Railroad Safety US-Canadian Comparison by mmcsx

VIEWS: 44 PAGES: 107

									Railroad Safety—U.S.-Canadian Comparison

               August 1979
           NTIS order #PB-301397
       Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 79-600145

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
                          Washington, D.C. 20402

     In June 1978, the Subcommittee on Transportation and Com-
merce of the House of Representatives Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce Committee requested the Office of Technology Assessment to
conduct “a detailed comparison between conditions prevailing in
railway safety in the United States and a review of safety operations
in Canada. ”
      Responding to this request, this OTA report identifies the similar-
ities and differences between the U.S. and Canadian railroad systems
and Government/rail relationships. It establishes a base from which
the overall comparability of safety between the two systems is made.
The report surveys the safety activities of Canadian railroads,
Government, labor, and other organizations and compares those ef-
forts with counterpart safety activities in the United States.
    This report represents a significant cooperative effort on the part
of Canadian and U.S. Government agencies, railroads, and labor
groups in creating mutual understanding of railroad safety policy and

                                          JOHN H. GIBBONS
Canadian Review Group

Mr. E. W. Eastman                              Mr. R. G. Messenger
 Acting Director                                Assistant Vice President for operations
 Railway Transport Committee                    Canadian National Rail

Mr. J. H. Johri
  Bureau of Management Consulting              Mr. W. T, Mathers
                                                Director of Accident Prevention and
Mr. Charles Pike                                   Safety
  Chief Mechanical Officer                      Canadian National Rail
  Canadian Pacific Rail

Mr. E. J. Bradley
 Director of Rules, Accident, and Damage       Mr. Ed Abbot
    Prevention                                  Executive Secretary
  Canadian Pacific Rail                          Canadian Railway Labour Association

OTA Railroad Safety
Comparison Advisory Panel

Joe Adams                                      Robert Parsons
  Assistant General Attorney, Law Department     Associate Administrator for R&D
  Union Pacific Railroad Company                 Federal Railroad Administrate on

Lawrence M. Mann
  Attorney for Railway Labor Executives

William Harris                                 James P. Romauldi
  Vice President, Research and Test              Director of the Transportation Research
    Department                                     Institute
  Association of American Railroads              Carnegie-Mellon University
OTA Railroad Safety
Comparison Project Staff

                           Eric H. Willis, Assistant Director
                  Science, Information, and Transportation Division
                 Robert L. Maxwell, Transportation Group Manager
                            Lucia Turnbull, Project Leader
                     Jim Leach      Joel Miller   Paula Walden
                           Debi Chertok      Linda McCray


                          Newman and Hermanson Company
    Judith A. Hermanson          Constance B. Newman         Lawrence McCaffrey, Jr.

                                 Editor and Production
                   Ralph Hoar, Editor      Marese A. Miles, Typist

OTA Publishing Staff

                          John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer
                          Kathie S. Boss     Joanne Heming

          This report, “Rail Safety: A U.S.-Canadian Comparison, ” was undertaken by
     the Office of Technology Assessment at the request of the Subcommittee on Trans-
     portation and Commerce of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the
     House of Representatives.
          In conducting the analysis, OTA utilized information and data generated in the
     previous OTA Evaluation of Railroad Safety published in May 1978, and additional
     information on U.S. rail safety provided by Government, industry, and labor
     sources. Data, information, and assistance regarding Canadian railroad safety was
     provided by the Canadian Transport Commission, Labour Canada, the Canadian
     Pacific (CP) Railway, the Canadian National Railway (CN), and the Canadian
     Railway Labour Association.
          The study was conducted by OTA staff with the contractual assistance of the
     Newman and Hermanson Company, Mr. Ralph Hoar as editor, and his. Marese
     Miles as typist. Special assistance was provided by Jim Leach and Joel Miller within
     OTA. Advice and assistance was provided by a U.S. advisory panel comprised of
     representatives from the Federal Railroad Administration, the Association of
     American Railroads, the Railway Labor Executives Association, the Union Pacific
     Railroad, and Carnegie Mellon University. In addition, numerous other persons
     provided valuable insight and information regarding safety for the study effort. A
     detailed list of the persons interviewed is included in appendix A.
          This study sought to give a general overview of the similarities and differences
     between the U.S. and Canadian rail systems, Government structures, accident and
     casualty pictures, and rail safety policies and programs. Time and data limitations
     did not permit detailed comparisons of such items as operational data and codes,
     specific accident comparisons, Government economic policies, and rail resource
           Special thanks are extended to the Canadian Transport Commission and the
     Railway Transport Committee, Labour Canada, CN Rail, CP Rail, the Canadian
     Railway Labour Association, and to the numerous persons who assisted in the study
     effort. Appreciation is also extended to the U.S. advisory panel, the Newman and
     Hermanson Company, Ralph Hoar, and Teri Miles for their excellent support.


  The major findings of a comparative analysis          to increase, while derailments in Canada
of U.S. and Canadian rail systems and safety            have stabilized.
practices are:
                                                     4. The continued rise in U.S. derailment
  1. The Canadian and U.S. rail systems differ          rates seems to be a result of deferred main-
     substantially in size and structure. The           tenance and increased axle loadings on
     Canadian system is comprised of two pri-           freight equipment. U.S. derailment rates
     mary railroads, the Canadian National              will probably continue to climb until the
     (CN) and the Canadian Pacific (CP). CN             economic condition of some U.S. rail car-
     has been Government-owned since 1923               riers improves. The stabilization of Cana-
     and CP is privately owned. Both lines are          dian derailment rates seems to stem from a
     transcontinental. In contrast, the United          combination of factors, which include the
     States has approximately 56 m a j o r              priority railroad management gives to
     railroads, none of which are transcon-             track maintenance, the economic health of
     tinental or Government-owned. The Con-             the industry and the availability of capital
     solidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) is the        for it, and favorable Canadian tax struc-
     only U.S. freight carrier that has recently        tures.
     received sizable Government subsidies or
                                                     5. In Canada, the National Transportation
     investments. In general, the U.S. rail
                                                        Act of 1967 changed Government eco-
     system and related Government structure
                                                        nomic policy to encourage greater balance
     is considerably more complex than the
                                                        among transportation modes. Under the
     Canadian. The extent to which that dif-            new policy, railroads gained greater con-
     ference in complexity may account for the
                                                        trol over their rate structure. Although no
     relative effectiveness of safety measures in
                                                        direct correlation can be made between
     the two countries could not be determined
                                                        this change in policy and rail safety rec-
     for this report.
                                                        ords, the change does appear to have
  2. The U.S. rail fatality rate, on a train-mile       strengthened the economic position of the
     basis, was an average of 47.6 p e r c e n t        rail industry in Canada and may be one of
     higher than the Canadian for the Ii-year           the underlying causes of improved rail
     period 1966-76. This higher U.S. fatality          safety.
     rate, especially in grade-crossing and tres-
                                                     6. Several Canadian approaches to rail safe-
     passer fatalities, seems to reflect the fact
                                                        ty appear to work well and may be worth
     that, since the U.S. population and rail
                                                        considering for the United States. They in-
     system are considerably larger than the
     Canadian, the level of exposure to rail
     hazards is much higher in the United                 Emphasis by railroad management on
     States.                                              safety accountability and adoption by
                                                          management of a systematic approach
  3. On the whole, the U.S. derailment rate is            to safety that includes training, the
     much higher than the Canadian. How-
                                                          development and use of accident data,
     ever, derailment rates vary widely among
                                                          and a high priority placed on track
     U.S. carriers. The average derailment
     rates of the nine largest (in ton-miles) U.S.
     carriers were similar to those of the Cana-          Creation of a no-fault system of insur-
     dian railroads for 1976 and 1977. How-               ance compensation for work-related in-
     ever, the average derailment rates for the           juries.
     second 10 U.S. railroads are significantly           Government use of risk analysis to
     higher than the rates for the Canadian               guide railroad inspection.
     railroads for those same years. Derail-              Government use of risk analysis in the
     ments in the United States are continuing            allocation of funds for grade crossings.

       q Government use of stop orders rather          needed for immediately responding to
          than penalties as a means of enforcing       accidents, in all shipments of dangerous
          safety standards.                            commodities.
       q Mandatory use of the Hazardous In-
                                                   q   Participation and cooperation between
          formation Emergency Response form,           labor and management in a Govern-
          which outlines the basic information         ment-sponsored forum.


Chapter                                                                                                            Page

     I. U.S.-CANADIAN RAIL SAFETY: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS. . .                                                          3
        Rail Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         3
        Accident Picture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           4
        Government Structures and Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        8
        Government, Industry, and Labor Approaches to Safety . . . . . . . . . . .                                   12
    II. CANADIAN RAILROAD SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                 19
        Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         19
        History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     19
        Canadian Rail System Physical Plant and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                21
        Railroad Financial Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               24
        U.S.-Canadian Rail System Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                           27
   III. GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS AND RAIL SAFETY . . . . . . . . . .                                                  31
        Government Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                31
        Laws Directly Affecting Rail Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                    33
        Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         41
   IV. THE ACCIDENT PICTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                          45
        RTC Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        45
        Comparisons with the United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                      50
        Labour Canada Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               56
        Railroad Accident Data and Reporting Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                               58
    v . THE RAIL SAFETY INQUIRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                          65
        Events Leading to Safety Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                   65
        Safety Inquiry: Process, Findings, and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . .                                   66
   VI. GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                               71
        Canadian Transport Commission Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                            71
        Labour Canada’s Occupational Safety and Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                               85
        Railway Safety Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        86
  VII. RAILROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                  89
        Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        89
        Supervisor Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                89
        Preventive Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              90
        Participation in Regulatory Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  95
  VIII. RAILROAD LABOUR AND SAFETY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                   99
        Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        99
        Labour/Railroad Relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .                100
        Labour/Government Relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                    103

Appendix A: Persons Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
Appendix B: Canadian Accident Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......108
Appendix C: Hazard Information Emergency Response Form. . ...............109


Table No.                                                       Page      28. Employee Fatalities in Canada and
                                                                              the United States, 1966-76 . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
  1. Selected Comparative Characteristics                                 29. Grade-Crossing Fatalities in Canada and
     United States—Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              3        the United States, 1966-76 . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
  2. Fatalities in the United States and Canada,                          30. Trespasser Fatalities in Canada and
    1966-76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    4        the United States, 1966-76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
 3. Trespasser Fatalities in the United States                            31. Statement of Derailments According
    and Canada, 1966-76. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             5        to Major Causes in Canada, 1966-76 . . . . . 54
 4. Grade-Crossing Fatalities in the United                               32. U.S. Train Accidents by Class, 1966-74 . . . 55
    States and Canada, 1966-76. . . . . . . . . . . .                5    33. U.S. Train Accidents by Class, 1975-77 . . . 55
 5. Employee Fatalities in the United States                              34. Mainline/Branchlike—Derailments
    and Canada, 1966-76. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             6        by Year and Railroad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
 6. Collisions/Derailments in the United                                  35. U.S. Derailments by Contributing Cause,
    States and Canada, 1966-74 . . . . . . . . . . . .               6        1966-74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
 7. Derailments in the United States and                                  36. U.S. Derailments by Contributing Cause,
    Canada, 1975-77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          6        1975-77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
 8. U.S. Derailments by Cause . . . . . . . . . . . .                6    37. Labour Canada Work Injury Experience
 9. Mainline/Branchlike—Derailments by                                        for Industries Under Federal Jurisdiction,
    Year and Railroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          7        5-Year Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
10. Canadian Derailments by Cause . . . . . . . .                    8    38. Accidents Resulting From Transportation
11. U.S. and Canadian Safety Regulations . . .                      10        Problems or RuleViolations . . . . . . . . . . . 59
12. Railway Trackage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           21    39. Engineering (Track) Responsibility . . . . . . .59
13. Locomotive Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              23    40. Equipment Responsibility Accidents
14. Freight Rolling Stock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          24        for CN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
15. Intercity Freight by Mode of Transporta-                              41. Entrain and Yard Accidents by Cause,
    tion in Canada (excluding pipelines),                                     1972-76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
    1944-68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   25    42. CN5-Year Disabling Injury Ratio . . . . . . . 61
16. Commodities Accounting for More Than 2                                43. FRA Comparative Statistics--Train
    Percent of Rail Ton-Miles in 1969 and 1974                                Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
    in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     25    44. FRA Comparative Statistics--Employee
17. Canadian Pacific Rail Financial Fact Sheet.                     26        Disabling Injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
18. Maintenance Expenditures for the                                      45. CPT rain Accidents on FRA Basis . . . . . . . 62
    Canadian Pacific Railroad, 1973-77. . . . . .                   26    46. U.S. and Canadian Railroad Safety
19. Capital Expenditures for the Canadian                                     Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
    Pacific Railway, 1973-77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            26    47. Canadian Incidents Involving Dangerous
20. Capital Expenditures—U.S. Class I                                         Commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
    Carriers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   26
21. Canadian Casualties by Type of
    Accident, 1966-77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         47
22. Casualties, 1966-76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         48
23. Canadian Accidents by Type, 1966-77. . . .                      48   LIST OF FIGURES
24. Statement of Canadian Derailments
    According to Major Causes, 1966-76 . . . . .                    48   Figure No.                                                    Page
25. Canadian Incidents Involving
    Dangerous Commodities. . . . . . . . . . . . . .                49     1. Transport Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
26. Casualties, 1966-76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         52     2. Relationship of Ministry "Family" to
27. Fatalities in Canada and the United States,                               Transportation Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . 33
    1966-76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   53     3. Rate of Disabling Injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
                    Chapter I

                                                                                                                    Chapter I
                                             U.S.-CANADIAN RAIL SAFETY:
                                                 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

  Rail safety problems and policies in Canada         This chapter provides a comparative analysis
and the United States have been shaped by a         between the U.S. and Canadian rail systems,
number of factors including: Government struc-      rail accident pictures, and major rail safety
ture and policy, geography and national re-         policies and programs.
sources, economic systems, technologies, and
the role various transportation modes played in       The primary sources of information for this
each country’s history. Differences in several of   report include the Office of Technology Assess-
these factors between the United States and         ment’s Evaluation of Rail Safety and interviews
Canada have produced some differences in each       and documents provided by the Canadian Gov-
country’s rail system and rail safety.              ernment, railroads, and labor organizations.

                                          RAIL SYSTEM

  The U.S. and Canadian rail systems differ            Table 1 .—Selected Comparative Characteristics
  significantly in size and in structure. The                      United States—Canada
  U.S. rail system is considerably larger and
  has many more individual railroads than                                                                                                States/
  the Canadian.                                                                                                                          Canada
                                                      Year              Characteristic              United States Canada                 (ratio)
   Two transcontinental railroads, the Canadian       1976   Population (million) .,                 ‘1 5,000,00( 3,000,000                 9.3
National (CN) and the Canadian Pacific (CP)           1976   Land mass (sq. miles)                    3,615,100   1,851,800                  .
                                                      1976   Number of railways (major)                   56          2                      —
dominate the Canadian rail system. CN is a
                                                      1975   Mainline/branchlike
Government-owned crown corporation and CP                      (miles)          ...   .        .       199,400            43,900            4.5
is a privately owned railroad. By contrast, the       1975 Y a r d / s i d i n g s ( m i l e s )       124,800            16,100            7.8
U.S. rail system is comprised of approximately         976 Total freight fleet (cars)                 1,699,000          193,400            8.8
                                                       976 Total locomotives (number                   27,600             4,008             6.9
56 major railroads, none of which are transcon-        976 Average capacity per
tinental. No U.S. carrier is entirely Government               freight car ., ., .,                   73.8 tons            64.6             12
owned, although the Government does have a             975 Total passenger fleet (car)                 6,471               1,855            35
                                                       976 Freight train miles (million                424.5               686              6.2
very sizable ownership interest in the Consol-         976 Gross ton miles (billion)                    1,996               273             7,3
idated Rail Corporation (Conrail), as a result of      976 Passenger miles (billion)                     103                1.8             57
its recent investments.                             1976/ 77 Average number of
                                                               e m p l o y e e s                       496,500           107,000            4.6
   The United States has over nine times the          1976 Operating revenues
                                                               (billion). . . . . .                       185                3.1            5.8
population of Canada. Although the two coun-          1976 Operating expenses
tries are similar in land mass, the great portion              ( b i l l i o n ) *                        150               29              51
of Canada’s land mass lies in arctic and subarc-             Percent expenses to
                                                               r e v e n u e s                           80%               91%
tic regions and only one-third is populated.          1976 Net income (ordinary)
                                                               (million) .,                               358              36.9             9.7
   Selected characteristics of the two countries’
rail systems are shown in table 1. The rail         “The differences between Canada and the United States (n the percentage of expenses 10 reve
                                                     nues may be explalned In part by the capital Investment that IS nol Included as an expense Item
technology employed by the two countries is          In the Umted States

4 . Railroad Safety—U.S.-Canadian Comparison

similar. However, the United States carries a         the gross-ton mileage of the Canadian rail
slightly higher weight per train as evidenced by      system. In the United States, passenger miles
a larger freight car capacity. The freight car        were 5.7 times higher than that of Canada, and
capacity for both countries has increased in the      the United States hired an average of 4.6 times
last two decades. The United States has over          more railroad employees than Canada. In light
four times as much mainline/branchlike track-         of the differing sizes of the two countries and the
age as Canada and over eight times the equip-         nature of their economies, the differences in the
ment fleet. The U.S. system travels six times the     sizes of the rail systems are to be expected.
amount of freight train miles and seven times

                                    ACCIDENT PICTURE
  Fatality rates (based on train miles) in both       Table 2.—Fatalities in the United States and Canada,
  countries for the 1966-76 period declined.                                  1966-76
  However, the United States had a 47.6 per-
                                                                                    Canada                               United States
  cent higher fatality rate (or 1.5 times
                                                                                           Per million*                           Per million**
  higher) than Canada. Grade-crossing and             Year                 Fatals          train miles            Fatals           train miles
  trespasser fatality rates are considerably          1966 . . . .          318                3.31               2684                 4.18
  higher in the United States than in Canada,         1967 . . . .          297                3.15               2483                 4.08
  whereas employee fatality rates are similar.        1968 ., ., .          230                2.64               2359                 4,04
                                                      1969 ...              218                2.53               2299                 4,03
  These data probably reflect the fact that,          1970 . . . .          195                2.24               2225                 3.04
  since both the U.S. population and rail             1971 ., ., ,          208                2.39               1010                 3.09
  system are much larger than the Canadian,           1972 . . .            253                2.81               1,945                3.73
                                                      1973 ... .            228                2.57               1,916                3.38
  the U.S. general public has a higher level of       1974 ...              201                2.07               1,908                3.27
  exposure to rail hazards.                           1 9 7 5               187                2.11               1,560                2.92
                                                      1976 . . . . .        145                1.66               1,684                3.02
                                                                                           2,50 average                           3.69 average
   For the 1966-76 period, the U.S. rail fatality                                              rate                                    rate
rate was an average of 47.6 percent higher than        “U S tram miles used for Ihls table were derwed from comb rung Iocomotwe males (whtch In
that of Canada. Total U.S. rail fatalities de-          eludes freight and passenger males, and motor Iraln miles)
                                                      q *Canadian tram males for 1972-76 used m this table included Ilolor tram miles, and freight and
clined by 37 percent between 1966 and 1976              passenger miles
                                                      SOURCE Bureau of Management Consulhng, Sfa(/sf/cd/Arra/ ys/ of Ra/lway AccdeMs, /956-73,
(table 2). The U.S. fatalities per train mile                   p 12, Railway Transport, pt 1, Comparahve Summar I, 1972-76, table 9 U S Federal
declined by 27 percent. In Canada, the total                    Ratlroad Admlmsfratlon Accldenf Bullehn, no 14 and 45, p 1

fatalities declined by 54 percent for the same        of deaths. This data was not available for this
period, and the rate per train mile declined by       report. *
50 percent.                                              Between 1966 and 1976, both countries
                                                      showed a decline in the number and rate of
   A proportionately larger number of tres-           deaths resulting from grade-crossing accidents
passer fatalities occur in the United States than     (table 4). The decline in the United States was
in Canada (table 3). On the average, over the         more consistent over the period than in Canada.
1966-76 period, the trespasser fatality rate for      On a per million train-mile basis, the Ii-year
the United States was 67 percent higher than for      average grade-crossing fatality rate in the
Canada. The reasons for the differences in tres-      United States is 62 percent higher than that of
passer fatality rates between the two countries          *The Railway Transport Committee (RTC), the Canadian Gov-
could not be specifically ascertained. However,       ernment agency responsible for accident data collection and anal-
                                                      ysis, gathers data on mainline and branchline accidents that result
factors such as location of trespasser death (ur-
                                                      in $750 or more in damage to rail property, equipment, and
ban or rural), population densities, and rail traf-   lading.
fic exposure could influence the number and rate                                                             (continued)
                                                                                 Ch. 1 U.S.-Canadian Rail Safety: Comparative Analysis                                         q   5

