One unconscionable statistic gleaned from The History Channel's "Freight Trains" on Modern Marvels the other night:
Between 1890 and 1917, there were 230,000 on-the-job deaths of railroad employees in this country.
Compare that to 291,557 U.S. servicemen killed in battle during World War II.
On the railroad, that comes to about 8,200 per year during that period, or 23 each day.
EDIT: to correct math
Poppa_Zit wrote: One unconscionable statistic gleaned from The History Channel's "Freight Trains" on Modern Marvels the other night: Between 1890 and 1917, there were 230,000 on-the-job deaths of railroad employees in this country. Compare that to 291,557 U.S. servicemen killed in battle during World War II. On the railroad, that comes to about 13,000 per year during that period, or 35 each day.
On the railroad, that comes to about 13,000 per year during that period, or 35 each day.
CANADIANPACIFIC2816
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
"It's actually 23." I personally think that 23 is still too many.
Plain old statistics dictates a drop in fatalities - witness the drastic reduction in employees evidenced in the recent Trains article.
The railroads are much more safety concious now. At one time, your average brakeman was essentially a throw-away commodity. They were expected to be killed on the job. There were some common job practices (like poling) that we would look at today and say "what were they thinking?"
A truer measure of the number of deaths would be per hour worked. Per ton-mile would also provide a fair comparison.
To steal a commonly used truism about the airlines - you're probably safer working on the railroad than you are driving to work!
That's not to say that there's an excuse for fatalities and injuries. We're not much different in the fire service, where we lost about 115 last year. We're studying it, though, and trying to impress on firefighters how they can be safer. And healthier. Would you believe that around half of those deaths were due to heart attacks? And around a quarter of them were in motor vehicle accidents...
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...
What I found shocking is that the deaths in those nearly 30 years was well more than the total railroad work force today.
Practices are different now from then, as people have mentioned. But you still hear about fatalities every so often. I don't have figures handy, but I suspect that it's now under 100 per year. I can remember two during my 35 years at Proviso (there may have been more). Plus another three or four who died on the job with heart attacks and the like, and, unfortunately, two people who were shot by a disgruntled former employee. I don't know if those figure in the statistics or not. I do know that any time an operating employee is killed on any railroad around here, we hear about it.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Try here for your numbers.
Broken down by type.
http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/Query/Default.asp?page=statsSas.asp
ACCIDENT/INCIDENT OVERVIEWSELECTION: RAILROAD - ALL / January TO June, 2006
TOTAL ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS: 6,178 Number of fatal accidents/incidents 385 6.23% Overall frequency rate: 15.32 Total train miles: 403,193,795 Total fatalities: 418 Switching miles: 44,186,688 Total nonfatal conditions: 3,748 Employee hours: 242,800,104Total accidents/incidents is the sum of train accidents, highway-rail incidents, and other incidents.Total accident/incident rate is the number of events times 1,000,000 divided by total train miles.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TOTAL TRAIN ACCIDENTS: 1,368 Number of fatal train accidents 1 0.07% Number per million train miles: 3.39 Collisions: 89 6.51% Total fatalities: 1 Derailments: 1,007 73.61% Total nonfatal conditions: 50 Other accidents: 272 19.88% ---------------------------Primary causes--------------------------- Human factors: 34.36% 470 Track defects: 477 34.87% Equipment defects: 12.21% 167 Signal defects: 25 1.83% Miscellaneous causes: 16.74% 229 Number of accidents on yard track: 724 52.92% of all train accidents. Nbr per million yard train miles: 16.39 For other tracks: 1.79Train accidents represent 22.14% of all reported events.Number of train accidents involving passenger trains 60 4.39%Number of train accidents that resulted in a release of hazardous material 14 1.02% of totalNumber of persons evacuated 728 Number of rail cars releasing hazmat 25A train accident is an event involving ontrack rail equipment that results in monetary damage to the equipment and track above a certain threshold. Lading, clearing costs, environmental damage is not included.