and accepted the risk more readily. Think about the odds faced on an ocean voyage or crossing the continent. Building the Panama Canal claimed many lives, but there were always replacement workers available. The New Basin Canal was dug in the 1830's from Lake Pontchartrain to the heart of New Orleans, about five miles, and no accurate count of the deaths was kept. Estimates range from 800 to 30,000, many of them Irish immigrants. Slaves were considered too valuable to risk in the endeavor.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
No "trespasser" only means pedestrians killed while on RR property. People accidents involving commiting suicide are not required to be reported to the FRA until 2011.
Paul of Covington Besides union rules, insurance rules and government regulations, I think instant news coverage may have a part in it, too. If a worker is killed or seriously injured today, it hits the evening news right away. In reading about things like tunnel and bridge construction in the 1800's, I'm often struck by the tallies of how many workers lost their lives on some of these projects,sometimes in the hundreds. There seemed to be a low regard for human life back then, but when the news is several days late, it's just a statistic from a distant place and doesn't register so strongly emotionally.
In 1908 the Federal Employer's Liability Act was passed. With this injured workers, or the families of those killed, could sue the railroad for full damages if they could prove the railroad negligent. Before this workers or their families could sue, but usually the companies won. Either by not being held liable or if they were, paying small compensation.
With passage of FELA, life and limb wasn't as cheap as it once had been.
Jeff
Another outgrowth of the era 1880's into the 19 teens was insurance companies formed for and/or by rr employees who could not be covered otherwise. I am told New Your Central Mutual Life now of Edmonston, NY, once of Utica, is such a company. This application of safety either by rule or appliance was the same as we see with car manufactureres today, or similar: the cost is weighed against all other factors until it can be assimilated into the price.
This migh be a bit of insight to Railroading and Construction in the 20th Century:
linked here:http://books.google.com/books?id=IJogvQseFS4C&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=Number+of+Killed+while+building+the+Clinchfield+RR?&source=bl&ots=Zri9k_boV1&sig=2oi-CQMSyIVCCPsjcOeEK9NPGUA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=B91UT8TYAczMsQKDpP3vBQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Number%20of%20Killed%20while%20building%20the%20Clinchfield%20RR%3F&f=false
Link is to a preview of the book: Building the Clinchfield
by James A. Goforth (Retired Chief Engineer of Clinchfield RR.)
ISBN 1-57072-191-9
The Chapter starting on Page 24 of the summary gives one some insight:
" Old Clinchfield Railroad Built by Wild, Death-Dealing Crews " by Ashton Chapman
[paraphrased] "...No record is now available, if one was (record) was ever kept, of lives lost in various disasters and through exposure thr ravages of disease and other causes; but the twenty miles of railroad between Spruce Pine and Marion was probably the most costly---in lives and money---ever completed in the South.
17 tunnels blasted, some from a few hundred feet to a quarter mile in length, were necessary. In that twenty miles,for the roadbed to desend 1,000 feet. It was accomplished without motor driven earth movers. Blasting,Mule drawn carts, drag pans and labor. Employing 3,000 laborers and 200 mules..."
Keep in mind that the work force is much ,much smaller now than at the turn of the century, so the real number to look at would be the percent of the workforce injured or killed.
Radios and the reduction in crew number had a lot to do with it, less guys around the equipment means less chances of someone getting hurt.
The end of the caboose era helps, less injuries there also.
Trust me, a caboose ride on a freight train is really rough, even with a good engineer the slack back there can hammer you.
More efficient locomotives meant less number of trains moving the same amount of tonnage, so again, fewer crews in harms way.
As a side note, today we actually move more tonnage farther with less men and equipment than ever before in railroading history.
The FRA and their insistence on safety appliances being in place and working...the FRA says if its there, it must function as intended, so handrail, safety chains, horns bells and headlights, along with other appliances are kept up because the crew can bad order a non-complying locomotive with no hassle from the carrier.
Unions pushed work rule changes, reduction in a "day" from 16 to 14 to 12 hours, and they actively promote their carriers safety rules, simply because the whole idea is to come home alive, with all your fingers and toes!