Table 3.—Trespasser Fatalities in the United States                                                  Table 4.—Grade”Crossing Fatalities in
              and Canada, 1966-76                                                                    the United States and Canada, 1966=76

                          Canada                           United States                                              Canada                           United States
                                Per million                           Per million                                          Per million                          Per million
Year               Fatals       train miles            Fatals         train miles        Year                Fatals        train miles             Fatals       train miles
1966 ., . .         74               .77                678               1.06           1966   ., . . .      186              1,94                1,780              2.77
1967 ., .,          57               .60                646              1.06            1967    . . .        197              2.09                1,632              2.68
1968                53               .61                628              1,08            1968   ., . . .      121              1.39                1,546              2.65
1969                53               .61                627              1,10            1969     ., .,       120              1,39                1,490              2.61
1970 . . .          50               .57                593              1.08            1970   .....         116              1,33                1,440              2.61
1971                56               .64                551              1.07            1971   .....         121              1.39                1,356              2.63
1972   .       .    66               ,73                537              1,03            1972   . . . .       150              1,65                1,260              2.41
1973                48               .54                578              1.02            1973     ... .       150              1.69                1,185              2.09
1974                55               .57                565               .91            1974    . . .        109              1.12                1,220              2.09
1975                59               .67                524               .98            1975        ..,..     99              1,12                  978              1.83
1976     ...,.      32               .37                458               .82            1976     ... ,       108              1.24                1,168              2.10
                               .61 average                           1.02 average                                         1.49 average                            2.41 average
                                    rate                                 rate                                                  rate                                   rate
                                                                                         SOURCE Bureau of Management Consulting, .Slaflsflca/ Ana/ysis of r?a{/way Accderm, 1956-73,
SOURCE Bureau of Marragement Consulfmg, SfaMocd&ra/ys(s o/ Radway Acc/derr(s, f956-73           Radway Transport, pt I Comparatwe Summary 1972-76, U S Federal Railroad Ad.
       Radway Transpofl, pt 1, Comparative Summary, 1972-76 U S Federal Radroad Ad-             mmlstratlon Accident BulletIns
       mmtstrahon Accident Bulletins

Canada. This rate difference appears to reflect a                                        rate, with the exception of a dramatic decline in
higher level of exposure of the U.S. population                                          employee deaths for Canada in 1976.
to such hazards than in Canada. For example,
Canada has 34,000 public crossing sites com-                                                 In both the United States and Canada, rail
pared to 219,000 in the United States. For the                                               grade-crossing fatalities represent the most
1966-72 period, the United States had an aver-                                               significant rail-related safety problem.
age of 105,288,000 motor vehicle registrations                                              Grade-crossing fatalities are the largest
compared to 8,238,000 in Canada. However, in                                             category of rail-related deaths in Canada and in
order to determine accurately the exposure                                               the United States. In both countries, these
levels, more detailed data is needed.                                                    deaths account for between 60 to 65 percent of
  The employee fatality rates for the United                                             all rail-related fatalities. In both countries,
States and Canada are quite similar (table 5).                                           trespasser fatalities accounted for the second
Both countries have shown a relatively stable                                            largest safety problem in number of deaths.

*(continued)                                                                                Canadian railroads with gross ton miles
   The U.S. Federal Railroad Administration currently collects ac-                          similar to the top-nine ton-mile carriers in
cident information on mainline, branchlike, and yard accidents
that result in $2,300 or more in damage costs. In the United States,                        the United States have derailment rates
prior to 1975, the threshold value for reporting accidents was                              similar to those of the U.S. carriers. How-
$750. It was raised to $1,750 to account for inflation in 1975, and                         ever, the averages of accident rates for the
to $2,300 in 1977. Mainline and branchlike accidents for the
United States could only be separated from yard data for the years                          next 10 (ton mile) U.S. railroads as a group
1975, 1976, and 1977. Hence, qualitative comparisons with RTC                               in 1976 and in 1977 are significantly higher
data could only be made for those years. Although the reporting                             than the Canadian railroads. In the aggre-
threshold for derailments is lower in Canada for the 1975-77
period, this should not preclude comparison of derailments be-                              gate, the U.S. derailment rate is signifi-
tween the United States and Canada for that period for mainline                             cantly higher than that of Canada. In both
and branchlike derailments.                                                                 countries, derailments are more significant
   RTC collects data on injuries for operating employees, however,
data on injury causes were not available. The United States did not                         for the property losses and service disloca-
begin collecting injury data for injuries resulting in “one or more”                        tion than for the fatalities they cause.
days off or requiring medical attention until 1975. Prior to 1975,
injury data were collected for only those injuries resulting in “more                      Derailments measured on a gross ton-mile
than one” day off. The primary difference in accident data collec-                       basis increased for both countries over the
tion systems between the two countries is the fact the United States
collects yard accident data whereas Canada does not, and the def -
                                                                                         1966-74 period, as shown in table 6. After 1974,
initions and procedures used to collect injury data have differed.                       derailments stabilized for Canada, whereas they
 6 q Railroad safety—U.S. -Canadian Comparison

   Table 5.—Employee Fatalities in the United States                                                                    Table 7.—Derailments in the United States
                and Canada, 1966-76                                                                                              and Canada, 1975.77*

                                   Canada                                   United States                                       Year                         Canada                    United States
                                            Per million                                   Per million          1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           330                           3,600
Year              Fatals                    train miles               Fatals              train miles          1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           301                           4,123
1966        ., ., 26                            .27                    168                    .26              1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           312                           4,010
1967           .,  29                           .31                    176                    .29              “ Malnllne/branchlike only for both countries.
1968           .,  28                           .32                    150                    .26                           Transport Committee, Summary Accident Data, Federal Rail.
                                                                                                               SOURCE Railway
1969               26                           .30                    190                    .33                      road Administration, Accident Bullet Ins,
1970               21                           ,24                    172                    .31
1971           .,  18                           .21                    123                    .24
1972               32                           .35                    133                    .25
1973          ...  21                           .24                    161                    .28
1974       . . ., 24                            .25                    144                    .25
1975       . . . 23                             ,26                    113                    .21                             Table 8.—U.S. Derailments by Cause
1976                8                           .09                    109                    .20
                                           .26 average                                   .26 average
                                               rate                                          rate                                   Gross        Gross          Gross       Gross
                                                                                                                                     ton          ton Misc.      ton         ton
SOURCE Bureau of Management Consulting SfafNlcaJ Analysts of Ratlway Accjdenk, 1956-73,                                             miles Equip- miles and miles            miles
       Railway Transport, pt 1, Comparatwe Summary, 1972-76, U S Federal Railroad Ad-
       mlmstratlon Accident Bulletins                                                                          Year           Track (000) ment (000)            (000) Total (000)
                                                                                                               1966* . . 1,388            1,550         1,501         4,447
              Table 6.—Collisions/Derailments in the                                                           1967. . . . . 1,800         1,611        1 ,549        4,960
                United States and Canada, 1966-74                                                              1968. , ., 2,062            1,745        1 ,681)       5,487
                                                                                                               1969, ., ., 2,400          1,863         1,697         5,960
                                  Canada                                    United States                      1970, . . . . 2,393        1,602         1,607         5,602
                                                                                                               1971 . . . . . 2,194       1,389         1,5411        5,131
Year                Collisions            Derailments*             Collisions Derailments**                    1972. ., . . 2,481         1,344         1 ,684        5,509
1966                    55                      230                 1,552         4,447                        1973. ..., 3,477           1,755        2,157          7,389
1967           .,       39                      209                 1,522         4,960                        1974. . . . . 3,196        1,967        2,350          8,513
1968        ., ., 49                            228                 1,727         5,487                        Percent of
1969      . . . . 41                            246                 1,810         5,960                         total . . (40%)           [30%)        (30%)
1970         .    .     46                      276                 1,756         5,620
1971        ., ., 45                            265                 1,529         5,131                        1 9 7 5 * * 1 , 6 3 3 .88            1,242        .67       725        .39     3,600       1.84
1972         .    .    44                       323                 1,348         5,509                        1976. , ., 1,921 .96                 1,405        .71      797         .40     4,123       2.07
1973                    56                      299                 1,657         7,389                        1977. . . . . 1,844 .92              1,324        .66      842         .42     4,010       1.99
1974       . . ., 46                            420                 1,551         8,513                                     (46%)                   (34%)                (20% )
                                                                                                                 “1966-74 for mamllne/branchlme      and yard derailments
 ‘Mamllne only
                                                                                                               “” 1975-77 for mamllne/branchllne only (prior to 1975 deradmerts could not be Isolated by loca-
q *Mamlme and yard combmed
                                                                                                                  tlon otmamllnev yard)
S O U R C E B u r e a u o f M a n a g e m e n t C o n s u l t i n g , .SfatNica/ Analysls of Rahay Accdertk,
           1956-73, Radway Transport pl 1, Comparatwe Summary 1972-76, U S Federal                             S O U R C E F e d e r a l Ratlroad Admmlstratlon Acc!dent Bulletln am Assoclatlon of American Ratl-
           Ratlroad Admlmmstratlon Accident Bulletins                                                                     roads, Economics and Finance Department

have continued to increase in the United States
(tables 7 and 8).                                                                                              cident rates of the next 10 U.S. railroads in 1976
                                                                                                               and in 1977 statistically are significantly higher
   While the total derailment picture for the
                                                                                                               than the values of either CN or CP in those
United States appears less favorable than that of
                                                                                                               years. The differences in the accident rates be-
Canada, derailment rates among U.S. carriers
                                                                                                               tween the years 1976 and 1977 for the individual
range from 0.28 to 12.50 on a billion gross-ton-
                                                                                                               carriers are not statistically significant. The
mile basis for the 1976-77 period. Table 9 lists
                                                                                                               variation among the carriers is highly signifi-
U.S. and major Canadian carriers by their gross
                                                                                                               cant, but the variation from year to year is not
ton miles and by their derailment rates. As evi-
denced from this table, derailment problems
vary among individual carriers. From the infor-
mation provided by table 9, the average acci-                                                                    In the United States, track-caused derailments
dent rates for the nine largest (ton mile) U.S.                                                                represent a slightly higher portion of total
railroads in 1976 and in 1977 are not significant-                                                             mainline/branchlike derailments than they do
ly different from the values for either CN or CP                                                               in Canada. Between 1966 and 1977, track-
in those years. However, the averages of the ac-                                                               caused derailments accounted for roughly 40 to
                                                                 Ch. I U.S. -Canadian Rail Safety: Comparative Analysis                                        q   7

46 percent of all U.S derailments (table 8). * In                        Table 9.—Mainline/Branchline — Derailments by Year
Canada, during the same period, equipment-                                    and Railroad (in billions of gross ton miles)
caused accidents represented the largest number                                                          Gross ton        Derailment Gross ton Derailment
of derailments between 1966 and 1970 whereas                                        Railroad             miles 1976       rate, 197E miles 197i rate, 1977
track-caused accidents represented the greatest                          Conrail.           .          .                              2392         2.47
portion of accidents between 1970 and 1975                                Burlington Northern:             204.6             1,44     221 7        1,16
                                                                         Southern Pacific                  170,3             1,09     173.3        1 25
(table 10). The slower introduction of roller                             Union        Pacific         .   160.1               .97    169.1          .86
bearings in the Canadian freight car fleet may                            S a n t a            F e         144.7                      159.8          .73
account for the slightly larger portion of equip-                                                        (CN 139.4)         (1.36)   (141 7)      (1 .34)
                                                                         S o u t h e r n                   1130              1.03     121 3          .92
ment-caused accidents. By 1976, track and                                Norfolk &Western.                 114,9               .86    108,0          .71
equipment causes together accounted for rough-                           Chessie           ...        .,   1149              380      110.8        330
ly 74 percent of all Canadian derailments with                           Missouri Pacific                  108,2             1.02     111 8          .98
                                                                                                         (CP 101.0)           ( 97)  (106.2)      (1 02)
the split between track and equipment causes                             Louisville & Nashville. .,          812             3.03       843        339
being almost equal or approximately 37 percent                           Seaboard Coast Line                 799             1.55       84.5       1.77
each by 1977.                                                            Illinois Central Gulf              626              337        601        386
                                                                         Chicago & Northwestern              57,1            5.90       58.8       510
                                                                         M i l w a u k e e ,                 504             6.45       48.8       7.33
   In the United States, 1.7 percent of rail-re-                         St, Louis-San Francisco.           38.3             198        38.8       1 52
                                                                         Rock         Island        .       347              6.97       35.1       8.06
lated fatalities for 1966-76 occurred in derail-                         St.Louis-Southwestern.             26.2                        26.7
ments. In Canada, 1 percent of fatalities for                            Denver Rio Grande.                  20.7              ,72      21.2         .61
1966-76 occurred in derailments. Derailments                             SooLine,                     .,     18.4            315        20.5       2,59
                                                                         Kansas City Southern .,             147             3.40       16.2       1 79
appear more significant for their resulting prop-                        Western Pacific .,                  13,4            209        13.8       1.59
erty losses and service dislocations.                                    Missouri-Kansas-Texas .,            11.6            440        12.3       4.15
                                                                         Grand Trunk Western                  9.1            3.96        9.5       2.21
                                                                         Delaware & Hudson.                   8.3            4.94        8.9       472
   As suggested in the previous OTA Evaluation                           Boston & Maine ., .,                 6,2            3.23        6.1       3.28
of Railroad Safety, the reasons for the increases                        Clinchfield . . . .                  59             3.39        6.7       358
                                                                         Colorado & Southern .                4,7            4,26        6.6       2.73
in track-caused train accidents may result from                          Ft. Worth & Denver                   4.8            3.54        6.8       2.21
a combination of factors including increased                             Florida East Coast                   42                48       5.0         .80
axle loading on freight equipment, deferred                              Long        Island      .            38             1.05        3.8       1.05
                                                                         Bessemer & Lake Erie                 3.8            1.58        3.7         .81
maintenance, and the unstable economic condi-                            Detroit, Toledo, & Ironton           32             5.63        34        2.94
tion of some U.S. carriers. Data was not avail-                          Duluth & Missabe Iron
able to correlate directly the financial viability                           R a n g e           . ,          3.6             .28            2.3
                                                                         Richmond, Fredericks-
of the individual rail carriers with their derail-                          burg, & Potomac                   2.7           1.48             2,6          222
ment picture.                                                            Pittsburgh & Lake Erie,              2.5           8..80            2,5          9.20
                                                                         Duluth, Winnepeg, &
                                                                            Pacific ., . ., .,                2,4           2.08             2.6
   Around 1974, Canadian Government and                                  Maine Central                        20            950              2.0          500
railroad officials showed a growing concern                              Elgin, Joilet, & Eastern             1,8           1.11             17           1,76
                                                                         Toledo, Peoria, & Western            1,5           3.33             1,4          5.00
about increased axle loading on freight equip-                           CP-U.S.        Lines      .,         1.4           214              1.5           .67
ment. Railroad management states that, as a re-                          G e o r g i a            . ,         1,4           2.14             1.4          714
sult of this concern, CN conducted research on                           Northwestern Pacific .,              1.2           4.17             1.2
                                                                         Illinois Terminal Co.                12            750              1,2        12,50
the problems, Both railroads decided to increase                         Bangor & Aroostock.                  1.2          12,50             1.2         6.67
track expenditures. Although sufficient data                             Chicago & Illinois Midland             9           5.56               7         429
                                                                         Central Vermont .,                    .7           714               .7         1,43
                                                                         Detroit Toledo Shoreline,              5          12.00              .5         800
                                                                         SOURCE Federal Railroad Administration Accident Bulletin and Association of   American Rail-
   q Prior to 1975, in the United States, derailments occurring in the
yards could not be separated from mainline and branchlike derail-
ments. Therefore in the range of 40 to 46 percent of derailments         was not available to document fully the trends
caused by track for the 1966-77 period, 40 percent represents            in allocation for track maintenance, the Cana-
track-caused derailments for mainline) branchlike only, and 46
percent represents track-caused derailments occurring on main-           dian accident data tends to support statements
lines/branchlines and in the yards from 1966-74.                         made by the railroads.

   50-171   0   -   79   -   2
8 q Railroad Safety—U.S.-Canadian Comparison

                                   Table 10.—Canadian Derailments by Cause

                                            I         Gross
                                                                    ton        Misc.
                                                      miles Equip- miles       and      miles           miles
                           Year                 Track 000) ment (000)          other    (000)   Total   000)
                           1966 . . . . .          70 .32    125    .57         35              230
                           1967 ..., .             53 .25     82    .38         74              209
                           1968, ...               50 .24    100    .47         78              228
                           1969. , . . .           73 .34    128    .60         45              246
                           1970 . . . . .         119 .51    108    .46         49              276
                           1971 ...               107 .44     89    .36         69              265
                           1972 . . . . .         134 .53    103    .40         86              323
                           1973 . . . . .         115 .45    104    .41         80              299
                           1974, . . . .          157 .56    130    .46        133              420
                           1975 . . . . .         136 .53    103    .40         91       .32    330     1.17
                           1976 ...,.             106 .41    107    .42         88       .31    301     1.08
                           1977, ...,             120 .43    111    .39         81       .29    312     1.10
                                                 36%        38%                26%
                           SOURCE Railway Transport Committee, Summary Accident Report, 1977

  In the history of both Canadian and U.S.                                    In 1903, the Canadian Government enacted
  railroads, there has been Government in-                                 the Railway Act, which consolidated a number
  volvement in the railroads, but that in-                                 of existing rail policies and added economic and
  volvement—in terms of both economic and                                  safety regulatory measures.
  safety regulations and economic subsidies
                                                                              The U.S. Government has been involved with
  for the railroads—has differed in several
                                                                           economic, safety, and other aspects of its rail
                                                                           system since the late-1800’s. The United States
  Canada’s early rail system was tied directly to                          provided substantial land grants for building the
the political union and economy of the country.                            rail system to foster growth in the West. The
The first transcontinental railroad, the Cana-                             Federal Government became involved in the
dian Pacific, was stipulated by the British North                          economic regulation of the railroads when it
America Act of 1867. This Act formed the                                   created the Interstate Commerce Commission in
Canadian confederation by joining British Co-                              1887. The Government also became active in
lumbia to the other provinces, particularly to                             railroad safety with the creation of a number of
Montreal.     CP received substantial initial                              specific safety laws between 1900 and 1920.
Government subsidies, land grants, and tax                                    In Canada, CN was established as a Govern-
credits. However, it has always been main-                                 ment owned and operated crown corporation in
tained as a private enterprise system.                                     1923 following the financial collapse of several
                                                                           major private railroads. These were consol-
   The Canadian Government has been involved
                                                                           idated with previously owned Government
in rail economic regulation since the late-1800’s.
In 1897, the Canadian Government entered into                              lines.
the Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement with CP. The                                   As in Canada, the U.S. railroads experienced
agreement established rates for hauling grain for                          financial difficulties in the early 1900’s. During
specified routes in exchange for subsidies needed                          World War I, the U.S. Government operated
by CP to build additional lines. The Crow’s                                the rail system. However, after the war, the rail-
Nest Pass Agreement was later extended to in-                              roads returned to private ownership with Gov-
clude all grain-hauling routes for CP, and those                           ernment regulation. The U.S. railroads later
for other rail lines as well.                                              received substantial loans from the Reconstruc-
                                              Ch. I U.S.-Canadian Rail Safety: Comparative Analysis • 9

tion Finance Corporation during the Depres-           well as for economic regulation of other modes,
sion. Most of these loans were paid back by the       is vested in one primary agency, the Canadian
end of World War II. Conrail is the only major        Transport Commission (CTC). CTC reports to
carrier that has received sizable Government          Transport Canada. Within CTC, the Railway
subsidies in recent rail history.                     Transport Committee (RTC) has direct respon-
                                                      sibility for rail regulatory activity. CTC was
  Today in Canada, CN represents one of sev-
                                                      created by the National Transportation Act of
eral divisions included in the Canadian National
                                                      1967 (NTA), which sought to establish a bal-
Crown Corporation. Its other divisions include
                                                      anced transportation policy. NTA established a
trucking, shipping, U.S. rail lines, and hotels.
                                                      national transport policy for the purpose of
However, CN accounts for the largest source of
                                                      achieving maximum efficiency from all avail-
revenues to the corporation. Although publicly
                                                      able modes at lowest cost. With the 1967 Act,
owned, CN’s financial position was greatly im-
                                                      Canada removed a number of Government rail
proved by the Capital Revision Act of 1977-78
                                                      economic policies in an effort to allow rail to
which removed substantial CN debts (approxi-
                                                      compete more effectively with other modes.
mately $2 billion). The remaining CN debt after
                                                      NTA established an appeals process to resolve
this Act is approximately $250 million.
                                                      potential rate disputes in captive markets and to
   Canadian Pacific is also part of a larger con-     safeguard the public interest. NTA also estab-
glomerate, CP Limited, which has assets of $5         lished the framework for Federal regulation of
billion. CP Limited enterprises include air,          trucks, historically a function of the provinces.
trucking, shipping, mining, forestry, real estate,    This section, although passed by Parliament,
telecommunications, and other investments.            has never been activated. Hence the provinces
Rail accounts for 22 percent of the annual            still exercise regulatory authority over truck-
revenues of CP Limited.                               ing. 1
                                                         Within CTC, the Railway Transport Com-
  The structures of the two Governments and
                                                      mittee is responsible for implementing Federal
  their current rail policies differ in several
                                                      rail policies. Its functions are several: adminis-
  substantial ways.
                                                      tration of rail economic policy, administration
   Canada has a parliamentary form of govern-         of rail subsidies, and administration of rail safe-
ment that combines legislative and executive          ty policies involving train operations. RTC rail
functions. The Minister of Transport, a member        safety functions include: regulation, inspection,
of Parliament, serves as the chief executive for      accident reporting and investigation, and grade-
the Department of Transport (Transport Can-           crossing and dangerous commodities safety-re-
ada), the governmental agency with umbrella           lated activities.
transportation authority.