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ HIGHWAY-RAIL TRESPASSING INCIDENTS(not at crossings) Incidents: 1,405 Number per million train miles: 3.48 Frequency per million train miles: 1.08 Total fatalities: 182 Total fatalities: 230 Total nonfatal conditions: 458 Total nonfatal conditions: 206 Number of fatal crossing incidents 152 10.82%Highway-rail and trespassing incidents account for 98.56% of all fatalities.Highway-rail incidents represent 22.74% of all reported events.A highway-rail incident is any impact between a rail and a highway user at a crossing site, regardless of severity.Includes motor vehicles and other highway/roadway/sidewalk users at both public and private crossings.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ OTHER INCIDENTS: 3,405 Number of fatal other incidents 232 6.81% of other incidents Other incidents account for: 55.11% of all accidents/incidents Total fatalities: 235 5 Number to employees on duty. Trespassers 229 Total nonfatal conditions: 3,240 2,382 Number to employees on dutyOther incidents include any event where that caused a death, an injury, or an occupational illnessto a railroad employee. Most fatalities in this category are to trespassers.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ EMPLOYEES ON DUTY CASES: 2,470 Frequency per 200,000 hours worked: 2.03 Total fatalities: 5 1.20% of all fatalities Total nonfatal conditions: 2,465 65.77% of all nonfatal cases________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Passengers carried: 264,784,846 Passenger miles: 7,669,917,068Total passenger deaths .. Total passengers injured 225.The frequency of passenger cases per 100,000,000 passenger miles is 2.93 Passenger cases include all circumstances;including getting off/on standing trains, stumbling aboard trains, assaults, train accidents, crossing incidents, etc.A passenger mile is the movement of a passenger one mile.
23 17 46 11
I get an e-mail notification for every line-of-duty firefighter death. It's a safety awareness thing (from the website firefighterclosecalls.com). They average about two a week. A firefighter in South Carolina was killed today while working at a hydrant...
Any are too many. We can only learn from the mistakes and try not to do the same things.
tree68 wrote: They were expected to be killed on the job. There were some common job practices (like poling) that we would look at today and say "what were they thinking?"
They were expected to be killed on the job. There were some common job practices (like poling) that we would look at today and say "what were they thinking?"
Actually, done by crews who knew their stuff, poling wasn't unsafe. If it had been, there wouldn't have been poling pockets on the corners of engines and cars, nor poles supplied for that purpose.
Ol' Ed
One thing we've got to remember is that there was virtually no medical treatment 100 years ago. "Doctor" training was hit and miss with no real standards. There were no antibiotics - which meant people could, and did, die from a small cut or a scratch.
J.D. Rockerfeller, whoes father "called" himself a "doctor", actually did significant good with his money. One of the good things he did was help establish standards for medical schools. He'd give 'em money if they met the standards. Before that you could call yourself a "doctor" with six months of "medical" school.
When considering the fatalities of 100 years ago it's important to remember that if you got hurt back then they weren't going to load you into a helicopter and take you to a trauma center where virtually unlimited resources were spent on your health.
Railroad cars and cabooses were wood and lighted by fire. I wonder how many of those fatalities were caused by fire?
And, as always, we've got to put things in context. The railroad fatalities of 100 years ago must be taken in context with everyday life. I have a wonderful 100 year old aunt whoes father was killed when his head was under a wheel of a farm wagon and the horse team moved. He was evidently trying to retrive something from under the wagon when the team moved slightly.
Happened all the time every day back then. We're pampered and spoiled in comparison, but I wonder what the folks in 2106 will think of the way we "had" to live.
Well, railroading as an occupation was more risky than most back then. I understand the unions started out as mutual insurance groups because the regular insurance companies wouldn't write policies on railroad men.
These guys were living life at a "high speed" with no train communication, walking along the tops of moving boxcars in freezing rain, etc.
But context is important, and you're probably right. The first automobiles probably had accident/injury/fatality rates that would be "shocking" today. As did the factories, coal mines, hospitals, everything.
For comparison:
Total Number of Coal Mining Fatalities in U.S. from 1900 through 2005: 104,574
Poppa_Zit wrote: For comparison: Total Number of Coal Mining Fatalities in U.S. from 1900 through 2005: 104,574
God spare me from journalists.
You can't just take the number of fatalities. You have to take the fatalities compared to the number of workers.
Everything needs to be put into context to understand it. Maybe coal mining was more/less dangerous than railroading. We won't know unless we know the rate per worker of injury/fatality.