If I remember correctly, Trains magazine had an article a few years back about the number of railroaders working in the 1940s, something like one million men worked in the industry, most directly associated with the equipment in some way, car men, clerks, station agents, MOW and T&E were all near the trains as they moved....that is rare now, almost no station agents exist, most MOW is mechanized and their numbers are way down, even from when I hired out, you no longer see clerks walking tracks checking car numbers, most if not all hump yards have automatic computer controlled switches so no need for as many switchmen or brakemen.
As for the equipment itself, back in the 20s they had knuckle couplers and such, air brakes and all, but the rules involved with using them were still being written.
Today, you find very specific safety related rules, enforced strictly.
The four fingered railroader is pretty much a thing of the past.
I think you will find the five most deciding factors are the reduction in work force numbers, the creation of the NORAC and GCOR rules with the system wide application of both, the creation of the FRA and its mandate that if a railroad institutes a safety rule, it must enforce that rule at all times, creation of FELA which, along with the Railway Safety Act, began to foster the current industry attitude change towards safety, because now it makes for a good business decision to keep employees safe, it cost less, and is more productive.
With all due respects to Ed and the other professionals who insist on working safely, I have noticed a few postings in the past complaining that certain safety procedures (especially 3-point protection) unnecessarily slow down operations with the implication that they are not needed. On the other hand, I remember talking with BRC's Mechanical Superintendent who mentioned an in-house barbecue for the shop personnel for their attainment of a safety milestone. He was a stickler for safe operation and was proud of this achievement.
Safety pays. And is rewarded in many ways. Accidents whether major or minor, with or without injury cost a lot of money with down time, equipment damage, damage claims, and medical attentions needed. So the cheapest and best way to save money is to operate safely, take precautions, invest in safe practices, life saving equipment and rules, and damage protection at all times. If you have an accident, put a dozen cars on the ground...some with hazerdous cargo, flip a few locomoitves, injure or kill a few employees or bystanders, and not be able to operate for a couple of days and after that at reduced capacity, it can be quite a hit to the pocketbook. Most railroad are self insured so that could be a major wack plus the consequences of law suits that follow. So, taking an extra minute or hour to do it safely is a major cost effective measure in the long run and is why there are safety rules, examiners, instructors, and managers. If it can hurt someone, if it can damage equpment or right of way, if it will stop the flow of traffic, it will also decrease the flow of income and lessen the profit. So, safety pays big time.
I agree that the 3 point safety, or Red Zone as the FRA and the SOFA working group call it is outstanding rule...before it existed, we all had our own version of it, down here on the PTRA we had a hand signal for going in between to lace hose or knock off brakes/open anglecocks...or the verbal radio call of "going in between" or "In between lacing 'em up"...most railroads had their own version, but the big difference was that with the home grown version, all the engineer did was wait...with 3 point, he must set the independent brake, center the reverser, flip off the gen field, and then respond in like kind to the radio call with an acknowledgement of "Set and centered".
That major difference means its very hard to move the trains with someone in between the cars, and it takes a few seconds for the engineer to un do all of that, so he has time to think about what is going on.
Yes, some rules do seem to slow down the work, but the alternative is not good if something goes wrong.
And there is a solution, you simply have to think of a way to accomplish your work with the rules in place.
The only newer rule to come down the line in the last few years that I really disagree with is not allowing you to mount or dismount moving equipment....there really have not been many injuries from that, and it is so much easier to let the train do the work, less wear and tear on your back and knees, but it is the rule now so....
CSSHEGEWISCH With all due respects to Ed and the other professionals who insist on working safely, I have noticed a few postings in the past complaining that certain safety procedures (especially 3-point protection) unnecessarily slow down operations with the implication that they are not needed. On the other hand, I remember talking with BRC's Mechanical Superintendent who mentioned an in-house barbecue for the shop personnel for their attainment of a safety milestone. He was a stickler for safe operation and was proud of this achievement.
The only problem I have with 3-step/red zone is that if can give someone a false sense of security. You should always be prepared for a car to move, and never get yourself in a position* that you can't get in the clear really fast.
*- not as easy when you have these mandates for bottom shelf couplers on everything. What a pain.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
The most important safety tool is your brain. If you know what is safe, if you know the rules, if you know your job, if you know your fellolw workers, if you know your equipment, if you know your limits, if you know yourself, if you know what to do if...you should be ok. Miss any one or combination of any of them, then you might be in trouble.