   In Canada, there are two primary Govern-              ‘A major study in 1977 of the impacts of rail economic and pric-
                                                      ing changes resulting from NTA was undertaken by the Centre for
ment entities with rail safety responsibilities;      Transportation Studies at the University of British Columbia, a re-
Transport Canada (Department of Transport)            search organization sponsored by the Canadian Ministry of
and Labour Canada (Department of Labour).             Transport. The study is entitled Railway Pricing Under Commer-
                                                      cial Freedom: The Canadian Experience by T. D. Heaver and J. C.
Labour Canada is the equivalent of the ex-            Nelson, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada,
ecutive branch Labor Department in the United         1977.
States. In Canada, the central Government has           While this OTA report does not seek to examine the impacts of
                                                      Canadian rail economic policies, the previous source gives infor-
exclusive jurisdiction over the interprovincial       mation regarding the implications of rail economic deregulation in
rail carriers, whereas, in the United States,         Canada resulting from policies established by NTA.
Federal Government jurisdiction preempts but            The study concludes that:
                                                          The dynamic compet]t}on provided by the 1967 NTA has proved
does not exclude State jurisdiction over rail car-     workable in promoting efficient transport, sophisticated and efficient
riers.                                                 prlcmg of railway services, adequate service for the most part, com-
                                                       petitive rate levels, and some lessened discrimination in pricing as well
  Canadian authority for economic and safety           as ma]ntalning the commer]cal and financial viability of the Canadian
                                                       railways. Further the competition spawned by the Act has stimulated
regulation of all interprovincial railroads, as        shippers and ra]lways to make needed institutional changes.
10 q Railroad Safety— U.S.-Canadian Comparison

   In the United States, authority for develop-                                                   stantial Federal regulation of rail economic pol-
ment and implementation of rail economic poli-                                                    icies. Trucking regulation is maintained at the
cies, including regulatory functions, and rail                                                    Federal and State levels in the United States,
safety policies and programs is vested in several                                                 unlike Canada where Federal jurisdiction has
different Federal agencies. The Federal Railroad                                                  not been exercised.
Administration (FRA) within the Department of
Transportation has responsibility for adminis-                                                       The objectives and responsibilities of CTC
tering rail subsidies, and developing safety reg-                                                 appear comprehensive and substantiall y strong-
ulations and other programs including research.                                                   er and wider in scope than those vested in ICC
In addition, FRA shares jurisdictional responsi-                                                  and FRA. In particular, CTC can establish rules
bility with the Federal Highway Administration                                                    and seek penalties for violation of its laws and
for grade-crossing safety, and with the Mate-                                                     rules from both rail companies and rail employ-
rials Transportation Bureau for hazardous                                                         ees. It has jurisdiction over construction and
materials safety. The Interstate Commerce                                                         operation of railroads. Its inspectors can issue
Commission (ICC) has economic regulatory re-                                                      orders to stop train operations or remove a car
sponsibilities for rail. Unlike Canada, the                                                       from a train. CTC decisions are binding within
United States has continued to maintain sub-                                                      its jurisdiction and may be reviewed only on ap-
                                                        Table 11 .—U.S. and Canadian Safety Regulations

     Subject                                                                              U.S. provision                      Canadian provision
Hazardous materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              49   CFR 172-174, 178-179,209            Gen. Order no. 0-29 to O-34
Ambient noise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         40   CFR 20 (EPA); 49 CFR 210;           N/A
                                                                             49   CFR 171,211
Procedural rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          49   CFR 171,211                         Gen. Order. no. M-2
State/Province participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                 49   CFR 212                             None
Track safety standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               49   CFR 213                             None
Freight car safety standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  49   CFR 215                             None
Special notice, emergency orders . . . . . . . . . . .                       49   CFR 216                             None
Operating rules—general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  49   CFR 217                             Gen. Order no. 0-8
Operating rules— specific (blueflag, etc.) . . . . .                         49   CFR 218                             Gen. Order no. 0-8
Two-way radios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          49   CFR 220                             None
Rear-end marking devices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  49   CFR 221                             None
Accident reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          49   CFR 225                             Gen. Order no. 0-
Hours of service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         49   CFR 228                             None
Locomotive design, performance
   and inspection standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  49 CFR 230                               Gen. Order no. 0--1 to 0-14,0-16 to
Safety appliances. . . . . . . . . . . . .         .   ..........        .   49   CFR   231                           Gen. Order. no. 0-10
Power brakes and drawbars . . . . . .              .   . . . . . . . .   .   49   CFR   232                           Gen. Order no. 0-20 (air brake only)
Signals and related devices. . . . . . .           .   . . . . . . . .   .   49   CFR   233-236                       Gen. Order no. E-12 and E-13
Occupational Safety and Health. . . .              .    . . . . . . .    .   29   CFR   1910                          SOR 71-30,71-480 ,71-481,71-584,
                                                                                                                      71-605,71-616,72663, 72-13,72-23,
                                                                                                                      72-66,72-666,72-171, 72-288,
                                                                                                                      73-679, and 78-559
Mixed passenger/freight equipment —
   vestibule doors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          None                                     Gen. Order no. 0-6
Testing employees—sight, hearing. . . . . . . . . .                          None                                     Gen. Order no. 0-9
Loading open top cars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               None                                     Gen. Order no. 0-15
Special equipment regulations (mailcars, snow
   plows, grain cars). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           None                                     Gen. Order no. 0-22-0-24
Air pollution and control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              None applicable exclusively to           Gen. Order no. O-26
Fire extinguishers and emergency tools in
    passenger cars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          None                                     Gen. Order no. O-27
Fire prevention from railroad causes. . . . . . . . .                        None                                     Gen Order no. 0-28, E-16
Grade crossings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           None                                     Gen. Order no. E-3 and E-9
Railroad design (plans, profiles, etc.). . . . . . . . .                     None                                     Gen. Order no. E-1 and E-2
Utilities on or near rail line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            None                                     Gen. Order no. E-10 and E-12
Fencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    None                                     Gen. Order no. E-17
                                             Ch. I U.S. -Canadian Rail Safety: Comparative Analysis                   q   11

peal to the Supreme Court of Canada or the               Labour Canada has developed regulations to
Governor-in-Council.                                  cover employees working in industries under
                                                      their jurisdiction, including those working for
  The Canadian railroads and the U.S. rail-           the railroads. Labour Canada has not promul-
  roads have been subject to similar statutory        gated occupational safety and health regulations
  safety requirements since the early 1900’s.         for hazards specific only to railroads. CTC, to
  The regulations of similar areas or cate-           date, has not promulgated occupational safety
  gories of safety by the two countries con-          and health regulations covering employees
  tain comparable provisions. However,                under its jurisdiction. In the United States, there
  each country regulates categories not cov-          is no gap in the statutory authority to deal with
  ered by the other.                                  occupational safety and health hazards since
                                                      OSHA can exercise it to the extent that FRA
   The 1903 Railway Act established a broad
                                                      does not. However, FRA has not exercised any
range of requirements and restrictions on the
                                                      substantive jurisdiction in this area for a variety
formation, construction, operation, and safety
                                                      of reasons, and has basically left the matter to
of Canadian railroads. As in comparable U.S.
                                                      OSHA for functions not involving rail opera-
laws, a number of the provisions contained in
                                                      tions. To date, OSHA has not issued any reg-
the 1903 Act are specific in content and are
                                                      ulations exclusively applicable to railroads.
designed to address specific problems. A num-
ber of the regulations resulting from the statutes          Canadian compensation laws are estab-
in both Canada and the United States are simi-              lished by the provinces, rather than by the
lar. For example, the safety appliances, hazard-            central Government. Compensation for
ous materials, and locomotive inspection reg-               work-related injuries is no-fault in concept.
ulations are similar. However, Canada has                   These plans are viewed by both manage-
adopted a Uniform Code of Operating Rules, a                ment and labor as providing fair treatment
subject left to the U.S. railroads for the most             and compensation. In contrast, in the
part, although the Association of American                  United States, compensation for work-
Railroads has a suggested code. By contrast, the            related railroad disabilities or injuries is
United States has track and freight car stand-              under the authority of the Federal Employ-
ards, a subject for which there are no Govern-              ers’ Liability Act (FELA). The employee
ment standards in Canada. Canada does not                   must sue the railroad and prove negligence
consider hours of service as a safety regulatory            in order to receive disability compensation.
matter. Table 11 indicates the rail safety regula-          These compensation suits are handled in
tions adopted by each country.                              the Federal court system. Results from
                                                            these suits may differ according to the court
  As in the United States, responsibility in
                                                            in which the case is tried.
  Canada for the safety and health of rail-
  road employees is divided between trans-               There are 10 separate compensation and reha-
  portation and labor agencies.                       bilitation plans in Canada—one for each prov-
                                                      ince. In general these plans provide full medical
   In Canada, the safety of some railway em-
                                                      treatment, and disability benefits for unlimited
ployees, primarily those in operating positions,
                                                      time periods. * Rehabilitation boards at the pro-
is within the jurisdiction of CTC; other railway
                                                      vincial level make determinations regarding
employees are within the jurisdiction of Labour
                                                      needed medical treatment and rehabilitation
Canada. In the United States, the safety of rail-
                                                      programs. The railroads pay into no-fault in-
road operations employees is under FRA, while
                                                      surance funds maintained by the provinces, or
the occupational safety and health of employees
rests with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) within the Department
of Labor. However, unlike CTC in Canada,                *For examp]t?, one plan providm tor a maximum di~ability cc)m-
                                                      pensatiOn at $20,000 annually. Widow\ m a y recci~e $250 p e r
FRA collects all accident and casualty statistics     month unt i] cleat h or remarriage J nd $5-I per dependent up t c) age
for both OSHA and FRA.                                18.
12 q Railroad   Safety—U.S.-Canadian   Comparison

pay the employees directly according to the pro-         The Canadian system, unlike that in the
vincial plans.                                        United States, does not attempt to adjudicate re-
                                                      sponsibility for the injury. Decisions on whether
   In the United States, compensation for dis-
                                                      and how much disability compensation should
ability or injury incurred by railroad employees
                                                      be awarded are made without involvement in
in the line of work is under Federal jurisdiction
                                                      the legal system or in an adversary environ-
by the authority of FELA. In order to receive
                                                      ment. Injured employees are assured of compen-
disability compensation, the U.S. rail employee
                                                      sation and rehabilitation payments. Canadian
must sue the railroad and prove railroad negli-
                                                      injury compensation and rehabilitation pro-
gence. Thus, the U.S. system is a legal one that
                                                      grams are reported as acceptable to both labor
adjudicates responsibility for the injury. FELA
                                                      and management and are not an area of dispute
proceedings are handled in the Federal court
                                                      in Canada. However, in the United States, FELA
system. Results from lawsuits may differ ac-
                                                      has long been a divisive force between manage-
cording to the court in which the case is tried, or
                                                      ment and labor.
according to the railroad’s history of case set-

                       LABOR APPROACHES TO SAFETY

  In both countries, Government concern for           later expanded to investigate the effectiveness of
  safety was heightened in the early 1970’s by        Government and industry rail safety policies
  a series of accidents and by increases in           and programs. The inquiry included testimony
  dangerous commodities.                              of the railroads and labor regarding safety issues
                                                      and problems. The inquiry lasted over 3 years.
  In the United States, the Government’s re-
                                                      It was followed by an in-depth analysis of safety
sponse to the increases in accidents was a series
                                                      problems and Government programs. The re-
of hearings and the enactment of the Railroad
                                                      sulting reports were intended to establish and
Safety Act of 1970 and the Hazardous Materials
                                                      quantify the need, if there was a need, for in-
Transportation Act. The 1970 Safety Act gave
                                                      creased Government safety activity and pro-
the Department of Transportation regulatory
                                                      grams to reduce accidents and injuries.
and administrative powers to deal with safety
and hazardous materials transportation prob-             One of the results of the Canadian inquiry
lems. Prior to the enactment of the Railroad          was that the railroads increased their own safety
Safety Act of 1970, track-caused train accidents      efforts. They expanded their data collection and
were increasing. After the passage of the Safety      analysis procedures for safety, ir creased com-
Act, a series of regulations have been promul-        munication with employees by utilizing safety
gated by FRA and new inspection programs to           committees more effectively, established reha-
ensure compliance with those regulations have         bilitation programs, and began to explore track-
been introduced. The primary regulations deal-        related problems in greater detail. Today acci-
ing with substantive, rather than procedural,         dent and casualty data are used by the railroads
safety concerns that have resulted from the 1970      to establish safety targets, to identify areas in
Safety Act and from the Hazardous Materials           which safety problems exist, and to examine
Transportation Act include: track standards,          and apply possible corrective actions to such
equipment standards, and standards for compo-         problems.
nent designs and performance of tank cars.
  The Canadian rail safety inquiry, begun in            Both U.S. and Canadian Governments use
the early 1970’s, was a Government effort that          inspections as a part of their railroad safety
investigated several major accidents and was            programs. However, the two Governments
                                             Ch. I U.S.-Canadian Rail Safety: Comparative Analysis   q   13

  differ somewhat in their approaches to in-          motive power and equipment, signals and train
  spection and allocation of inspection               control, and hazardous materials. The basis
  resources.                                          FRA has used in establishing and assigning
                                                      levels of effort to the five inspection programs is
   The Canadian RTC combines safety inspec-
                                                      not apparent. As of 1977, inspection resource
tions with other routine responsibilities of its
                                                      allocation did not coincide with the accident
field personnel. Canadian inspection practices
                                                      patterns in the United States. FRA has recently
are based on the premise that safety is an in-
                                                      reviewed existing regulations and is currently
tegral part of efficient rail operation and should
                                                      proposing changes. The extent to which these
be viewed as such. Responsibilities of the Rail
                                                      regulatory changes will alter the inspection
Services Branch of RTC are divided among safe-
                                                      process in the United States is not yet known. In
ty inspection programs, branchlike rehabilita-
                                                      the United States, the Government has a shared
tion, evaluation of passenger services, and sta-
                                                      Federal/State inspection program. This con-
tion retirements. RTC officials estimate that
                                                      trasts with Canada where interprovincial
about 35 percent of the professional staff time
                                                      railroads are under the sole jurisdiction of the
spent in the field involves safety matters. The
                                                      central Government.
Rail Services Headquarters Branch has about 29
staff members to carry out its responsibilities,
                                                        In both countries, transportation of dan-
Estimates of the extent to which safety is a part
                                                        gerous commodities by rail has become an
of headquarters work of the Rail Services
                                                        increased concern for the Governments and
Branch were not available. Allocation of inspec-
                                                        the railroads. The approaches taken in each
tion resources to a particular type of inspection
                                                        country to dangerous commodity transpor-
results primarily from priorities established by
                                                        tation is largely the same, with the excep-
RTC officials and the requirements of statistical-
                                                        tion of the use of emergency information
ly based sampling. The inspection programs
                                                        forms in Canada.
conducted by RTC include: track, car, locomo-
tive, operations, dangerous commodities, fire            In the early 1970’s, dangerous commodity
prevention, stationary mechanical equipment,          shipments became a heightened concern in the
and structures and signals including grade cross-     United States and Canada. In both countries,
ings. Highest Government priority for inspec-         the increased concern was prompted by several
tions are on: developing an improved accident         major accidents and increases in hazardous
investigation procedure, grade-crossing inspec-       materials shipments. Risks brought about by
tions, and safety inspections administered by         dangerous commodity transportation in Can-
the Rail Services Branch, particularly equip-         ada have been addressed by: a) adoption of U.S.
ment inspection. RTC with the assistance of the        tank car standards, b) development of a Haz-
Bureau of Management Consulting developed             ardous Information Emergency Response
an approach to equipment inspections that              (HIER) form that accompanies each shipment of
utilizes risk factor analysis and inspection          dangerous commodities, and c) voluntary in-
sampling as the primary method for equipment          dustry actions. These same types of programs
inspections. This system was recently em-             have been undertaken in the United States with
ployed. Its effectiveness has not yet been deter-     the single exception of the use of the HIER
 mined. RTC views the Government’s role as one        forms. In addition, both countries have almost
 of monitoring railroad activities. As in the         identical hazardous materials regulations. The
 United States, Canadian Government inspec-           Canadians adopted the recent U.S. tank car
tion programs do not appear to have measures          standards requiring head shields and shelf
by which the effectiveness of inspection pro-         couplers although the timetable for implement-
grams can be ascertained.                             ing the standards will be slower and retrofitting
                                                      will be voluntary in Canada.
   In the United States, a significant portion of
the FRA safety resources is dedicated solely to         Canada requires the HIER forms to accom-
safety inspections. FRA conducts inspections in       pany all tank car shipments carrying dangerous
five major areas: track, operating practices,         commodities from origin to destination. The
14   q   Railroad Safety—   U.S.-Canadian   Comparison

form contains the name of the commodity, the             is developing a model they hope to use to set
danger classification of the commodity (i.e., ex-        priorities among crossing sites requested by the
plosive, gas, etc.), potential hazards, and im-          road authorities (Federal, provincial, and mu-
mediate action information. The purpose of the           nicipal) to receive funding. The Canadian
form is to aid people in response procedures in          Government has broader powers and exercises
case of an accident. Use of the form was made            more detailed controls than the United States
mandatory by RTC.                                        over grade crossings. Canada and the United
   In the United States, there is no specific            States both have problems with grade-crossing
                                                         program administration.
equivalent to the Canadian HIER form, al-
though some information is required on the                  There are fewer public crossing sites in
waybill. Some U.S. railroads have more exten-            Canada than in the United States. Canada has
sive response procedures for dangerous com-              34,000 and the United States had 219,000 public
modities than others. A committee of the Asso-           sites. Predominant jurisdiction for funding of
ciation of American Railroads is currently               crossing projects falls under Federal Govern-
studying the Canadian system, although no                ment jurisdiction in both countries. The U.S.
conclusions have been reached regarding its              Federal Highway Administration has major
adoption. The major objection voiced by some             funding authority for grade-crowing improve-
U.S. railroads to the form is that it increases the      ment. It allocates funds to the States on a for-
paperwork carried for freight shipments at a             mula basis. The States subsequently distribute
time when the railroads themselves are trying to         crossing projects funds among localities. As a
move to more automated systems.                          result, in the United States, priority determina-
                                                         tion, and the matching of crossing sites with the
     Grade-crossing safety is the most serious           appropriate warning device, occurs at the local
     rail-related safety problem in both Canada          level, which does not, in turn, control the for-
     and the United States. While primary au-            mula allocations of funds. Hence the complexi-
     thority for grade-crossing improvements             ty of the U.S. system and the divided jurisdic-
     rests with the central Governments in both          tions have so far worked against a more system-
     countries, the Canadian Government ap-              atic approach for addressing the most serious
     pears to have broader powers and more de-           safety problems.
     tailed controls over grade crossings than in
                                                            While in Canada the RTC provides funds for
     the United States. In contrast, in the United
                                                         grade-crossing protection, it usually relies on
     States, major funding authority for grade
                                                         the road authority or local municipalities to ap-
     crossings, though vested at the Federal
                                                         ply for funding. When this system does not
     level, is split administratively among a
                                                         work, RTC can order protection to be provided.
     number of different entities and basically
                                                         A growing problem in Canada is that mainte-
     administered by the States.
                                                         nance costs for crossing protection are esca-
   The Railway Transport Committee within                lating so rapidly that road authorities who are
CTC has jurisdiction for grade-crossing safety           responsible for maintenance are becoming less
improvement programs. In contrast, the U.S.              inclined to pursue protection funding.
Federal Highway Administration has primary
jurisdiction at the Federal level for grade-               Canadian railroads maintain a philosophy
crossing improvement programs.                             that ties safety closely to economic and
                                                           operational efficiency. Canadian railroads
   Today, Canada has detailed information on
                                                           place a high priority on maintaining and
over 34,000 public crossing sites. The Canadian
                                                           upgrading track.
Government attempts to match the grade cross-
ing with the most appropriate and cost-effective            Both Canadian railroads consider safety an
warning device. Onsite investigations of the             integral part of all their operations. This con-
crossing are one method used by RTC to deter-            sideration is also voiced by the I-J. S. railroads.
mine the relative risks of the site. Further, RTC        The increased concern for safety among the Ca-
                                                                the railroads’ safety philosophy include: the de-
                                                                sire to protect human and physical resources,
                                                                the economic costs of accidents and casualties,
                                                                and the wish to forestall any greater Govern-
                                                                ment involvement in their activities.
                                                                   The Canadian railroads consider the condi-
                                                                tions of the track, particularly the mainline, of
                                                                paramount importance to their efficient opera-
                                                                tion. The Canadian railroads recognized the im-
                                                                plications of increased maintenance costs result-
                                                                ing from increased weight of freight equipment.
                                                                CN conducted research to determine rail re-
                                                                placement costs and maintenance costs resulting
                                                                from increased axle loadings. The results of that
                                                                research were a significant factor in the decision
                                                                to use concrete ties, heavier rail, and deeper
                                                Photo CP Rail   ballast. Similarly, the CP management in-
                                                                creased capital spending for track upgrading
                                                                and replacement when it recognized the effects