The absolute number with no context tells no one anything.
One thing's for sure, it was a lot more dangerous 100 years ago.
greyhounds wrote: God spare me from journalists.
Which has me wondering...what is the fatality rate for journalists? And 100 years ago? LOL!
greyhounds wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: For comparison: Total Number of Coal Mining Fatalities in U.S. from 1900 through 2005: 104,574 God spare me from journalists. You can't just take the number of fatalities. You have to take the fatalities compared to the number of workers. Everything needs to be put into context to understand it. Maybe coal mining was more/less dangerous than railroading. We won't know unless we know the rate per worker of injury/fatality. The absolute number with no context tells no one anything. One thing's for sure, it was a lot more dangerous 100 years ago.
God spare me from know-it-alls who in their rush to argue ignore the main premise.
So let me put it into context so you can understand it. The discussion wasn't to determine whether mining was more dangerous than railroading. The point you missed was that years ago, for a variety of reasons, jobs like railroading and mining were far more dangerous than they are today. That's it. Period.
For some reason, railroad and mine workers were considered more expendable during those eras. What's the death rate for white-collar office workers over the same period?
One of today's most dangerous jobs is firefighting, and last year it saw 115 deaths, as tree68 pointed out. Compare that to those other numbers from turn-of-the-century railroading and mining and you'll understand the point.
It is ironic how we allow for "acceptable losses." I.E., some people make a huge issue that we've lost 3,000 armed service people in the three-plus years of the Iraq War. But somehow, the 40,000-plus Americans who die each year on the nation's highways is considered an "acceptable number." People don't parade in front of the White House carrying signs about those 40,000 highway deaths, or hold vigils to light 40,000 candles in a field while TV news cameras roll.
Funny, but we could cut the number of highway deaths to almost zero if we reduced the nation's speed limit to 10 mph -- but we're all in too much of a dadgum hurry all the time, so that will never happen. So I guess 40,000 yearly deaths in traffic accidents will remain an "acceptable number" just as long as we all still get to drive 65 to 80 mph to get to where we're going f-a-s-t.
Hey Guys,
Let’s put a little perspective on this…
During the time frame mentioned, the average was 1 in every 10 Americans worked for a railroad in some capacity.
Not all of them were T&E employees.
Now, the 230000 figure isn’t broken down by type of fatalities….which means most likely that all deaths, natural and those attributed to accidents and other incidents were all lumped together.
So a yard clerk has a heart attack, there is one “railroad death”.
A car knocker slips and fall from the roof of the repair house, there is another…
So forth and so on.
There was no FRA then, nor any manner of decent or accurate national record keeping on fatalities, in this industry or any other for that matter, so the figure reported may be inflated quite a bit, or it be under stated by a lot, we will never really know which.
And I would imagine there are quite a few deaths never reported, except to or by a local medical examiner or funeral home operator. (Quite often, they were one and the same)
Assume if you will the 1 in 10 ratio, then 2 million, 300 thousand people lost their lives in “work related accidents” nation wide in that time frame.
This would include such occupations as railroading, industrial fishing, mining, farming, (yes, farming was dangerous, still is in fact) factory workers…the list goes on.
Keep in mind this is the time of the industrial revolution in America, and part of the great migration that brought million of immigrants here, all willing to work at death rate wages in horribly dangerous jobs that today, wouldn’t be allowed.
Realize that America then had a very ridged caste system, and manual or blue collar labor was at the bottom rung in our social ladder.
The death of a railroader, or a factor worker might not even be reported…his body might end up in an alleyway, none the wiser as to how he died, and no one really willing to find out.
Know also that there was no nation wide federal standard or law that required reporting how a worker died, or under what circumstances, so the figure might be tainted with non T&E numbers, or it might not include all of them.
My guess is that is slightly over stated as to actual T&E deaths, but under reported as to the total overall.
So take the 230000 railroad deaths with a grain of salt, if you will, and keep in mind that what was reported was a educated guess at best.
Eastsides comic is a good indication of how blue collar workers were though of.