Ed -
Has PRTA fallen in love with the Brake Stick to apply and release hand brakes without climbing on cars? Making it's use mandatory?
edblysard The only newer rule to come down the line in the last few years that I really disagree with is not allowing you to mount or dismount moving equipment....there really have not been many injuries from that, and it is so much easier to let the train do the work, less wear and tear on your back and knees, but it is the rule now so....
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
No, thank goodness.
I guess on a road crew they might be worth having, you can leave it in the locomotive till needed, but a switchman at the PTRA would have to carry it in hand all day long, line switches, so forth and so on, it would be in the way and more of a hindrance that help.
We tried them on a voluntary basis, all were returned after the trial, no one liked carrying it around.
Zug, bonked my noggin more times that I can remember on those shelf couplers, and yup, always have a quick way out from between cars, you never know when someone might kick a car into the track you're in from the other end of the yard...shouldn't happen, but then, most accidents shouldn't happen.
BaltACD Ed - Has PRTA fallen in love with the Brake Stick to apply and release hand brakes without climbing on cars? Making it's use mandatory? edblysard: The only newer rule to come down the line in the last few years that I really disagree with is not allowing you to mount or dismount moving equipment....there really have not been many injuries from that, and it is so much easier to let the train do the work, less wear and tear on your back and knees, but it is the rule now so....
edblysard: The only newer rule to come down the line in the last few years that I really disagree with is not allowing you to mount or dismount moving equipment....there really have not been many injuries from that, and it is so much easier to let the train do the work, less wear and tear on your back and knees, but it is the rule now so....
Brakes sticks are no good for yard jobs where all we do is kick cars around, maybe only tying a few brakes to make a button block to kick into. Now our locals with tons of industries are a different story. I'll carry one all day long, it beats climbing up and down cars all day. Cant remember how many times I've climbed up a wet car and slipped. Besides they are good to have when you run up on a rattlesnake.
Georgia Railroader [snipped - PDN] Brakes sticks . . . Besides they are good to have when you run up on a rattlesnake.
I think a good portion of the push for safety on the railroads resulted from the Amtrak Colonial wreck on January 4, 1987, when ConRail engineer Ricky Gates ran 3 'light' engines past a stop signal, through an interlocking, and onto the Amtrak main line right in front of a passenger train at track speed, resulting in 16 deaths - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Maryland_train_collision As that article points out, the FRA and Congress tightened up on drug and alcohol testing and enforcement, engineer licenses, etc. And I think it was a 'wake-up' call to a lot of railroad managements that this kind of thing might be occurring on their properties too, and and best could result in inefficiency and small damages and losses - at worst, huge liabilities.
More generally, OSHA and a pro-safety culture was starting to take hold in other industries at about the same time, too. DuPont and others not only implemented programs on their own properties, but went around and trained/ consulted for other businesses. For example, in the mid-1980's we had Dupont personnel review our crew at work at Philadelphia Electric Co.'s Eddystone, PA Generating Station (a few miles north of the Delaware state line), and I believe that DuPont consulting with Norfolk Southern Rwy. started that company's 23-year unbroken run of holding the Harriman Gold Safety Award. (Lest anyone think that I'm a DuPont 'cheerleader', we always wondered how they could do that with a straight face, since their own industrial sidings generally left a lot to be desired as far as good tie, gage, and surface conditions were concerned !) I also remember doing safety reviews and contingency planning with then-Plant Engineer Dean Qualls at the Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. plant at Elkton, MD in the mid-1980's, and being surprised at how detailed and thorough he was in anticipating "Murphy's Law" - "What could go wrong here ?" during a fairly nasty track rehab and excavation project. This too was just a year or so before the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (which I refer to as the Titanic of our generation) caused many of us to wonder about and question the competency and personal and moral integrity of the leaders and technical manager in organizations, their motives, checks and balances, and the value that they placed on human life, etc. Many concluded that "It's up to us to look out for ourselves, because no one else is going to !" - despite the presence and official roles of unions and OSHA. I think that mindset gradually permeated the workforce at many levels, and has also been reinforced at the consumer level by various product recalls, car seats for children, bicycle helmets, and many other safety measures that were unheard of a generation ago.