                                                Photo CN Rail
    School Days— Both Canadian National and Canadian
         Pacific conduct regular training and refresher
     courses for employees utilizing the latest teaching
       techniques. CN operates their training center at
     Gimli, Manitoba; CP operates their training centers
                    across their rail system.
     railroads dates to about 1974 after the
Government safety inquiry. Since that time
both CP and CN have increased existing safety
activities and initiated a number of new pro-
grams. Among these activities are: the emphasis
on supervisor accountability for safety, yearly
safety targets, and increased and improved
training. Progress is discussed at the board of
directors meeting for both railroads. In addi-                                                                  Photo CN Rail

tion, the railroads serve on the RTC Railway                        C N utilizes concrete ties as shown in this photo
Safety Advisory Committee. The reasons for                           based on research on increased axle loadings.
16 q Railroad Safety—U.S.-Canadian Comparison

of 100-ton freight cars and the six-axle diesel              In both countries, rail labor representatives
electric locomotive on the roadbed. Canadian                 participate in the safety regulatory process.
management indicates that track maintenance is
a high priority in terms of allocations of re-                As a matter of policy, Labour Canada con-
sources. However, sufficient data was not avail-           sults widely with labor representatives as it for-
able to adequately determine the extent to which           mulates workplace safety regulations. CTC,
this priority is supported by financial com-               after the safety inquiry of 1971, included labor
mitments. While rail officials in Canada indicate          representatives in the tripartite forum of the
that track should be maintained to the highest             Railway Safety Advisory Committee. Although
level, the line profitability, traffic density, and        CTC has not promulgated safety regulations for
other factors are among the considerations            I
                                                          . working conditions of the railroad employees
given to assigning limited financial resources to          under its jurisdiction, it formally consults with
track maintenance and replacement programs.                labor representatives on any matter that relates
In both the United States and Canada, track           I    to safety regulation.
standards and safety, line profitability, deferred
maintenance, and common carrier obligations
                                                             In the United States, railroad labor par-
of the railroads are issues of concern and discus-
                                                          ticipates in a number of executive and legislative
sion among the railroads, labor, and Govern-
                                                          branch hearings and deliberation. Though no
                                                          formal safety advisory committee exists in the
   In the United States, track deterioration,             U.S. structure, safety advisory committees are
resulting from deferred maintenance and heav-             appointed for a number of functions undertaken
ier axle loading on freight equipment, has                by executive branch agencies. Generally both
caused increased Government concern. The ex-              labor and management participate in the func-
tent to which track conditions cause significant          tions. Cooperation between labor, manage-
safety problems among U.S. railroads appears              ment, and Government entities in the United
to be related to the financial health of a given          States for improving safety is increasing.
carrier, management philosophy toward track               However, additional cooperation is needed if
maintenance, track lifecycle, and available               further inroads into safety problems are to be
capital.                                                  achieved.
                  Chapter II

                                                                                    Chapter II
                                           CANADIAN RAILROAD SYSTEM

   A common assumption about the railroad              The following sections describe: Canadian
systems in the United States and Canada is that     resources and demography; an outline history
they are directly comparable. Similarities in       of the railroad system; and specific physical,
operational purpose, close geographic proximi-      operational, and economic characteristics of the
ty, and commonality of technological systems        system. The final section of this chapter sum-
imply that comparability. This chapter explores     marizes the major relevant similarities and dif-
the validity of this assumption. It establishes a   ferences between the Canadian and U.S. rail
framework for the Canadian railroad system          systems.
from which specific Canadian safety policies
and programs are examined for their application
to the United States.

  Canada’s population, geography, climate,          winter climate is more severe than many regions
and resources have played a significant role in     of the United States.
the evolution of its transportation system.
                                                       Canada’s population is approximately 23 mil-
These characteristics, Government policies, and
                                                    lion, of which the majority (58 percent) live be-
other transportation technologies continue to
                                                    tween the U.S. border and a 650-mile east-west
heavily influence the rail system.
                                                    line from Sault Ste. Marie to Quebec City. Only
   Canada’s land mass covers approximately          one-third of Canada’s land mass is developed.
3,851,809 square miles. 1 Its varied terrain in-    One-third of Canada’s population lives in its
cludes vast prairies, agricultural and forest       eight largest cities, with Montreal and Toronto
lands, the rugged areas of the Laurentian Shield,   being the two largest metropolitan areas. 2
the mountainous regions of the West, and the
                                                      Canada’s railroads have been linked histori-
subarctic and arctic regions in the North. Its
                                                    cally with the population settlement patterns
                                                    and development of natural resources. The fol-
                                                    lowing briefly describes the history of the Cana-
                                                    dian rail system.

                                                     ‘Ibid. p. ~.

  Canada’s railroad system began in the 1830’s        Construction of the railroads connecting
when the lines established served primarily as      British Columbia and the Maritime Provinces to
portage roads. Substantial railroad construction    Montreal, was essential to the political union of
did not begin until the 1850’s with the develop-    Canada in the British North America Act of
ment of the Grand Trunk.                            1867. The Intercolonial Railway was completed

20 . Railroad Safety U.S.-Canadian Comparison

in 1876 and the first transcontinental railway,                           icant financial overinvestment in terms of
the Canadian Pacific (CP), was completed in                               physical plant necessary for a country of 8
1885. 3                                                                   million people. b Too much line had been built
                                                                          for the amount of rail traffic available at the
   The first transcontinental railroad, although
perceived as a public enterprise, was initiated
and built by private enterprise with substantial                             As a result of the overinvestment in rail plant,
Government assistance. Its development was                                the railroads, with the exception of CP, faced
significant to the confederation, in part because                         serious problems. In 1917, the Canadian Gov-
of the potential expansionist policies of the                             ernment appointed a royal commission to in-
United States at the time.’ An agreement be-                              vestigate the problems. By 1923, a number of
tween the Canadian Government with CP for                                 railroads were consolidated to form the Cana-
the construction and operation of the system in-                          dian National (CN) Railways, a crown corpora-
cluded: a cash subsidy of $25 million, a land                             tion with a Government-appointed board. The
grant of 25 million acres, and valuable tax and                           consolidation into a Government entity repre-
customs concessions.5                                                     sented the integration of three private bankrupt
                                                                          railroads, four Government-owned systems, or
   The railroads were perceived as tools of
                                                                          149 separate companies with 251 d i f f e r e n t
Canada’s development. Early Government ini-
                                                                          security issues. 7
tiatives as well as the British North America Act
established the central Government’s jurisdic-                               At the outset, CN confronted significant, if
tion, rather than provincial jurisdiction, for rail                       not overwhelming, problems. Included among
and water transportation services. In addition                            its problems were:
to being significant to the political union of                                q   an inherited debt of $1,3 [1,448,713 ( i n
Canada, the railroads were essential to its eco-
                                                                                  1922 its operating expenses were $231.2
nomic development. CP was a primary instru-
                                                                                  million and its gross revenues were $234.1
ment of Government policy in settling the West
and developing Canada’s agricultural resources.                               q   an unnecessary duplication of line;
Similarly the railroads were critical to the                                  q   deferred maintenance;
development of ports in the Maritime Prov-                                    q   nonstandard gauge track in areas of the
   In 1897 the Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement (sec.                               q   fierce competition with CP which had ini-
271, Railway Act) was signed. It established                                      tially offered to run the system; and
rates for shipment of grain moved by CP to cer-                               q   political interference.8
tain ports. This rate stipulation was later ex-
                                                                             Subsequent to the initial incorporation of
panded and applied to other rail operations in-
                                                                          CN, debts amounting to over $3 billion were
cluding those of Canadian National. The
                                                                          backed or removed by the Canadian Govern-
Crow’s Nest Pass requirements remain in effect
                                                                          ment in 1936-37, 1951-52, and in 1977. In addi-
today. Grain shipment rates are the only area in
                                                                          tion a balance of other ongoing subsidies have
which Canadian rail rates have not been deregu-
                                                                          been met by the Government at various inter-
                                                                          vals. The 1977 Capital Revision Act removed
  In addition to the transcontinental CP, two                             substantial accumulated debts (approximately
other lines connecting the western with eastern                           $2 billion) of CN. This Act placed CN in a
mainlines were established by 1915, the Cana-
dian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific.
The addition of these two lines resulted in signif-                          ““An Interim Report on Freight Transp{~rtat on in Canada, ” op.
                                                                          cit., p. 2.
  ‘“An Interim Report ~~n Freight Transportation in Canada”                  ‘Robert F. Leggett, Rai/roads of CatIadU (New York, N. Y.:
(Transport Canada, June 1975), p, 1.                                      Drake Publishers, 1973), p. 134.
  “W. K . L a m b , Hisforv of tl)c CaIIUdILJt~ Paci/ic Railuw~ ( N e w      “Leggett, op. cit., pp. 134-13s; and C. R. Stevens, History o} t)~c
York, N. Y.: McMillian Publishing Co., Inc., ]977), pp. 73-74.            Cat~adian Natiot~a/ R a i l w a y ( N e w York, N. Y.: McMillian
  ‘Ibid., pp. 73-74.                                                      Publishing Co., Inc., 1973), pp. 313-3]5.
                                                                                               Ch. II Canadian Railroad System                              q   21

significantly more favorable financial position.                        lion. 10 Its enterprises include rail operations, air
In 1978, CN achieved $168 million in profits.                           carriers, trucking, shipping, hotels, mining, real
                                                                        estate, forestry, telecommunications, and other
  Between its genesis and the present, CN as a
                                                                        investment holdings. CP Rail operations repre-
crown corporation diversified its operations. It
                                                                        sented 22 percent of CP Limited’s revenues in
controls several U.S. rail lines (Central Ver-
mont; Grand Trunk Western; Duluth, Winne-
peg, and Pacific), trucking lines, hotels, and                             The transportation services of both CN and
other enterprises. Its air carrier operation                            CP are not restricted to rail mode. They are
became a separate crown corporation in the                              multimodal transportation companies. The fact
1960’s.                                                                 that rail companies operate trucking enterprises,
                                                                        however, has not prevented some erosion of
   The Canadian Pacific Railroad, as a result of
                                                                        rail’s share of freight. Further, passenger rail
its vast landholdings and financial management,
                                                                        service has eroded with competition provided
expanded and evolved into a highly diversified
                                                                        by automobile technologies. Multimodal own-
corporation known today as Canadian Pacific
                                                                        ership does appear to influence the management
Limited. In the mid-1960’s, the Canadian Pacific
                                                                        structure and operation by providing the com-
Railroad changed its name to Canadian Pacific
                                                                        panies increased system flexibility to respond to
Limited because the previous name did not re-
                                                                        new or available markets. The extent to which
flect its many interests. Today CP Rail is one
                                                                        the companies use their flexibility is unknown.
enterprise within CP Limited. As a conglom-
                                                                        Current managements claim to maintain a com-
erate its current assets are approximately $5 bil-
                                                                        petitive philosophy between the modes.
                                                                           IoCanadian pacific publication supplied by E. Bradley, Director
  ‘Ctt}lUL~U Guzettc vol. 3, no. 6, pt. III, 26-27, Elizabeth 11, ch.   of Rules, Accidents, and Prevention, Canadian Pacific Railroad.
34, Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act.                       I 1A ~l)ll~a~ R@p(3rt, 1977 (Canadian Pacific Limited).

   The Canadian National and the Canadian Pa-                                               Table 12.—Railway Trackage*
cific Railroads comprise the majority of the
Canadian rail system. In 1975, these railroads                          Year                                                        Total miles in operation*
controlled approximately 94 percent of the                              1900               ...           .         .        .        .,     17,657
43,000 miles of mainline track.12 As indicated in                       1910      .         . . . . . . . . .                               24,731
table 12, most mainline track was in place by                           1920     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                              38,805
                                                                        1925                     .,               .,                        40,350
the late-1920’s. 13 In 1976, CP operated about                          1930      ... ., . . . . : : : : : : :                              42,047
16,400 miles 14 of mainline and branchlike track                        1935       . . . . ... . . . . . .,                                 42,916
and accounted for 38 percent of the total Cana-                         1940      . ... . . . . . . . . . .,                                42,565
                                                                        1945          .        .        ...     .       .      .    ...     42,352
dian trackage. CN has approximately 25,000                              1950        ., ., . . . . . ... .,                                  43,979
miles of mainline and branchlike track and rep-                         1955     . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ...                            44,444
resents 56 percent of Canada’s system.                                  1960       ., . . ., . . . . . ., .,                                43,029
                                                                        1965           .,         ...       .,       .,      ...     .,     45,157
   Several other Canadian railroads operate as                          1970              .,          .        .          .      .,         44,983
                                                                        1971        . . . . . ... . . .                                     44,153
regional systems. These companies control the                           1972      ., ., ... . . . ... . . . . .                             44,025
remaining 6 percent of Canada’s rail trackage.                          1973        ., . . . . . . . ...                                    44,232
Included among these companies are: the British                         1974     . . . . . . . ., . . . . . .,                              44,260
                                                                        1975    . . . . ... ., ., . . . . . . . . .                         43,941
Columbia Railway, which operates from North

  “~[l?~[~cf(? Yearbook. 1976-77,
                               op. ~it., p. 760.
                                                                        “Malnllne track–defined as s!ngle track extending the ermre d!stance between terminals on
                                                                         which the length of road IS based
  ‘ ‘Ibid, p. 760.                                                      NOTE From 1971101975 Canada averaged 16000 miles of frack of her than malnhne
  14Data furnished by Canadian Pacific Rail, Sept. 29, 1978.            SOURCE Canada Yearbook, 197677
22 q Railroad Safety-U.S. -Canadian Comparison
                                                                                                                                                             Photo CP Rail

                  Sorting —CP Rail’s Alyth Yard in Calgary, Alta., is one of the most modern in Canada. Located on the
                   railway’s mainline, the yard contains sorting and hump yards, maintenance facilities for cars and
                                                    locomotives, and repair facilities.

              Table 13.—Locomotive Equipment                           creased from 5,000 in 1960 to 14,700 in 1975, an
                                                                       increase of 194 percent. This increase is one
     Year        ‘Steam      Diesel-electrlc Electric    Total
                                                                       clear indicator of an increase in the amount of
1960                403-      –
                                3,308          41       3,752
                                                                       hazardous commodities shipped by rail i n
1970                             3,399         18       3,417
1971                             3,449         14       3,463          Canada, although not all tank                             cars are used to
 972                             3,598         14       3,612          ship dangerous commodities.
1973                             3748          14       3,762
1974                             3870          16       3,884             C a n a d i a n rail officials indicated that the
1975                             3963          16       3.877
                                                                       Canadian fleet evolved to heavier axle loadings
SOURCE Canada Yearbooks.                                               on freight equipment (100-ton cars) by the late-
                                                                       1960’s.-’” Today the average freight car capacity
ownership.  The number of Canadian rail-                               in Canada is 64.6 tons.
owned freight equipment remained a relatively
constant size between         1960 and 1975. As the                       ‘f lntc’rll(>~t \ ~i I t h (’.~n,]({i.]n   h’,] t I(Jn.) I .ln~i C ,] n.ldl,]n J“lc it [C I<<i 11 -
table also indicates, the number of tank cars in-                      r(~,l[]~ (1 t 10-1 1 1 ’178
24   q   Railroad Safety—U. S. -Canadian Comparison

   In addition to the evolution of the freight                                             roads in 1977 was over 107,000. As in the
equipment fleet, the decline in number of pas-                                             United States, employment has dropped over
senger service cars indicated in table 14, demon-                                          the last two decades .17
strates the declining rail passenger market.
   The average employment for Canadian rail-                                                 ‘   ‘Letter,   Canadian   R a i l w a y Lab{~ur Ass[}c atic~n.