Ed
edblysard wrote: Hey Guys, Let’s put a little perspective on this… During the time frame mentioned, the average was 1 in every 10 Americans worked for a railroad in some capacity. Not all of them were T&E employees. Now, the 230000 figure isn’t broken down by type of fatalities….which means most likely that all deaths, natural and those attributed to accidents and other incidents were all lumped together. So a yard clerk has a heart attack, there is one “railroad death”. A car knocker slips and fall from the roof of the repair house, there is another… So forth and so on. There was no FRA then, nor any manner of decent or accurate national record keeping on fatalities, in this industry or any other for that matter, so the figure reported may be inflated quite a bit, or it be under stated by a lot, we will never really know which. And I would imagine there are quite a few deaths never reported, except to or by a local medical examiner or funeral home operator. (Quite often, they were one and the same) Assume if you will the 1 in 10 ratio, then 2 million, 300 thousand people lost their lives in “work related accidents” nation wide in that time frame. This would include such occupations as railroading, industrial fishing, mining, farming, (yes, farming was dangerous, still is in fact) factory workers…the list goes on. Keep in mind this is the time of the industrial revolution in America, and part of the great migration that brought million of immigrants here, all willing to work at death rate wages in horribly dangerous jobs that today, wouldn’t be allowed. Realize that America then had a very ridged caste system, and manual or blue collar labor was at the bottom rung in our social ladder. The death of a railroader, or a factor worker might not even be reported…his body might end up in an alleyway, none the wiser as to how he died, and no one really willing to find out. Know also that there was no nation wide federal standard or law that required reporting how a worker died, or under what circumstances, so the figure might be tainted with non T&E numbers, or it might not include all of them. My guess is that is slightly over stated as to actual T&E deaths, but under reported as to the total overall. So take the 230000 railroad deaths with a grain of salt, if you will, and keep in mind that what was reported was a educated guess at best. Eastsides comic is a good indication of how blue collar workers were though of. Ed
All good points, Ed. I just remember seeing the graphic during the show. It had no explanation or details, and so I just copied it here to see what discussion it might spark.
I'd really like to know why Modern Marvels' producers chose that particular range of years (1890-1917) and where the figures came from. Can we assume that once the USRA took over the system for World War I, things may have become safer?
Pop Z
Some books I've read call 1890 to 1910/1920 (depending on the book) the golden age of railroading. Maybe that's why they used the dates.
Jeff
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Poppa_Zit wrote:So let me put it into context so you can understand it. The discussion wasn't to determine whether mining was more dangerous than railroading. The point you missed was that years ago, for a variety of reasons, jobs like railroading and mining were far more dangerous than they are today. That's it. Period.
Only posting the amount of deaths over 105 years does not show that. You need to show the distribution over those 105 years and the amount of people working as miners each of those years.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
It is no more shocking then to learn that more women died from Domestic Violence during the time period of the Vietnam war than did soldiers in combat. Also, have you taken a close look at highway fatalities? Both in terms of motorists and construction workers?
Gabe
Not shocked, but sadened some.
Most construction projects include a pre determined fatality rate, as in X number of labor deaths per given number of man hours worked....and quite often, the projected numbers are quite accurate.
ericsp wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote:So let me put it into context so you can understand it. The discussion wasn't to determine whether mining was more dangerous than railroading. The point you missed was that years ago, for a variety of reasons, jobs like railroading and mining were far more dangerous than they are today. That's it. Period. Only posting the amount of deaths over 105 years does not show that. You need to show the distribution over those 105 years and the amount of people working as miners each of those years.
No kidding. If that was pertinent to the discussion, it would have been presented that way.
gabe wrote: It is no more shocking then to learn that more women died from Domestic Violence during the time period of the Vietnam war than did soldiers in combat. Also, have you taken a close look at highway fatalities? Both in terms of motorists and construction workers? Gabe
I think in 2005 it was slightly more than 42,000 motorists. It's been averaging over 40,000 since the millenium.
Of those 40,000-plus per annum, 8,000 of the deaths were in accidents involving teenage drivers.
The C&NW claimed they founded the first railroad safety department in 1906. In 1905 they had 365 employee deaths or one per day. Also, I have read the law changed on employee injury claims just before the C&NW started their safety department. Prior to that time an employer could escape all liabilty if an employee did anything to cause the injury.
I would like to hear from any lawyers if what I heard rings true.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.