Further, with the Staggers deregulation taking effect in the early 1980's, the railroads had to start to measure and take into account lots of operating 'metrics' in evaluating their operations and profitability, and safety became another one of those. Also, before Staggers the cost of damage, injury, and death was essentially just another 'cost of doing business' that went into the ICC form's expense column that was the basis for setting and charging rates; but post-Staggers, loss, damage, and injury claims seem to come more directly out of the railroad's (and stockholders) own accounts, hence they're now much more concerned about it.
Finally, as Ed Blysard noted, fewer employees means less exposure and risk of injury. John Kneiling once recounted that an official of some kind was opposed to reducing the crew size and number of rail employees because those then-large numbers effectively 'diluted' the ratio of injuries-to-employees. That official was worried that with less employees, the ratio would rise, making him look bad. John of course was quick to point out the fallacy of that reasoning and policy, which was essentially indirectly resulting in the unnecessary maiming and killing of employees whose presence and consequent risk of injury was no longer required in light of the recent technical advances. Now we have 30+ years of data to look back on and see who was right.
- Paul North.
A couple of further thoughts I fogot to add last night (it was pretty late for me . . . )
It would be interesting to see a table or graph of the injury rates from about 1880 or so to date, and correlate those with specific changes and the introduction and widespread adoption of certain safety appliances and procedures. One problem in analyzing such matters with a mature science such as railroading is that most of the improvements in recent history have been and had only 'incremental' effects - small by themselves, so they don't cause a huge drop all at once - but over a few decades and when coupled (pun !) with other improvements, can have slow but large results.
Most often an efficient industrial or business operation is one that is well-planned and executed, and what wise managers - in all industries - have learned is that planning should include the safety aspects, too. Actions that promote efficiency often make an operation safer, and vice-versa. When a worker on a bridge has a safety harness, or a track worker knows exactly what the task is and when the trains are due, and that there's a flagmen who's "got his back" against oncoming trains, they can devote their full time and energies and attention to the task at hand, and not have to constantly worry about or check to make sure that nothing adverse is going to happen to them, and so on.
I recall seeing a video clip from "back in the day" of an engine change at a passenger station. A ground crewman was "in between" preparing for the break even before the consist came to a stop.
We use "three step" not only because it's required, but because we don't railroad every day. For pretty much all of us, it's a weekends-only thing where informal procedures could be overlooked.
Since we often use hand signals, we have one for "three-step" as well, showing three upraised fingers, to which the engineer responds in kind when he's done it. Cancelling "three step" is represented by "turning down" the three fingers.
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...
“Railroads have been coupling and uncoupling cars in the same manner for decades. Railroad cars have been coupled and uncoupled manually, which inherently creates risk for the operator. Therefore, a need exists to minimize the risk by physically getting the operator away from coupling operations.”
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/research/rr0829.pdf
Solution:
1) Remote-Controlled Anglecock
2) Remote-Controlled Cut-Lever
3) Tri-Coupler
Goals:
Eliminate exposure to physical stress and contact injuries.
Eliminate putting people into awkward positions that are physically demanding.
Eliminate need to align couplers.
Eliminate need to manually open knuckles.
Eliminate need to lift cut-lever
Eliminate need to connect air hoses.
Eliminate need to open and close anglecocks.
What is a bottom shelf coupler? What is a brake stick?
A bottom-shelf coupler is one that includes a shelf that interlocks with a corresponding shelf on the other coupler to maintain vertical alignment in the event of a derailment or other mishap. They are usually found on tank cars.
Bucyrus “Railroads have been coupling and uncoupling cars in the same manner for decades. Railroad cars have been coupled and uncoupled manually, which inherently creates risk for the operator. Therefore, a need exists to minimize the risk by physically getting the operator away from coupling operations.” http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/research/rr0829.pdf Solution: 1) Remote-Controlled Anglecock 2) Remote-Controlled Cut-Lever 3) Tri-Coupler Goals: Eliminate exposure to physical stress and contact injuries. Eliminate putting people into awkward positions that are physically demanding. Eliminate need to align couplers. Eliminate need to manually open knuckles. Eliminate need to lift cut-lever Eliminate need to connect air hoses. Eliminate need to open and close anglecocks.
One of the funniest things I've read in a while. That seems about as practical as scented toilet paper.
Did you read the link? This is not my idea. I don't think the FRA is just making a joke.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.