                                                                     Table 14.—Freight Rolling Stock

         Type                                               1960        1970      1971               1972              1973             1974                  1975
         Auto         .,            .       .,               7,249      2,178      2,280             2,607            2,579             2,617             2,776
         Ballast         .         ...      .,               3,128      2,639      2,408             2,383            2,363             2,296             2,199
         Box.                ...            .,             111,217    101,746     99,904            97,162           95,239            95.538            92,669
         Flat. ...                                          12,645     18,043     19,738            20,414           22,010            24,898            25,733
         Gondola. : : : : : : : :                           20,310     20,975     20,354            20,450           20,464            20,414            21,370
         Hopper ... . . . . .                               15,578     24,496     25,175            25,539           26,464            27,398            29,287
         Ore. . . . . . . .                                  5,930      6,735      6,819             7,241            7,371             7,151             7,731
         Refrigerator,         .,       .,  .,              10,076      6,673      5,403             5,292            4,955             4,772             5,016
         S       t         o          c     k                4,917      2,827      2,687             2,583            2,503             2,463             2,359
         Tank,         .,         .,       ...                 472        487        468               474              484               494               379
         Other                 .             .                  31      1,938      2,080             2,320            2,320             2,851             3,689
           Total           .          .      .             191,553    188,737    187,316           186,465          186,752           190,892           193,208
         Tank,          .,           .,        .       .    4,999      14,957     14,207            14,296             14,324           14,426            14,699
         Other          .            .        .        .       32       1,254      1,353             3,778              3,384            4,504             7,301
           Total    .        .   .        .   .    .   .     5,031     16,211     15,560            18,074             17,705           18,930            22,000
         P a s s e n g e r                    c a r s       5,119       2,801      2,516              2,383             2,175            2,056                1,936
         SOURCE Canada Yearbooks, /970-75

                                                           RAILROAD FINANCIAL PICTURE
   Agricultural, forestry, and mineral resources                                         types of commodities in the second table, a large
are among the most important natural resources                                           percentage of current rail freight is bulk com-
in Canada and represent a significant part of rail                                       modities. 18
freight tonnage. Historically rail, as a shipper of
                                                                                            Of 397.4 million tons of freight carried by rail
bulk commodities, has been important to the
                                                                                         and truck in 1972, rail accounted for 57 percent
political and economic well-being of Canada.
                                                                                         of the tons shipped. However, of the $4.26 bil-
While rail was once the only freight transporta- ‘
                                                                                         lion in gross revenues earned by the two modes,
tion mode, trucking became a dominant trans-
                                                                                         truck claimed 52 percent of the revenues or
portation growth area and carrier of nonbulk
                                                                                         $2.23 billion. ” This combination of factors in-
commodities. However, in ton miles in Canada,
                                                                                         dicates the growth of trucking (competition for
rail has remained the dominant carrier with 55
                                                                                         higher valued nonbulk freight in Canada. Rail
percent of all intercity freight. Table 15 shows
                                                                                         depends heavily on bulk raw materials trans-
the modal split of the freight transport market
                                                                                         port. However, it faces great competition
between 1944 and 1968. Table 16 shows the split
among commodities carried in 1969 and 1974.                                              from trucking for the transport of manufactured
                                                                                         goods. 20 As Canada increases production of
As indicated by the first table, though still
dominant, rail’s share of the freight market de-                                             ‘ST. D. Heaver and ]. C. Nel\t~n, R(?//i~~[7i/ Prlci)t,q UII(I(JI C“(II)I-
clined from 1944 to 1968 by 20 percent. Truck                                            )tIct cIt// Frmf(>ItI: T/IP C’(JtIL7t/If?II E.1) wrict~rc Un iversi t}’ (~t 13ritlsh
                                                                                         Ct~lumbia, 1977), p. 24.
and water transportation increased by 10 per-                                                1“Ibid., p. 23.
cent during that time period. As shown by the                                               “’ibid,, p, 23.
        Table 15.—lntercity Freight by Mode of                                               mobile and air passenger services were two
    Transportation in Canada (excluding pipelines),                                          dominant factors leading to the decline of rail
                                                                                             passenger service. In October 1978, Transport
   (billions of ton miles and percent of                 total    by each mode)
                                                                                             Canada officially assumed full control and man-
                       Rail                        Road             I     Water              agement of rail passenger services in Canada. A
Year           “on-miles      Percent       [on-males P e r c e n t Ton-miles Percent        crown corporation called VIA Rail Canada Lim-
1 9 4 4 . ‘ - 65 93-’           74             267           3        2031      23           ited, purportedly similar to AMTRAK in the
1948          5908              68             519           5        2320      27           United States, has been established to provide
1952          6843              63             890           8        3087      29
1956          7883              61            1061           8        3941      31
                                                                                             rail passenger services. VIA Rail is responsible
1960          6545              56            1384        12          3687      32           for the operation of all long-distance and inter-
1961          6583              54            1610        13          3938      33           city passenger services in Canada. It owns all
1962          6794              53            1658        13          4295      34
1963          7580              53            1670        12
                                                                                             passenger equipment and is completely respons-
                                                                      5012      35
1964          8503              52            1747        11          5919      37           ible for the management and marketing of rail
1965          8719              53            1820        11          5782      36           passenger services. VIA Rail trains run on CN
1966          9510              53            1895        11          6441      36
1967          9410              55            1954        11          5715      34
                                                                                             and CP track on a leased basis.
1968          9686              55            21 13       12          5811      33              From the annual reports and other available
                              . . —
SOURCE Calculated from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics Special Release April 1969          financial data, CP has shown steady growth in
                                                                                             net income for the .5-year period 1973-77, with
              Table 16.—Commodities Accounting for                                           the exception of 1975, a recession year. Table 17
               More Than 2 Percent of Rail Ton-Miles                                         displays CP financial data. In 1975, CP Rail had
                     in 1969 and 1974 in Canada                                              a rate of return on net investment of 4.9 percent,
                                                                                             compared to 6.3 percent in 1976 and 6.7 percent
                                                 1974 ton-miles        1969 ton-miles        in 1977. Of total CP Rail revenues for 1977,
                                     Rank in                                                 Government subsidies for unprofitable branch-
Commodity                             1974 Millions Percent Millions Percent
                                                                                             lines and passenger services represented 8 per-
Wheat                                   1       1245       136         926            144
Bituminous        coal                  2        978       107         425              66   cent. 21
Potash                                  3        572         63        361              56
Sulfur                                  4        519        5.7        14.8             23     In 1977, 15.7 percent or $193 million of CP
Barley                                  5        344         38        267             4.2   Rail’s operating expenses was spent on track and
TOFC                                    6        33.3        36        247              38   facilities maintenance compared to $ 1 0 8 . 6
Lumber                                  7        247         27        19.2             30
Freight forwarder and                                                                        million or 14.4 percent for 1973 as shown in
 shipper associations                   8        21 2 23               123             19    table 18. For CP, expenditures for track main-
COFC                                    9        186      20            02             ––    tenance adjusted for inflation* increased ap-
  Total of commodities above                    4636    507         2691   41 8              proximately 25 percent over the 1973-77 time
  Total of all rail traffic                     9155 1 0 0           6436 100                period. CP spent approximately $259 million on
SOURCE Canadian Transport Commission Waybill And/y s/s 1974 and 1969                         equipment maintenance in 1977 compared to
          .                                                                                  $158.2 in 1973, an increase of 15 percent in
manufactured goods and nonbulk freight, h i s -                                              operating expenses. When viewed in constant
torical trends indicate that truck competition                                               dollars, total maintenance expenditures in-
with rail will also increase. Trucking regulation                                            creased by 19 percent between 1973 and 1977
has historically been the jurisdiction of the                                                for CP. The ratio of track maintenance expend-
provinces. Although the 1967 National Trans-                                                 itures v. equipment maintenance expenditures
portation Act gave some power to the central                                                 remained constant over the time period.
Government, the power has never been imple-
                                                                                                Capital expenditures of CP for- roadway in-
mented so that jurisdiction is still exercised at
                                                                                             creased steadily from 1973 to 1977, with the ex-
the provincial level.
                                                                                             ception of 1975. Table 19 shows the CP capital
   The declining number of passenger cars (cited                                             expenditures for the 1973-77 period. By 1977,
in table 14) in the Canadian rail equipment fleet                                               :
                                                                                                    ‘,,1 }7/1~((// I{(TIJ(lI ~ ((’clnclcilcln   I’.]( ]1 ic [{<111 puhllcc]tlt~n> %p( 2Q,
indicates a decline in rail passenger traffic. As in                                         1 o~~ )
the United States, the rapid growth of the auto-                                                ‘ C ,ln.lcilan C(ln\umt’r       I’rlc t 1 n(lc,x
                                                   Table 17.—Canadian Pacific Rail Financial Fact Sheet

                                          CPR net income                  Total CP Iimited
                    Year                   (in millions)                    net income                Percent rail                      Year               Rate of return CPR
        1973                                       “35 2                        125                          28                1    9    7       5     ,          4.9
        1974                                       446                          194                          23                1   9    7      6 ,                63
        1 9 7 5                                    31 7                         175                          18                1   9     7      7 .               67
        1976                                       51 1                         190                          27
        1977                                        548                         247                          22

                         CPR operating                                                                                         Revenue distribution
                       expenses including CPR operating
        Year                  tax            revenues                                                    1975                           1976                     1977
        1975                 990,262        1,021,953                     F r e i g h t                 887,666                     1,006,624                 1,112,094
        1976               1,111,849        1,162,946                     Passenger. .,                  21,497                        21,708                    21,541
        1977               1,231,600        1,286,392                     Other railway                  26,188                        29,862                    35,878
                                                                          Coastal steamships              16,486                       16,690                    14,763
                                                                          Gov’t. subsidy                  70,116                       88.062                   102,111
                                                                                                      1,021,953                     1.162,946                 1,286,387

        SOURCE Canadian Pacific annual reports.

                           Table 18.— Maintenance Expenditures for the Canadian Pacific Railroad, 1973.77
                                                      (dollars in thousands)

                                                             Percent of total                                 Percent of total                                 Percent of total
Year                          Road                         operating expense            Equipment           operating expense                  Total         operating expense
1 9 7 3                    $108,600                               14.4                $158,200                    21.0                   $266,800                      354
1        9       7      4   130,100                               141                  188,500                    20.5                    318,600                      34.6
(in 1973 constant $). (117,300)                                                       (170,000)                                          (287,300)
1975                        141.700                                143                 195,300                     19.5                   337,000                      34.0
(in 1973 constant $) (1 15,300)                                                       (158,900)                                          (274,200)
1976                         167,600                               15.3                216,800                     19.5                   386.400                      348
(in 1973 constant’ $).     (1 26,900)                                                 (164.100)                                          (292,500)
1 9 7 7                                                            157                 258,900                    210                     452,000                      36.7
(in 1973 constant $) : (135,300)                                                      (181 ,400)                                         (316,700)
Percent increase in 1973
   constant $ from 1973-77   + 24.6                                                      + 147                                                + 18.7

SOURCE Canadian Pacific Rail general publication

                               Table 19.–Capital Expenditures for the Canadian Pacific Railway, 1973-77
                                                        (dollars in thousands)

                   Rolling               Percent                Diesel           Percent                             Percent                 Maintenance       Percent
     Year           stock                of total               units            of total           Road*            of total                   shops          of total           Total
 1 9 7 3          $7,973                    13              $23,476                39            $25,362                43                    $2,682               5            $59$793
 1 9 7 4           17,592                   24               19,139                26             34,457                47                       2,204             3             73,392
(1973 $)          (15,900)                                  (1 7,200)                            (31,100)                                     (        )                        (66, 179)
 1 9 7 5           30,441                   32               24,509                26             36,184                  39                     2,556             3             93,690
(1973 $)          (24,700)                                  (19,900)                             (29,400)                                     ( 2,100)                          (76,233)
 1 9 7 6           31,199                   32               12.145                13             48,450                  50                     4,955            5              96,749
(1973 $) (23,600)                                           ( 9,200)                             (36,700)                                     ( 3,800)                          (73,239)
 1 9 7 7           13,130                   13               16,134                16             61,406                  61                    10,771           10             101,441
(1973 $).         ( 9,200)                                  (11,300)                             (43,000)                                     ( 7,500)                          (71 ,087)
Percent Increase
( + ) or decrease
( - ) in 1973 $
from 1973 -77        + 15                                       -52                                 + 70.0                                      + 180                            + 18.9

“Includes rail hes ballast and road maintenance machines
SOURCE Canadian Pacdlc Rallgeneral publlcaflon
CP’s capital expenditures for track accounted                                                                                   Table 20.—Capital Expenditures— U.S.
for roughly 60 percent of its total capital                                                                                                Class I Carriers
expenditures budget. Rolling stock accounted                                                                                            (dollars in thousands)
for 30 percent (rolling stock and diesel units                                                                                                                Percent
combined). According to CP officials, the shift                                                                       Year              Equipment             of total
in capital expenditures for track “was a con-                                                                         1973             $ 892,700                  67
scious management decision in response to a                                                                           1974              1,038,100                 66
                                                                                                                      (1973 $)            (935.200
perceived need. The introduction of the 100-ton                                                                        1975             1,303300                  73
nominal capacity freight car and the six-axle                                                                         (1973 $)         ( 1,076,200
diesel electric locomotive led to the realization                                                                     1 9 7 6 1,174,800                           68
                                                                                                                      (1973 $)            (917, 100
that the existing22 track structure was simply not                                                                    1977              1,540300                  67
strong enough. " The capital expenditures bud-                                                                        (1973 $)         (1, 128,400
get for CP from 1973 to 1977 increased by 18.9                                                                        Percent Increase

                                                                                                                                                                         I+ I
                                                                                                                      in 1973 $ from
percent when measured in constant dollars .23                                                                         1973-77               + 26                                   22             + 25 1

   In the aggregate, the U.S. railroads ratio of
capital expenditures for track v. equipment for
the 1973-77 period was roughly 30 percent for                                                                         availability of capital for railroads in the two
track and 70 percent for equipment as shown in                                                                        countries, differences in management philos-
table 20. In comparing the U.S. aggregate with                                                                        ophy, a difference in industry accounting mech-
the CP data, the difference in ratios of capital                                                                      anisms, and Government tax structures. Ac-
expenditures for track v. equipment may have                                                                          cording to rail officials “Canadian corporate in-
several possible explanations: a difference in the                                                                    come tax laws tend to lead to economic eval-
                                                                                                                      uation which, as a whole, strongly favors re-
      ‘l<t~’)(~~ c ~~nln~tn ts lc>t tt>r {~n prt’l]nl]n,]rt’tlr,]t t (~t ( I T A : RI/~)-                             build (maintenance) as opposed to renewal
) , ){ ?C / sL/ f[, / u ,4 L] s ( ‘[1 )j[l[ /1[/ )1 (-, ))) I ~ ~~1 I I q , I I I r[~c (,I I,(K] t rorn ( h,l r-1(+
J’IA(’, C’hIt’l >1(’< h,]nl( J] Otttc(r ( ,ln.~{11.in J’J{ itlc I-?a Il, J,]n. 2.3,                                   (capital ) particular] y for equipment. “24
 ] c)~cl
      ‘ ‘ I ) d t < ) t u r n ] ~hcxl III [’<]nclcl]c~n 1’.1( lt]c 1<<]11, St’pt 2Q 1 Q78                               ‘”1   (t tt’r t   r(~nl C’ll<l 1-1(’< I’lkt’ (~[~ L It I . i n 23 I Q7Q

  Several comparisons can be made between                                                                             pared to 200,000 in the United States. Canada’s
U.S. and Canadian railroad systems. These                                                                             population is 23 million whereas the U.S. popu-
comparisons may influence safety directly or in-                                                                      lation is 220 million people. The general ratio of
directly.                                                                                                             population to rail trackage is 535 people to 1
                                                                                                                      mile of track in Canada, compared to 1,075 peo-
  a. As a result of the severe Canadian winter,                                                                       ple to 1 mile of track in the United States. This
Canadian rails may require somewhat different
                                                                                                                      comparison should be considered only in a
maintenance procedures and practices than re-
                                                                                                                      general context as population density and traffic
quired by many U.S. carriers. It appears that                                                                         volume are two variables necessary to deter-
Canadian climate does influence the number of                                                                         mine specific exposure rates.
accidents and may also adversely affect employ-
ees working in this environment.
                                                                                                                         c. Because of the smaller population base, and
  b. Due to the considerably smaller Canadian                                                                         the fewer and smaller urban areas, Canada may
population, and fewer miles of rail, there is                                                                         be expected to have a less severe “trespassing”
statistically less exposure of the Canadian                                                                           safety problem than that potentially associated
population to rail safety hazards (dangerous                                                                          with congested urban areas in the United States.
commodities, hazards, etc. ). In size, the Cana-                                                                      One-third of Canada’s population is located in
dian mainline rail trackage is 43,000 miles com-                                                                      eight large cities. Of these cities Montreal and
28 . Railroad Safety— U. S.- Canadian Comparison

Toronto are the largest, with populations of                     and may influence safety. Railroad maintenance
1,214,352 and 712,786 respectively as of 1971. It                procedures could offset the impact of increased
is assumed that a majority of trespasser fatal-                  track wear.
ities occur near populated areas. No data or cor-
                                                                    h. From limited data, CP appears to be in-
relations have been made to determine this
                                                                 creasing capital expenditures in track and facil-
                                                                 ities more significantly than increases in its ex-
   d. The existence of only two major rail car-                  penditures for equipment. In contrast, while ag-
riers in Canada may have facilitated Gov-                        gregate U.S. expenditures (in constant dollars)
ernment and railroad formulation of oper-                        for track have increased 22 percent, the percent-
ational and other policies. A specific example of                age ratio of total capital expenditures for track
this is the Uniform Code of Operating Rules,                     v. equipment is remaining the same. These
which has been a Government standard for all                     ratio’s appear to have occurred for several rea-
railroads in Canada since 1958.                                  sons: 1) the Canadian railroad may have avail-
                                                                 able more cash for track investment; 2) in Can-
   e. In 1976, the United States had approx-
                                                                 ada, though the average capacity per freight car
imately 56 class I carriers that accounted for 99
                                                                 has not increased as much as in the United
percent of the revenue traffic and 96 percent of
                                                                 States, the effect of changes in technology were
rail mileage. Of the 56 carriers, approximately
                                                                 recognized and the pace of mainline plant re-
10 accounted for 80 percent of the operating rev-
                                                                 placement and upkeep was considered signifi-
enues. 25 In contrast, Canada has only two major
                                                                 cant to the overall operation; 3) Canadian plant
rail carriers, CN and CP. These railroads ac-
                                                                 lifecycle was such that replacements may have
count for 94 percent of Canada’s rail trackage
                                                                 been needed; and 4) tax structures and other
and 90 percent of its revenue traffic.
                                                                 financial incentives were different in Canada
   f. The transcontinental nature of the Cana-                   than in the United States.
dian system may allow its rail managements
                                                                    i. As in the United States, the introduction of
greater flexibility in freight traffic control and
                                                                 the automobile and increase in its usage brought
also in scheduled maintenance and repair of
                                                                 greater exposure to rail-highway grade-crossing
freight equipment.
                                                                 risks. Similarly the rise in auto and air transpor-
  g. Canada, like the United States, introduced                  tation led to the decline in rail passenger traffic,
diesel locomotives which subsequently allowed                    a factor that naturally reduced the number of
for increases in the size and capacity of freight                people exposed to rail-related hazards.
cars. Increased productivity resulted, However,
                                                                    j. Both countries are experiencing increases in
these factors appear to also increase track wear
                                                                 rail transportation of dangerous commodities.
                                                                 This results in an increased exposure level of
 ““A Prospectus for Change in the Freight Railroad Industry, ”
October 1978, A Preliminary Report, U.S. Department of Trans-    both populations to the potential hazards of
portation.                                                       these commodities.
                      Chapter Ill

                 RAIL SAFETY
                                                                                    Chapter Ill

                              GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
   Comparison between the U.S. and Canada’s          and 3) supervise the administration of policy as
rail safety legal and regulatory provisions can      legislated by the Parliament. It is this merging of
only be made with some recognition of the ma-        legislative and executive functions in the Cab-
jor differences between the two countries’           inet that is one of the major differences between
Government institutions. Primary among these         Canadian and U.S. Government structures.
differences is that Canada has a parliamentary
system of government in which the legislative           The ministries of Canada are much like the
and executive functions overlap. The United          executive departments of the United States.
States has complete separation of the executive      They are headed by a Minister (in the United
and legislative branches. Canada’s form of           States, by a Secretary) and are staffed primarily
government has evolved over many years from          by civil servants who are not part of the polit-
the English constitutional monarchy and parlia-      ical system. In addition to the Canadian Federal
mentary system. Canada, however, has also            agencies, there are “crown corporations” which
drawn from the American system as a separate         are organizationally independent, though gener-
government model. While Canada does not              ally subject to the policy guidance of a ministry.
have a formal “constitution,” it does have a         Canada’s first crown corporation was the Cana-
series of laws and customs that make up the          dian National Railway.
Canadian “constitution,” which is primarily em-         As in the United States, the legislative branch
bodied in the British North America Act of           of the Canadian Government is bicameral. The
1867.                                                Senate is composed of 102 members on a region-
   The executive branch of the Canadian Gov-         al basis appointed by the Governor General on
ernment has “formal” and “political” institu-        the advice of the Prime Minister. The House of
tions. The former is composed of the Crown,          Commons is composed of 263 members divided
the Governor General (formerly the Crown’s           among the provinces primarily on a population
representative in Canada), and the Governor          basis (with one each from the Yukon and North-
General presiding over his advisors in the Privy     west Territories). The House is by far the more
Council. The latter is the Cabinet, being the        powerful of these two bodies because its mem-
heads of Canadian ministries or departments          bers are elected and are considered to represent
and certain other senior advisors to the Prime       the body politic. The House, which originates
Minister. It is headed by the Prime Minister.        all public bills, carries on its business in much
                                                     the same manner as our Congress. The Senate’s
   The Prime Minister, the political head of the     function is to review House-enacted legislation,
Government, is the chosen leader of the majori-      handle private bills, and oversee the executive
ty political party and is always a member of the     agencies. Once a bill passes both bodies, it is
House of Commons, one of Canada’s two legis-         presented to the Governor General for royal as-
lative bodies. He selects each of his Cabinet        sent in the Queen’s name.
members or ministers from members of the ma-
jority party in the House of Commons. Cabinet          The judicial branch of the Canadian Govern-
ministers retain their elected posts in the House    ment is quite similar to the U.S. court system.
of Commons. The functions of the Cabinet are         There are separate and multitiered provincial
to: 1) establish Government policy and influ-        and Federal systems, each of which has trial and
ence Parliament to legislate that policy, 2) coor-   appellate divisions. However, the Province of
dinate the various Government departments,           Quebec differs from the other provinces in that

 32      q    Railroad Safety —U.S.-Canadian Comparison

 it follows Roman or civil law concepts rather                                                             Ministry is responsible for development of pol-
 than English common law. (The State of Loui-                                                              icy and Government programs ‘or all modes of
 siana in the United States is similar to Quebec in                                                        transportation. It provides the central link
 this regard. )                                                                                            among all of the transport agencies. Figures 1
                                                                                                           and 2 show the relationships of Government
    The Supreme Court of Canada has nine
                                                                                                           transport entities.
 judges, selected on geographical and minority
 group representation principles. The court hears                                                             One of the agencies under the Transport
 most cases in small panels (three members),                                                               Canada umbrella is the Canadian Transport
 rather than en bane, as in the United States. At                                                          Commission (CTC), established by the National
 the request of the Governor-in-Council, the Su-                                                           Transportation Act of 1967. 1 It has responsibili-
 preme Court is required to render advisory                                                                ty for economic regulation of all modes of trans-
 opinions on matters of law. This procedure is                                                             portation subject to Federal jurisdiction (i.e., ex-
 not followed in the United States.                                                                        cludes intraprovince transportation). Railroads
                                                                                                           are the only mode for which CTC regulates both
                                                                                                           economic and safety matters.
                   Transportation Agencies
                                                                                                             CTC has 17 Commissioners, including a pres-
    Canadian agencies responsible for transporta-                                                          ident and two vice-presidents, who are ap-
 tion matters and railroads in particular are more”                                                        pointed for 10-year terms. CTC is divided into
 closely allied to each other than in the United                                                           seven committees, each with specific regulatory
 States. The major Canadian agency is the                                                                  responsibilities. One of these committees, the
 Transportation Ministry, called the Department
 of Transport (also called Transport Canada),
 whose head is a member of the Cabinet. The                                                                   ICh.       N-17, R.S. C. , 1970.                  .

                                                                           Figure 1 .—Transport Canada

                                                                                               Minister                         f                                             1

                                                                                                                                                                      Canadian Transport
                                                                                                                                                                         Commission        I
                                            Bureau of                        Senior Assistant          Senior Assistant                Telecommunications
                                           Coordination                      Deputy Minister           Deputy Minister                   and Electronics

          I                                                                          I                               I
    Strategic               Systems                Current Policy            Programming
                                                                            and Evaluation                        Air                   Marine*             Surface               Arctic
    Planning               Development              and Liaison

                                           Personnel                       Finance                              Public Affairs                     Legal

“Includes St Lawrence Seaway Authority, Nahonal Harbours Board, Atlantlc Pdotage Authority, Great Lakes Pdotage Authortty, and Paclftc Pllotage Authority
SOURCE Transpofl Canada
                                                                              Ch. III Government Institutions and Rail Safety • 33

                            Figure 2.— Relationship of Ministry “Family” to Transportation Regulation



                    Canadian Transport               Ministry                              Central Ministry   (overall coordination regulation,
                       Commission                    Executive                                  Staff         and investment)

                  (economic regulation,
                  railway safety)

         Crown Corporations                       Administrations                    Administrations (operational                       Agency
      (investment on vehicles,            (safety regulation, coordination,           coordination, investment
   investment on railway terminal                                                                                                     (research)
                                                   infrastructure)                            in ferries)
              and way)
             Air Canada                               Marine                                   Arctic                              Transportation
     Canadian National Railways                                                               Surface                           Development Agency
Northern Transportation Company Ltd.
SOURCE Transtport Canada

Railway Transport Committee (RTC) handles                                      (CN), a crown corporation. CN is a result of the
all railroad matters. The railroad responsibili-                               Government takeover of certain rail operations
ties of CTC have been exercised by similar non-                                in 1923. Since it is owned by the Government, it
partisan commissions since the enactment of the                                is subject to the policy guidance established for
Railway Act in 1903.                                                           it by the Transport Ministry. It is also subject to
                                                                               the rail regulation of CTC in the same manner
  The third Canadian entity with railroad re-
                                                                               as the Canadian Pacific Railway (CP).
sponsibility is the Canadian National Railway

                             LAWS DIRECTLY AFFECTING RAIL SAFETY
   Four basic statutes affect Canadian rail safe-                              U.S. statute is the Occupational Safety and
ty. The oldest is the Railway Act, 2 originally                                Health Act of 197 0.5
enacted in 1903. It prescribes most of the eco-
                                                                                 The third law is the National Transportation
nomic, safety, and other operational require-
                                                                               Act (NTA), enacted in 1967. It established CTC,
ments. Its U.S. analog would be a combination
                                                                               and transferred to CTC the functions previously
of part I of the Interstate Commerce Act 3 and all
                                                                               assigned to a number of modal regulatory
of the rail safety statutes.
                                                                               boards. It also proclaims a new national trans-
   The second of these laws is                  part IV of the                 portation policy. The law details the functions,
Canada Labour Code.’ Part IV                    ‘establishes the               powers, duties, and procedures of CTC.
authority for workplace safety                  regulations for
                                                                                 The fourth law is the Railway Relocation and
interprovincial rail operations.                Its counterpart
                                                                               Crossing Act, 6 enacted in 1974. This Act goes
           R-2, R. S. C., 197o.
       49 U.S. C. 1 et seq.                                                       ’29 U. S .C. 651 et seq.
      ‘Ch. L-1, R. S. C., 197o.                                                   bCh. 12, 23 Elizabeth II.
34 . Railroad Safety—U. S.-Canadian Comparison

well beyond existing U.S. legislation on this        CP subsidized the extension of CP lines into the
subject by providing: 1) financial assistance for    interior of British Columbia in return for a fixed
preparation and implementation of “urban             rate for transportation of grain in certain areas.
development and transportation plans, ” with         In 1925, these rates became statutory and were
respect to railway relocation in urban areas, 2)     extended to additional parts of Canada and to
special grants for grade separations, and 3) a       CN.8
continuing fund for grade-crossing safety im-
                                                       CTC has authority to prescribe rates in mo-
provement projects.
                                                     nopolistic situations (the “captive” shipper) and
   Canadian railroad casualty compensation           to intercede when rates are prejudicial or not in
laws are established at the provincial level,        the public interest if satisfactory rates cannot be
rather than at the Federal level. These laws are     negotiated between the railroads and shippers.
no-fault in concept, and generally allow for full
                                                        CTC has jurisdiction to hear complaints from
medical treatment without time limits and ma-
                                                     any interested party or to act on its own motion,
jor tax-free disability compensation. Provincial
                                                     and to hear and determine all matters of law or
compensation boards oversee payments and en-
                                                     fact consistent with its jurisdiction. CTC can act
sure treatment and rehabilitation adequate for
                                                     as a superior court by taking evidence. Having
the injured employee. These provincial laws are
                                                     heard or considered a matter, it can issue a final
in significant contrast to the U.S. statute. T h e
                                                     order mandating or restricting particular action.
Federal Employer’s Liability Act’ depends on
                                                     If a regulation, order, or decision is published in
legal determination of negligence to establish
                                                     the Canada Gazette (the Canadian equivalent to
compensation. The Canadian compensation
                                                     the U.S. Federal Register) for 3 weeks, the order
plans are discussed further in chapter VIII.
                                                     has the effect of a statute. However, the Gov-
                                                     ernor-in-Council may at any time vary or re-
         The National Transportation Act             scind any order, rule, or decision of CTC. The
                                                     rescinding order is binding on CTC. This power
   As in the United States, railroads in Canada      is rarely exercised.
were initially viewed as monopolies because of
                                                        Within the scope of its statutory authority,
the absence of competition. They were regulated
                                                     CTC can adopt regulations or orders on any
as such. In the middle of this century, railroads
                                                     matter. It can establish penalties for violation of
met increased competition from other modes,
                                                     any order or regulation to the extent that those
which eliminated their dominant position. In
                                                     penalties are not otherwise established by stat-
1959, a royal commission studied this change
                                                     ute. Moreover, CTC has jurisdiction to hear
and recommended that the Government’s regu-
                                                     and resolve disputes between parties concerning
latory approach be changed to encourage com-
                                                     any aspect of a railroad line, whether construc-
petition among and between modes. The result
                                                     tion, maintenance, or operation, or concerning
was the 1967 enactment of NTA.
                                                     any structure, appliance, or equipment used in
   This law placed the regulation of all trans-      connection with a railroad. CTC can request
portation modes in one entity —CTC. One of its       that the Ministry of Justice provide counsel in
primary purposes is to coordinate the regulation     matters for which it feels the public interest
of all of the modes under a policy that will allow   needs specific representation.
competition to be the primary regulating force.
                                                       NTA has two special limitations with respect
   While the 1967 Act curbed numerous eco-           to safety matters. First, if a law requires ap-
nomic regulatory restrictions, some still remain.    proval of CTC before particular work can be
One example is the limitation on grain tariffs       conducted and if the work affects the safety of
established by the Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement.       employees or the public, that approval cannot
This agreement between the Government and            be given without “due notice and hearing.” 9
                                                       ‘Sec. 271, ch. R-2, R. S. C., 1970.
      45 U.S. C. 51 et seq.                            ‘Sec. 52, ch. N-17, R. S. C., 1970.
                                                      Ch. III Government Institutions and Rail Safety   q   35

Similarly, where any work that affects the safe-       As the final arbiter of facts in matters under its
ty of the public or employees is required by           jurisdiction, and having the power to determine
regulation, order, or decision of CTC within a         matters of law under the Railway Act, CTC’s
specified time, that time limit cannot be ex-          orders and regulations appear less likely to be
tended by CTC without “hearing or notice. ”l0          the subject of litigation than those of a U.S.
   NTA grants CTC and the Ministry broad in-
vestigatory powers, It can request that any per-
son make a report or inquiry on any matter                                  The Railway Act
within its jurisdiction. Its agents may enter on
any property the agent thinks necessary for the           The Railway Act, originally adopted in 1903,
purpose of investigation. The agent or commit-         is the seminal law for the information, construc-
tee may inspect any rolling stock, or summon           tion, operation, and safety of Canadian rail-
witnesses, or require submission of documents,         roads. It covers the CP and CN railroads with
or take oaths or otherwise act as a court in a         respect to their Canadian operations and all
civil case.                                            other railroads that cross provincial or interna-
                                                       tional boundaries. Its provisions and the regula-
   The importance of this Act in the context of
                                                       tions and orders issued under them apply spe-
rail operations is twofold. First, it substantially
                                                       cifically to: 1) internal corporate matters of any
revised the approach to economic regulation,
                                                       railroad incorporated under a special act of the
which had a particularly significant impact on
                                                       Parliament; 2) engineering and location of rail-
the economic condition of the railroads. By pro-
                                                       road lines; 3) operation of railroad equipment,
viding the railroads a greater opportunity to
                                                       including safety matters; 4) treatment of uneco-
compete freely, the Act may have provided
                                                       nomic branch lines; 5) requirements for accom-
them more resources to carry out maintenance
                                                       modating shipper demand for service; 6) investi-
and make improvements consistent with safe
                                                       gation of accidents, penalties, and treatment of
and efficient operations. Second, it brought
                                                       damages caused by breach of the Act or rules or
together in one body a number of agencies with
                                                       orders under it; and 7) railroad accounting.
transportation powers. In theory, at least, this
should enable a more coordinated approach to              The comprehensiveness and detailed treat-
the entire range of problems facing Government         ment of many of its subjects distinguishes the
and transportation industries.                         Canadian Railway Act from any single rail
                                                       statute in the United States. Much of what ap-
   In comparison to U.S. laws, NTA provides
                                                       pears to be treated in the Canadian Railway Act
substantially greater powers to CTC than those
                                                       is not the subject of Federal statute in the United
provided to the U.S. Department of Transporta-
                                                       States, but rather is covered by internal railroad
tion (DOT) or the Interstate Commerce Com-
                                                       rules or by interrailroad agreement such as the
mission. NTA is generally more flexible con-
                                                       rules for interchange of traffic between carriers.
cerning the manner in which powers are exer-
                                                       The following discussion describes the contents
cised. For example, outside the labor law con-
                                                       of designated sections of the Railway Act that
text, U.S. law does not generally provide parties
                                                       relate directly to rail safety.
involved in a dispute on a railroad matter (e. g.,
a loss and damage claim or an interline settle-           Safety and Care of the Roadway ll—Some of
ment claim), a forum other than a court for res-       the provisions under this subpart of the law
olution of such a dispute, whereas in Canada,          reflect the early origins of the Act and the essen-
CTC can resolve such a dispute. Moreover,              tially rural nature of the then rail environment.
there appear to be fewer procedural constraints        It prohibits animals from running-at-large near
on the CTC’s ability to exercise its power such        a grade crossing, requires weeds to be removed,
as are provided in the United States by the Ad-        and requires certain safeguards against roadway
ministrative Procedures Act and related laws.          fires. Violation of those provisions subjects the

   l~~S~C 53, ch IN-l 7, R S C ., 1970.                   1 ls~C~, 21s_z24, Ch. R-2, R. S c., 1970.
36   q   Railroad Safety—U.S.-Canadian Comparison

violator to relatively insignificant monetary           The Canadian statutes do not set forth spe-
penalties. In the United States, these matters are   cific safety requirements with respect to the
essentially left to State law.                       roadway, which is also the case in the United
                                                     States. As discussed in chapter VI, the United
   In a broadly drawn provision (sec. 223), CTC
                                                     States does have extensive regulatory require-
may direct an “inspecting engineer” to inspect
                                                     ments for track safety. Canada requires that
railway (the Canadian term for right-of-way)
                                                     plans for construction, diversion, or modifica-
that may be “dangerous to the public using the
                                                     tion of track be submitted in advance to CTC
railway” and can order any repairs, reconstruc-
                                                     for its review and approval, a power not estab-
tion, etc., that appear to CTC to be necessary or
                                                     lished under U.S. law. Thus, CTC has far
proper. ’2 CTC can limit or prohibit the use of
                                                     greater control than its U.S. counterpart of the
railway that is subject to such an order, pending
                                                     original safety of rail lines and, one might sup-
execution of the order’s requirements. CTC can
                                                     pose, greater knowledge of the condition of the
also forbid use of rolling stock that it considers
                                                     system’s track.
unfit for either use or repair. An inspecting CTC
engineer may also limit or prohibit the use of          Accidents 14 —The Railway Act requires that a
track or equipment if he finds its use would be      railroad, immediatel y after informing its of-
“dangerous.” Notice must be given to the rail-       ficers, give notice of any accident in which an
road and to CTC of this action and the reasons       injury occurs to a person using the railroad or to
for it must be stated. CTC may modify or over-       any railroad employee, or of any occurrence
ride the action of the engineer. Violation of        whereby a bridge, culvert, viaduct, or tunnel is
these orders or the notice of the inspection engi-   impassable or unfit for use. Employees in charge
neer subjects the company to a penalty of up to      of a train also have the duty to notify CTC of an
$2,000 and subjects any person willfully and         accident. CTC has the power to: 1) regulate the
knowingly aiding or abetting the violation to a      manner and form of accident notices and the in-
penalty of $20 or $200.                              formation required, 2) conduct inquiries into
                                                     the cause of the accidents or accident situations
   There are two provisions in U.S. law that can
                                                     in general, and 3) investigate the means of
be used to stop operations or equipment use.
                                                     preventing accidents. Failure to give notice of an
Both are contained in the Federal Railroad Safe-
                                                     accident may result in a penalty of $200 per day
ty Act of 1970 (FRSA). 13 One provision permits
                                                     for the. railroad, and up to $100 for a willful or
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to
                                                     negligent failure of an employee to so report.
issue an order directing compliance with par-
ticular safety requirements established under           In the United States, the Accident Reports
FRSA. Such an order can include a direction to       A c t15 requires monthly (although the regula-
stop operations or equipment use until compli-       tions prescribed under other authority require
ance is achieved. In addition, there is the power    immediate notification for most types of ac-
to order track or equipment out of service upon      cidents) reports to DOT of accidents resulting
a determination that there is “an emergency          from rail operations that cause death or injury
situation involving a hazard of death or injury      to any person or damage to equipment or road-
to persons affected by it. ” In the United States,   bed. The carrier is subject to a fine of up to $100
neither of these powers has been delegated to the    per day for failure to so report.
inspector discovering the violation. The max-
                                                       Operation and Equipment 16–The Act gives
imum penalty for each violation of an emergen-
                                                     CTC very broad rulemaking authority covering
cy order in the United States is $2,500, but no
                                                     among other things:
penalty can be assessed against an individual as
in Canada.                                             q   speed of trains in populated areas,
                                                       q   coupling of cars,

                                                       IdSecs. 225-226, ch. R-2, R.   S. C., 1970.
  ‘ zSec. 223, ch. R-2, R. S. C., 1970.                “45 U.S.C. 38.
  1345 u. S.c. 421 et seq.                             “Sees. 227-251, ch. R-2, R. S. C., 1970.
                                                       Ch. III Government Institutions and Rail Safety   q   37

  q     provision of shelter to employees on duty,      testing is at an advanced stage toward pro-
  q     length of track sections required to be kept    mulgation.
        in repair by employees and the number of
                                                           The Act also specifies a variety of rather
        employees per section “so as to ensure safe-
                                                        detailed requirements in connection with opera-
        ty to the public and its employees, ”
                                                        tion of the trains, e.g., regular schedules printed
  q     the number of “men” employed on trains
                                                        on timetables in English and French, stopping of
        “with a view to the safety of the public and
                                                        trains before entering onto a swing- or draw-
        of employees, ”
                                                        bridge, stopping at railroad switches for signal
  q     hours of service of employees, and
                                                        to proceed unless there is a switch-signal in-
  q     other matters affecting safety in the opera-
                                                        terlocking device or similar device, and using
        tion of trains or their speed and use of
                                                        the train whistle continuously from 80 r o d s
        engines. 17
                                                        before a grade crossing until the engine has
While CTC has adopted regulations on some of            passed the crossing. A train cannot exceed 10
these subjects, such as speed limits in populated       miles per hour in a “thickly populated area”
areas, coupling of cars, and other matters affect-      unless the track is fenced or otherwise protected
ing operational safety, it has not adopted regu-        or unless CTC otherwise approves a greater
lations concerning employee shelter, hours of           speed. Trains must observe that speed limit at a
service, or the number of men employed on a             grade crossing in such an area unless, in the
train, which are presumably left to collective          view of CTC, the crossing is adequately pro-
bargaining.                                             tected. In the event of a crossing accident in-
                                                        volving death or injury, a train cannot exceed
   CTC is also directed to “endeavor to provide
                                                        25 miles per hour unless the speed restriction is
for” uniformity of construction of equipment
                                                        removed by RTC. If a train is traveling in
used on the roadway. 18 Railroads are granted
                                                        reverse, except in a switching or yard move-
authority to adopt bylaws, rules, and regula-
                                                        ment, and is traveling along or across a high-
tions concerning many operational matters but
                                                        way, someone must be stationed in the lead car
these must be sanctioned by the Governor-in-
                                                        or other piece of equipment to warn persons in
Council acting on the advice of CTC.
                                                        the train’s path. Finally, a train may not block a
  With respect to safety appliances, the Rail-          highway by standing still or shunting cars for
way Act directs that railroads have “modern             more than 5 minutes.
and efficient apparatus, appliances, and means”
                                                          Penalties of up to $200 a day are provided
for: 1) communication among employees, 2)
                                                        under Canadian law for failure to equip a train
checking speed of the train, 3) coupling devices
                                                        properly. Failure to stop at a draw- or swing-
that couple upon impact and do not require em-
                                                        bridge can produce a penalty of up to $ 4 0 0 .
ployees to go between the cars to uncouple, and
                                                        Employees who do not observe company rules
4) power or train brakes that do not require use
                                                        are liable for a penalty of up to $400 or 6
of handbrakes to stop the train. The brake
                                                        months in jail or both. Failure to observe the
system is required to be continuous throughout
                                                        grade-crossing requirements (except the whistle
the train. Ladders and handholds are required
                                                        requirement) can result in a penalty of $ 1 0 0 .
for box cars. Draw bars must be of a standard
                                                        The penalty for blocking a highway is $50 for
height fixed by CTC, and locomotives are for-
                                                        the engineer and $50 for the company. How-
bidden to have valves that require oiling from
                                                        ever, employees can be exempted if they can
outside the cab while in motion. CTC is given
                                                        show they were following company rules.
power to determine what constitutes compliance
with this legislative direction through regulation         It can be seen that both Canada and the
of general applicability or by order applicable to      United States recognize the same subjects as
a particular case. An improved method of brake          worthy of consideration from a safety point of
                                                        view, though the approach is often quite dif-
      ‘“Sec. 227, ch. R-2, R. S. C., 1970.
      ‘“Sec. 228, ch. R-2, R. S. C., 1970.              ferent. For example, whereas the Railway Act
      l~sec, 238, ch R-2, R.S C ., 1970.                authorizes CTC to establish regulations for
38     q   Railroad          Safety —U. S. -Canadian comparison

employee hours of service it has not established                  give identical notice to the station agent or
any particular requirements in this regard. In                    whoever receives them for shipment. The sec-
the United States, very specific requirements are                 ond provision prohibits a railroad from carry-
established by statute and little regulatory                      ing such goods except in conformity with CTC
power is granted to FRA.20 The Canadians also                     rules and permits it either to refuse to handle,
impose by statute a variety of limitations on the                 except in accordance with CTC rules, a parcel
manner in which a train is operated, whereas in                   containing goods it suspects to be dangerous or
the United States this subject is not covered by                  to require that the parcel be opened. Violation
statute but rather by agency (FRA) regulation                     of the first provision carries a fine of up to
and in the absence of such regulation (which is                   $2,000 or 2 years in jail or both; violation of the
generally the case) the railroads are free to                     second provision can result in a maximum
adopt through their own operating rules. On the                   penalty of $500.
other hand, many of the safety appliance re-
                                                                     There is considerable difference in the statu-
quirements are treated in a similar manner by
                                                                  tory approach to regulation of the transporta-
both countries, e.g., automatic couplers, driv-
                                                                  tion of these commodities in Canada and the
ing wheel brakes, and draw bars.
                                                                  United States. The United States has both crim-
   Another area of comparison is the treatment                    inal and civil penalties of substantial dimensions
of power or train brakes. In Canada, the statute                  for violations of hazardous cargo regulations,
mandates that “such a number of cars in each                      whereas Canada has relatively mild penalties,
train be equipped with such brakes as to permit                   particularly for the railroad. Moreover, the
the engineer to control its speed or bring it to a                U.S. statute seems to envision regulation of a
stop in the quickest and best possible manner”                    broad scope of activity concerning such mate-
without requiring use of the common hand                          rials from labeling, packaging, and handling
brake. 21 In addition, on passenger trains such a                 through transportation. The Canadian statute
brake system must be continuous and self-ap-                      dealing with hazardous materials seems to envi-
plying in the event of any failure in their con-                  sion regulation of a more limited scope of activi-
tinuity of action. Inspection requirements are                    ty with those materials, although CTC may be
not specified. In the United States, the law origi-               able to take the same steps as the comparable
nally required one-half of all cars to be so                      U.S. agency due to the broad powers otherwise
equipped with power or train brakes 22 but this                   available to it.
percentage has been increased administratively
                                                                     Offenses, Penalties, and Other Liabilities25—
to include all cars in a train .23 No distinction is
                                                                  In addition to the penalties for violation of par-
made between passenger and freight trains.
                                                                  ticular statutory or regulatory requirements, the
Finally, U.S. law mandated the adoption of the
                                                                  Railway Act also specified a penalty of $20 to
Association of American Railroads (AAR)
power brake maintenance and inspection stand-                     $5,000 for any company that does not obey a
                                                                  CTC order. Moreover, if the company is proven
                                                                  to have so disobeyed CTC rules, the president,
  Dangerous Commodities—The Railway Act                           each vice-president, and each director and
contains two short provisions concerning trans-                   managing director of the company is subject to
portation of dangerous commodities .24 The first                  a penalty of the same range an ~/or up to 12
prohibits passengers from carrying such goods                     months in prison unless they can prove that they
except in conformity with CTC rules. It also re-                  did everything in their power to see that the
quires a shipper to mark clearly the nature of                    order was carried out, and they were not at fault
such goods on the outside of the packing and                      for the violation. Canadian Government of-
                                                                  ficials indicated that these penalties are levied
  z~45 U .S. C. 64 et seq.                                        infrequently, if at all. U.S. law does not impose
                ch. R-2, R. S. C. , 1970.
  2 Isec, 238(s),                                                 such personal penalties on officers of railroads.
  2245 U. S.C. 65 et Seq.
   49 CFR.

  24secs, 295.296, ch. R-2, R. S.C. , ‘970.                        25secs   343_399, ch. R-2, R. S.c. , 1970.
                                                      Ch.III   Government Institutions and Rail Safety   q   39

The Railway Act provides for a summary pro-               The Code provides for appointment of “safety
cedure before a justice of the peace, if a penalty     officers” to enforce its provisions. These of-
is less than $100. If the penalty is between $100      ficials have authority to enter the premises of an
and $500, the summary procedure must be                employer “at any reasonable time” to conduct
before two such justices or other officials with       inspections, inquiries, and tests. If something
equivalent power. CTC can also seek enforce-           constitutes a “source of imminent danger to the
ment through the offices of the Attorney Gener-        safety or health” of employees or is contrary to
al or in his name.                                     the Code or regulations, the “safety officer”
                                                       may direct an employer or person in charge, in
                                                       writing, to take certain safeguarding actions or
   The Canada Labour Code—Part IV
                                                       direct that the place, matter, or thing not be
                                                       used until directions are complied with .27 A pro-
   The Canada Labour Code establishes the
                                                       cedure for industry appeal of such a direction is
framework for Federal regulation of workplace
                                                       provided. The employer is subject to a penalty
safety. It applies to interprovincial railroads
                                                       of up to $5,000 or 1 year in prison or both for
rather than intraprovincial companies. How-
                                                       the following: 1) a violation of the Code, or
ever, the Labour Code does not apply to em-
                                                       regulations issued under the Code; 2) violation
ployment “upon or in connection with the
                                                       of the direction of a safety officer; 3) industry
operation of . . . trains . . . .“26 CTC has juris-
                                                       discrimination against employees who partici-
diction for the safety of train operations.
                                                       pate in or provide information for a safety in-
   The Labour Code places a general duty upon          quiry; 4) adverse action from industry against
employers to conduct business in a manner that         employees who stop work because they believe
will not endanger the health or safety of their        they are in imminent danger; or 5) failure to
employees, and to adopt and carry out reason-          provide requested information to a safety com-
able procedures and techniques designed to             mittee. Employees and managers can also be
reduce the risk of workplace injury. The em-           punished personally.
ployee likewise has a duty to take reasonable
                                                         The approach of the United States and
measures and precautions to protect his own
                                                       Canada to occupational safety and health ap-
safety and to use protective devices provided by
                                                       pears to be generally similar. With respect to
the employer. The Code provides a specific pro-
                                                       railroads in particular, FRA has accepted
cedure through which employees can refuse to
                                                       responsibility for safety of railroad operations
work when they believe to continue to work
would constitute an “imminent danger” to               (meaning the safe movement of equipment over
                                                       rails) including health matters related to such
themselves or other employees. The Code also
                                                       operations, and ceded the balance to the Oc-
grants broad regulatory authority to the Gover-
                                                       cupational Safety and Health Administration
nor-in-Council. This authority is exercised by
                                                       (OSHA) of the Department of Labor. While the
the Minister of Labour.
                                                       area covered by FRA appears to be somewhat
   The Code’s mechanism used to oversee safety         broader than the safety and health matters
in the workplace is to require or authorize in-        under CTC jurisdiction, both countries divide
dustries or companies to establish safety and          safety and health regulation, especially in the
health committees, with at least half of commit-       case of railroads, between two agencies and
tee membership comprised of employees. These           generally along the same lines. Both countries
committees handle all health and safety matters        establish general responsibilities for employers
between the employers and employees. Included          and employees, and have broad regulatory
among committee responsibilities are handling          power to establish minimum safety and health
complaints, conducting inquiries, developing           requirements. In addition, they have a similar
safety programs, recordkeeping, and coopera-           enforcement structure of inspections coupled
tion with appropriate Government agencies.             with a power to order abatement of the hazard

  “SC>C, 80(2), ch. L-1, R. S. C., 1970.                  ‘“%’C. 94,   ch. L-1, R,S. C. , 1970.
40 . Railroad Safety U.S.-Canadian Comparison

or levy of a monetary penalty. Both countries            The Railway Relocation and Crossing Act
have procedures for administrative review of          provided two types of assistance. The first is
the order. However, when the Canadian and             financial assistance provided by the Minister of
U.S. occupational safety and health provisions        Transport and the Minister of State for Urban
are examined in detail, many differences ap-          Affairs for up to one-half of the cost of transpor-
pear. These differences do not relate to the treat-   tation plans and urban development plans re-
ment of railroads per se, and therefore are not       spectively. The former is a plan for control of
examined in detail here.                              transportation of all types and modes within a
                                                      defined area and the latter is a plan for land use
   In sum, it can be said Canada’s statutory ap-
                                                      and development within or adjacent to an urban
proach is one that appears to be based both on
                                                      area. Where such plans have been developed
inspection and intracompany safety awareness
                                                      and agreed to by provincial and municipal au-
through safety and health committees, whereas
                                                      thorities, they can apply to CTC for a special
the U.S. approach is based more on inspection
                                                      order that will permit abandonment of lines,
and enforcement. The difference in these two
                                                      removal of structures, sharing of trackage
approaches is that the Canadian system is
                                                      rights, relocation of railway lines, building of
directed more at resolution of the safety prob-
                                                      new lines, elimination of grade crossings, and
lems at the company level through joint and
                                                      limitations on rail traffic. The plans, including
equal participation of labor and management
                                                      the related financial plans, showing that no af-
but with a strong residual enforcement power
                                                      fected railroad will receive burdens or benefits
granted to the Government. The U.S. system is
                                                      greater than the corresponding receipts or costs,
more adversarial in nature pitting employer
                                                      must be acceptable to CTC before it can issue
against the Government and the employee.
                                                      such a special order. In addition, CTC can
However, the enforcement powers for OSHA
                                                      recommend that the Minister of transport pro-
violations in the United States are not as com-
                                                      vide a “relocation grant” to meet up to one-half
prehensive as those in Canada.
                                                      of the net costs of railway relocation.
                                                         The other new form of assistance is provision
  Railway Relocation and Crossing Act
                                                      for special grants for construction or reconstruc-
                                                      tion of a grade separation that costs more than
   Since 1955 Canada has recognized the special
                                                      $1,250,000. The total amount obtainable for
safety problems of rail-highway grade cross-
                                                      such a grant ranges from $ 1 , 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 t o
ings. The Railway Act established a railway
                                                      $3,250,000 plus 40 percent of the costs in excess
grade-crossing fund to provide financial assist-
                                                      of $5 million for new construct on, with sub-
ance for the improvement of grade crossings.28
                                                      stantially lesser amounts for reconstruction
In 1974, this provision was replaced by the
                                                      projects. This latter provision s intended to
Railway Relocation and Crossing Act. A more
                                                      meet the many situations needing assistance that
comprehensive approach was taken to the phys-
                                                      were not eligible under the earlier railway
ical relationship between railroads and high-
                                                      grade-crossing fund.
ways. The new Act retained the original railway
grade-crossing fund administered by CTC. This           It should also be noted that the Railway Act,
fund is used on a cost-sharing basis for: 1) work     gave CTC authority to control the protections
done for public protection, safety, and conven-       at grade crossings and order any necessary
ience on grade crossings existing for at least 3      changes including grade separation.
years; 2) work done to reconstruct or improve a
                                                        The United States has generally financed
grade separation in existence for at least 15
                                                      grade-crossing improvements from the High-
years; 3) placing reflective markings on the sides
                                                      way Trust Fund and on a cost-sharing basis with
of rail cars; and 4) placing revolving lights on
locomotives. The Federal share of the cost of
                                                      State highway authorities.29 It has also provided
                                                      substantial sums under the Federal Aid High-
such work varies from sO to 80 percent.
                                                                  ,S. c. 130.
  2n~>   ~
             202, ch . R-2, R.S. C. , 1970.             292? 1)
                                                             Ch. III Government Institutions and Rail Safety   q   42

way Act for a series of demonstration projects                provided any generally available funding for the
which have included relocation of some urban                  marking of rail cars or lights on locomotives
rail lines. 30 However, the United States has not             although it is currently conducting a demonstra-
                                                              tion project with four railroads providing for
  “’rl], il. Laws   93-87, 93-643, 94-280, and 94-387.        use of strobe lights on locomotives.

   The laws affecting railway safety in Canada                erally invoked and do not seem to be a major
are comprehensive in scope, touching at least                 part of the enforcement structure. In the United
generally all of the same subjects as U.S. laws.              States, the penalties appear to be somewhat
However, a comparison of the statutory frame-                 higher, and do provide an integral part of the
work of these laws for each country indicates                 enforcement scheme, but are not applicable to
several differences in emphasis and detail. First,            railroad officers and employees. Fourth, the
the Canadian laws are considerably more re-                   Canadians do not appear to have mandated by
strictive concerning the design and engineering               law or regulation particular requirements for
of a railroad when first constructed but Canada               hours of service or employee quarters or other
does not regulate its subsequent maintenance. In              such subjects that are considered part of what
the United States, the law does not cover design              should be left to collective bargaining. In the
and engineering but subsequent maintenance is                 United States, specific legislative requirements
regulated. Second, the Canadians have numer-                  have been established on such subjects. Finally,
ous detailed statutory requirements for oper-                 the Canadians have been considerably more
ating the railroad of which the United States has             comprehensive in their legislative approach to
very few. Third, the Canadians have more com-                 the grade-crossing problem both in terms of
prehensive penalty provisions for violation of                establishing requirements for train operations
its legal requirements that are applicable to of-             and installation of protections at crossings as
ficers and employees as well as companies.                    well as providing funding mechanisms.
However, the penalties are apparently not gen-
              Chapter IV

                                                                                     Chapter IV
                                                       THE ACCIDENT PICTURE

  This chapter describes Canadian accident and        Since each data system differs, the findings from
casualty trends from data provided by:                each source are discussed separately. In all
                                                      cases, differences in the data collection criteria
  • the Railway Transport Committee (RTC),
                                                      limit the extent to which comparisons can be
  q Labour Canada’s Occupational Safety and
                                                      made with U.S. data. Nevertheless, some com-
     Health Division, and
                                                      parative findings are included in each section of
  q the Canadian National (CN) and Canadian
                                                      this chapter.
     Pacific (CP) Railroads.

                                            R T C    DATA

   Under authority established by the Railway           Although the Canadian Government ana-
Act and the National Transportation Act, RTC          lyzed accident and casualty data for the period
is responsible for collecting data on railroad ac-    1956-73, and summarized data from 1974-to the
cidents and casualties resulting from the move-       present, for purposes of this report Canadian
ment or operation of trains. A later section of       data and trends are being used from 1966 to the
this chapter describes the Canadian Occupa-           present. Canadian reporting requirements for
tional Safety and Health Division’s data and          accidents prior to 1966 were different, therefore
reporting systems for railroad workers other          making 1956-64 data not comparable with data
than those associated with the movement of            collected from 1965 to the present.
   As a result of the 1971 RTC safety inquiry,            Authority for Accident Reporting 9
the Bureau of Management Consulting (BMC),                            in Canada
a consulting organization within the Canadian
Government, conducted a comprehensive anal-             In March 1922, the Board of Railway Com-
ysis of rail safety problems and policies in          missioners required that Canadian rail roads
Canada. Among the studies prepared by BMC             report all railroad accidents that involved the
was a report entitled, Statistical Analysis of        movement of trains, casualties to employees or
Railway Accidents Reported to the Canadian            users, and damage to bridges, viaducts, and
Transport Commission, 1956-1973. T h e B M C          tunnels, which would make such structures im-
Analysis is the primary Government report of          passable. ’ This was the first Government ini-
railroad safety trends in Canada between 1956         tiative for monitoring railroad accident data. In
and 1973. However, summary data have been             1955, the Railway Commissioners extended the
published for subsequent years. * Information         reporting requirements to include all accidents
contained in the BMC Analysis and subsequent          involving train operations irrespective of cas-
summary data are the basic sources of Govern-         ualties. 2 However, in 1956 it restricted reporting
ment information used in this report.                 requirements to accidents involving train opera-
                                                      tions at rail/highway crossings, and to accidents
                                                      on the main track involving damage to rolling
46    q   Railroad Safety—U. S.-Canadian Comparison

stock in excess of $1,000, This was the first ini-             fined as being dangerous according to the
tiative to place a dollar threshold on reportable              General Order of the Commission: “Reg-
accidents. In 1965, accident reporting was fur-                ulations for the Transportation of Danger-
ther refined by requirements involving: 4 death                ous Commodities by Rail .“
or personal injury; damage to bridge, culvert,             qTrespassers and Suicides: an accident re-
viaduct, or tunnel; public rail grade crossings;             sulting in the death or injury of a person or
collisions and derailments on main track;                    persons using railroad pro property not desig-
obstructions; and destruction of stations by fire.           nated for public use, including off-duty em-
In addition, railroads were required to report               ployees.
derailments or collisions with damage to rail-             • Other: all accidents or incidents not other-
road property in excess of $750. This changed                wise classified, including a large number of
the 1956 circular by reducing the reporting                  incidents, many of which are personal in-
threshold from $1,000 to $750 and by including                 juries such as slipping and falling that are
in the threshold, damage to rail property, not                 not directly related to train operations. 6
just damage to rolling stock. ’
   RTC has seven accident classifications: colli-              Canadian Casualty and Accident
sions, derailments, crossing, track car, trespass-                        Trends
ing, dangerous commodities, and “other. ” The
general classifications and definitions used by            Crossing accidents are the largest source of
RTC are:                                                rail-related fatalities in Canada. Between 1966
                                                        and 1977, 1,564 or 61 percent of the total rail-
      Collision: an accident on the main track
                                                        related deaths in Canada resulted from grade-
      wherein a moving train, engine, car, or
                                                        crossing accidents. Trespassing fatalities ranked
      work equipment comes in contact with
                                                        second with 25 percent; derailments accounted
      another train, engine, car, or work equip-
                                                        for only 1 percent; and 10 percert of fatalities in
      ment, standing or moving and results in ex-
                                                        the rail operating environment were classified
      cess of $750 damage to rail property.
                                                        “other.” The remaining 3 percent of total fatal-
  q   Derailment: an accident wherein any mov-
                                                        ities was split between collision; and track car
      ing train, engine, or car becomes derailed
      on the main track resulting in excess of
      $750 in damage to rail property.                     Data on casualties resulting from the move-
  q   Crossing Accident: an accident in which           ment or operations of trains, indicated by the
      any unit of rolling stock on the rails strikes,   aggregate number of persons killed or injured in
      or is struck by, a user of a public, private,     the various accident classifications, is shown in
      or farm crossing, at a crossing, and damage       table 21.
      or injury results.
                                                           The category “other” represents the largest
  q   Track Car Accident: an accident in which a
                                                        number of injuries, 33,156 or 73 percent in Can-
      track car strikes, or is struck by, a train or
                                                        ada’s railroad statistics. A large number of these
      another track car or becomes derailed. This
                                                        incidents are employee injuries that did not oc-
      excludes accidents resulting from a track
                                                        cur in train accidents. Crossing injuries rank
      car striking or being struck by a motor ve-
                                                        second in number, 6,950 or 15 percent of total
      hicle at a crossing.
                                                        injuries. Derailments accounted 1 or 4 percent of
  q   Dangerous Commodities: accidents or in-
                                                        total injuries, collisions 4 percent, track car 3
      cidents involving commodities that are de-
                                                        percent, and trespassing accounted for the least
                                                        number of injuries or 1 percent of the total. No
                                                        trends for injuries by type of accident can be

                                                         ‘Ibid.,   pp. 1 I, 22,   34, 51, 61, 74, 75, 84.
                                                                                                                                        Ch. IV The Accident Picture . 47

                                               Table 21 .—Canadian Casualties by Type of Accident, 1966-77

                                                          Collision        Derailment                            Track car        Trespas   sing           Other           Total
           Year                                       (Killed Injured Killed      injured     Killed   Injured Killed   Injured   Killed    Injured Killed Injured   Killed Injured
           1966                                           8      104        2        65        186       62?      5      115       74        60      33       2910    308     3875
           1967                                           8 I    5 16       0        56        197       584      5      145       57        66      30       3068    297     4435
                                                          4                                              479                                 59      36       7753    230     3727
           1968                                                  189        8       141        121                8      106       53
           1969                                           4      139        1        92        120       519      8      113       53        60      35       2 5 0 6 221     3429
           1970                                           2        74       5       230        116       587      3       87       50        55       19      2517    195     3550
           1971                                           5       60        5       134        121       644      7      102       56        43      14       2556    208     3539
           1972                                           3       62        4       187        150       675      2      132       66        80     2 8       2543    253     3679
           1973                                           2       85        2       180        150       647      2      112       48        58      24       2517    228     3599
           1974                                           8      343        3       166        109       651      3      104       55        48      23       2900    201     4292
           1975                                           0       42        3       132         99       566      2       87       59        65      24       2983    187     3875
           1976                                           1       30        2       186        108       524       1      77       32        49       1       3110    145     3976
           1977                                           1       62        1        51         87       453      0      126       44        38      –*       2,713   133’    3443
             Total (12 yr)                            46          706     36        620      ,564      950      45       306      647        681     268 33156       2,570 45,419
           Percent of 1 2-year total                  2%        4%       1°/r     40%        61 %       15%    2%       3%        25%       1%      1 o%   73 %
                                                                                      —                      .                                           .            —.      — — -.

   Although grade-crossing fatalities show a                                                                 As expected, railroad employees experienced
downward trend, fatality trends for all other ac-                                                         the greatest number of injuries in the rail en-
cident categories cannot be ascertained. In the                                                           vironment. Trends in employee casualties are
aggregate, fatalities appear to have declined                                                             not discernible. However in 1976, there was a
steadily since 1972. The BMC Analysis stated                                                              dramatic decrease in the number of employee
that crossing accidents for the period studied                                                            fatalities. There was no concurrent decrease in
(1956-73) represented “the single most impor-                                                             the number of injuries reported, rather a slight
tant cause of fatalities on the railways, though                                                          increase. According to the BMC Analysis, “The
the fatalities are not railway employees or rail-                                                         reporting of injuries is very inadequate. No at-
way users, but mostly others (98 percent).” 7 The                                                         tempt is made to attach any severity to the in-
Analysis looked at crossing accidents by the                                                              jury; thus the most minor injury, such as a small
type of protection afforded at the intersection                                                           bruise or some foreign matter in the eye, is
and found that the greatest number of accidents                                                           lumped in with the most major incapacitation,
occurred at unprotected sites for the 1956-73                                                             such as the loss of a limb or an eye. A very large
time p e r i o d . The second greatest number of                                                          number of injuries are reported, but the data is
casualties, occurred at crossing sites protected                                                          of doubtful value.”9 The causes of injuries were
by flashing lights and bells. ’                                                                           not reported in available Canadian data.
   Casualties among employees, passengers,                                                                   With the exception of derailments, the ag-
trespassers, and others are shown in table 22.                                                            gregate number of accidents in other classifi-
The category “other” is comprised predomi-                                                                cations (collisions, crossing, track car, trespass-
nantly of casualties occurring as a result of                                                             ing, and “other”) has remained relatively con-
crossing accidents. Deaths in this category ac-                                                           stant or declined slightly from 1966 through
counted for the largest, or 63 percent* of all rail                                                       1977. Table 23 shows the aggregate number of
deaths. Employee fatalities accounted for 9 per-                                                          accidents by classification. Derailments in-
cent of reported deaths or the third largest                                                              creased gradually from 1969 to a high in 1974
group of rail-related fatalities.                                                                         and appear to be declining since 1974. Table 24
                                                                                                          shows the various causes of derailments be-
    Itll(l [1[1 00-01.                                                                                    tween 1966 and 1977. During this time, the total
   “1[31(1 , [~ 58                                                                                        number of derailments due to track conditions
   ‘Th(> c ~)nlpll.~t Ion t ~lr t ht’ c<~tc>~(~r~ ‘‘L~t h~,r ‘ t t) r t .Ihlt, 22 c (~nl hl n(’~
 ~ratl~, c r(lssl nx LIc>,] t h+ ,1 n(l t ho r~’n~,~ I n i n~ cIc,l t h \ not ,IC c tJLI n tc’ci
t t~r tn~ t }It’ t~t ht’r t hrcc c dtc~tlrlt’< ll~tt’ci                                                     “Ihlcl , p 11.
48     q   Railroad Safety—U.S.-Canadian comparison

                                                                       Table 22.—Casualties, 1966-76

                                              Employee                       ‘ - P a s s e n g e r ‘- - -      Trespasser                                   Other*
                                                                                                                  -                                          –
           Year                          Killed       ‘Injured -        K i l l e d ‘- - I n j u r e d K i l l e d — —. —. n j u r e d
                                                                                                                         I —-. —.               — . Killed - — — I n j u r e d
                                                                                -   -
           1966 .. . . . . .             . 26           2 , 2 7 0         3             ‘ - “905       -   -
                                                                                                                 7-4-             60        -
                                                                                                                                                     205             640
           1 9 6 7                         29           2,499             3                   1,294              57               66                 208             576
           1968 . . . .                    28           2,093             6                     982              53               59                 143             586
           1969 . . . . .                  26           2,072             4                     731              53               60                 148             566
           1970 ., . . . .                 21           2,248             4                     704              50               55                 120             543
           1971 . . . . .                  18           2,280             3                     560              56               43                 131             656
           1972 . . . . . .                32           2,436             6                     565              66               80                 149             598
           1973 . . . . .                  21           2,421             2                     575              48               58                 157             545
           1974 . . . . . .                24           2,839             1                     813              55               48                 121             592
           1975 . . . .                    23           2,764             —                     484              59               65                 105             457
           1976 . . . . . .                 8           2,940             1                     523              32               49                 104             464
             Total . . . .               256     “-- 26862        ‘-     33                      8,136           603              643-            1,591            6,223
           Percent.                      10%            64%              10/0                 19%                240/o          1.5%                 64%             14.8%
                                                                                                                                                     - .                         —
        “ C o m - p r i s e d p;edornlnantly of crossing casualt Ies
        SOURCES Bureau of Management Consulting, Stat/st/ca/             Ana/ys/s, 1956-73, RTC Safety and Standards Branch, Summary Analysis, 1978, 1977 Railway
                             Accident Summary

                                                        Table 23.–Canadian Accidents by Type, 1966-77

        Year          -
                          ”    - -
                                     Collision      Derailment          Crossing                               Track car Trespassing                Other            Total
        1966 . . . . . .          . . . .      ’55                       230                 1,133                92         127                    2,805            4,442
        1967, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39                               209                 1,183               101         115                    3,025            4,672
        1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   49                      228                 1,139                83         108                    2,578            4,185
        1969 ......., . . . . . . . . . 41                               246                 1,032                73         104                    2,402            3,898
        1970 ......, . . . . . . . . . 46                                276                   977                53         102                    3,168            4,622
        1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    45                       265                 1,088                66          97                    3,210            4,721
        1972 ......., . . . . . . . . . 44                               323                 1,175                76         135                    3,065            4,818
        1973, ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . 56                           299                 1,030                72         101                    3,130            4,688
        1974, ., ., . . . . . . . . . . . .     46                       420                 1,074                72          87                    3,118            4,817
        1975 ...., . . . . . . . . . . . . 48                            330                   982                52         112                    3,050            4,574
        1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32                          301                   923                41          84                    3,238            4,619
        1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . .          39                       316                   877                51          82                    2,920            4,285
        S O U R C E {ureau o;Managem;ntCons-ult;ng,Stat;sf;al Ana/ys)s, 1956.73, and Summary of Accident Data 1977

                              Table 24.—Statement of Canadian Derailments According to Major Causes, 1966-76

                                Due to track        Rate per billion Due to equipment Rate per billion                   Rate per billion                                 Total
Year                            conditions          gross ton miles       defects      gross ton miles                     car miles                   Other           derailments
1 9 6 6 ,                                70              0322                   125                    0.574                 29,07                      35                 230
1 9 6 7                                 53               0.245                   82                    0.379                 19.52                      74                 209
1968                                    50               0237                   100                    0.474                 24.39                      78                 228
1969,                                   73               0.344                  128                    0.603                 31.22                      45                 246
1 9 7 0                                119               0.511                  108                    0.464                 24.53                      49                 276
1971                                   107               0.436                   89                    0.363                 19,35                      69                 265
1 9 7 2                                134               0525                   103                    0.403                 21.46                      86                 323
1 9 7 3                                115               0.447                  104                    0.405                 22.61                      80                 299
1 9 7 4                                157               0.557                  130                    0.461                 26,53                     133                 420
1 9 7 5                                136               0.527                  103                    0399                  21.91                      91                 330
1976                                   106               0.411                  107                    0.415                 23,26                      88                 301
1 9 7 7 .                              120               0426                   111                    0.394                 24,13                      81                 312
  T o t a l                          1,240                                  1,290                                                                      909              3,439
                                      36%                                    38 ”/o                                                                    26%

S O U R C E Analysts of Railway Accldenf Stattshcs 1977 RTC
                                                                                 Ch. IV The Accident Picture                       q   49

accounted for approximately 36 percent of all        train-handling techniques necessary to operate
derailments. Derailments due to defective            the heavier trains.
equipment accounted for approximately 38 per-
                                                       Costs estimates for equipment and property
cent, and the miscellaneous category (“other”
                                                     damage in accidents are not fully reported to the
causes) accounted for the remaining 26 percent
                                                     Canadian Government.
of the derailments. For the 1966-70 period, both
in total numbers and on a ton-mile basis, defec-        Of the dangerous commodity incidents be-
tive equipment represented the most significant      tween 1970 and 1973, flammable liquids were
cause of derailments. From 1970 through 1975,        involved in 37 percent of the incidents involving
track conditions caused an increasing number of      dangerous commodities for the 3-year time peri-
derailments while defective equipment remained       od. During that period, 2 fatalities and 34 in-
fairly constant. In 1976 and 1977, track and         juries were attributed to dangerous commodities
equipment accounted for approximately equal          incidents. Table 25 shows the dangerous com-
numbers and rates of derailments. 10 Information     modities most commonly involved in incidents
is not available to factor out derailments re-       in Canada. Since 1973, no fatalities and only
ported as a result of inflationary factors, or to    seven injuries have resulted from accidents in-
explain the unusually high number of derail-         volving dangerous commodities.13
ments in 1974. Although data on accident sever-         As indicated by the BMC study on railroad
ity is limited and imprecise, the BMC report in-
                                                     safety, a number of factors may have influenced
dicates that the majority of derailments appear
                                                     Canada’s accident picture. Cited among these
to be low-cost, that is under $5,000 for a
                 11                                  factors were changes in technology and the use
1965-73 sample.
                                                     of technology, increases in traffic, changes in
   Railroad and Government officials indicated       maintenance practices in the industry and labor
that they believed heavier axle loading in freight   force size and/or assignments, and changes in
equipment had influenced derailments. 12 Both        the amount of financial resources necessary to
CN and CP indicated that they believed heavier       maintain the rail physical plant .14 While all of
axle loading on freight equipment has caused in-     these factors were briefly discussed in the Cana-
creased wear on the roadbed. CN conducted re-        dian study, no correlations between specific
search on the problem and published several re-      data and possible industry factors were drawn.
ports. These include: Rail Replacement Costs on      As in the United States, a concern exists at the
the B.C. South Line; Effects of 100-Ton Car-         Federal level regarding deferred maintenance,
loadings on Tie Replacement Costs, B.C. South        particularly for branchlines in Canada, and its
Line; Track Maintenance Cost, B.C. South Line        implications for safety.
1964-74, Summary Report; and Effect of 100-
Ton Carloadings on Train Accident Costs, B.C.                  Table 25.—Canadian Incidents Involving
                                                                      Dangerous Commodities
South Line. The latter study compared train ac-
cident costs prior to the introduction of the 100-                         Total Incidents for    Average number of
ton capacity equipment and after for the period      Type of commodity          1970-73        ——. incidents per year
1960-74. That study factored out inflation and       Flammable solids              14                      3 5 –‘ -
increases in traffic. The study conclusions in-      Flammable Iiquids             53                     1325
                                                     Oxidizing organic             22                      55
dicated that train accident costs, particularly      P o i s o n                   18                      45
those accidents resulting from track and em-         Corrosive                     27                      675
ployee responsibility, had increased as a result     E x p l o s i v e               0                     00
                                                     R a d i o a c t i v e           2                     05
of the heavier 100-ton cars. The increases in        C o m p o u n d   g a s         8                     20
“employee responsibility caused” accidents cited       Total                      144                    360
by the study may be related to the differences in          ————— ——————————..———
                                                     SOURCCE Statistical Analysis 1956-73 p 75

                                                        1‘SI/))/tt/{~),V (>~ Ac,-rtitt1t5 Itr(-t,i,?)tts ~(’~mrt,ui t,l t)r(’   CTC 1W7
                                                     prepared by RTC, p. 13.
                                                        “Stuti<t/c(/l A)lLll,w\Is t~p, cit., ch. 5, ~p.   I 17-152.
 50    q     Railroad Safety—U.S.-Canadian Comparison

                RTC Data Collection System                                    CTC. The initial report is entered into a com-
                                                                              puter system. The information contained in the
      The Railway Transport Committee of the                                  accident report is included in appendix B.
Canadian Transport Commission (CTC) is re-
sponsible for gathering accident information                                     Prior to 1977, accident information was proc-
and data from the railroads and investigating                                 essed manually. Monthly accident summary re-
accidents as necessary. Accidents are initially                               ports were prepared. Currently changes in acci-
reported by telex to CTC headquarters. A sub-                                 dent reporting systems and data bases are being
sequent detailed report is sent by the railroad to                            discussed by RTC and the railrcads.

                                    COMPARISONS WITH THE UNITED STATES
   Significant differences exist between the U.S.                             U.S. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
and Canadian Government classifications and                                   collects all casualty data; whereas in Canada
the criteria for obtaining and using accident and                             both RTC and the Occupational Safety and
casualty information. This section describes                                  Health Division at Labour Canada collect data
those differences and compares data when pos-                                 separately. The differences in reporting require-
sible.                                                                        ments precludes meaningful comparison of the
                                                                              two systems.
                             Data Differences                                   Other reporting differences between the
                                                                              United States and Canada incluce:
   In Canada, collisions and derailments occur-
                                                                                . in the United States, accidents involving
ring on the mainline and branchlike are reported
                                                                                    suicides or attempted suicides are not re-
when damage to railroad property exceeds
$750. In the United States, until 1975 all a c-                                 q bridges,    viaducts, and tunnels unfit for
cidents involving the movement or operation of
                                                                                    passing are not reported in the United
a train were reported regardless of the location
                                                                                    States; and
of their occurrence if damage exceeded $75 0 .1 5
                                                                                q prior to 1975, grade-crossing accidents that
Therefore, the U.S. railroads report collisions,
derailments, and other train accidents in the                                       did not result in casualties and involved
                                                                                    damages less than $750 were not reported
yards, whereas Canadian railroads only report
                                                                                    in the United States. 16
mainline accidents. In addition, the U.S. groups
collisions, derailments, and other accidents
under the heading train accident. There is no                                  Canadian-U. S. Casualty Comparison
such equivalent in the Canadian system.
   In Canada, all deaths and injuries to employ-                                 Although the differences in reporting re-
ees under CTC jurisdiction and to other persons                               quirements between the United States and Can-
are reported. However, in the United States pri-                              ada are substantial, some comparisons of
or to 1975 only those injuries that resulted in                               fatalities are possible.
more than 24 hours lost time were reported.                                      In the two countries when “like” categories of
Since 1975, all U.S. injuries requiring medical                               fatalities are compared, similar fatality patterns
attention are reported as well as injuries requir-                            emerge. As reported in the OTA Evaluation of
ing “one or more days” off rather than “more                                  Railroad Safety, crossing fatalities accounted
than one” day off as previously reported. The                                 for the largest portion, approximately 65 per-
                                                                              cent of the fatalities in the U.S. rail environ-
   “ Alter 1Q75, tht’ [Jnitcd States c hangtd it% rc>pt~rtinx i’<llut>
t hrt~~h~}ld tt~ !31, 750 ‘~nd $2,300 t r(>nl 1477 to JC ( t}unt tt}r Intl+
t It)n,]rv   im p.lc t~ on ,1( c idt’n t>                                       “In 1   Q75 an(i I Q77, the [! S. thrt’~hold \T.du,+ c h,]nxt’(1
m e n t . 1 7 This same pattern emerges in Canada            for a comprehensive, detailed comparison were
with 61 percent of Canada’s railroad-related fa-             not available for this study. However, crossing
talities occurring in grade-crossing accidents. In           fatalities measured by train miles shows the
both countries, trespassers accounted for the                United States with a rate rate 60 percent higher
second largest group of fatalities, representing             than Canada (table 29). Motor vehicle data,
27.3 percent of rail-related deaths in the United            i.e. , number of registrations, suggests that the’
States, and 24 percent in Canada. Table 26 dis-              United States has a higher exposure rate of
plays the similarity of fatality patterns. Only a            motor vehicles to crossings. The average num-
small percentage of total fatalities occur in colli-         ber of motor vehicle registrations for the
sions and derailments for both the United States             1966-72 period was 8,238,000 for Canada and
and Canada.                                                  105,288,000 for the United States. * The large
                                                             difference in motor vehicle registrations in-
   U.S. and Canadian fatalities in aggregate
                                                             dicates differing levels of the exposure of the
numbers and when measured on a train-mile
                                                             public between the United States and Canada.
basis, declined steadily from 1966 to 1976 (table
                                                             The comparison of motor vehicle registrations
27), When measured by million train miles, the
                                                             does not take into account many of the factors
average rate for 1966-76 of Canadian fatalities
                                                             necessary for a thorough examination of ex-
was 2.50 and in the United States it was 3.69 in-
                                                             posure rates and grade-crossing fatalities.
dicating that the United States had approxi-                 Nevertheless, the comparison does suggest that
mately 1.19 more deaths than Canada. Popula-
                                                             the crossing fatality rates in Canada and the
tion size, density, exposure levels, and other
                                                             United States are a function of the population
variables may be the influencing factors in the
                                                             size and exposure at rail crossing sites.
differing ratios. For example, the United States
has 5 times the amount of mainline track as                     Several conclusions can be drawn from exam-
Canada and 10 times the population.                          ining grade-crossing data for the United States
                                                             and Canada.- ‘ -
                                                                          These are:
   When examining employee fatality rates for
the United States and Canada, the average rates                q   Between 1966 and 1976, both countries
for employee fatalities, measured by train miles,                  have shown a decline in the total number as
for the years 1966-76 were approximately the                       well as a decline in the fatality rates result-
same (table 28). Data to measure employee fa-                      ing from grade-crossing accidents.
talities by man-hours worked was not available.                q   The decline has been more consistent in the
The train-mile measurement of employee fatal-                      United States over the 1966-76 period than
ities, therefore is assumed to be a fairly accurate                in Canada. There was a dramatic decrease
reflection of the exposure rates of employees to                   in grade-crossing fatalities between 1967
the rail environment, because the number of                        and 1968, but there was an increase as well
train miles is an indicator of the amount of rail                  for the years 1972 and 1973.
traffic.                                                       •   Grade-crossing fatalities represent the
                                                                   largest rail-related fatality problem for
   The fatal it y rate resulting from grade-crossing               both countries.
accidents is the largest category of rail-related              q   On a per million train-mile basis, the 11-
fatalities in both Canada and the United States.                   year average U.S. rate is 62 percent higher
Grade-crossing deaths account for 60 to 65 per-                    than Canada’s.
cent of all rail fatalities in each country. When              q   Factors affecting the differences in fatality
comparing the grade-crossing fatality rates,                       rates could not specifically be determined.
several factors should be considered in order to                   However, it appears that the larger U.S.
determine the level of exposure. These include:                    population and greater exposure of that
number of crossing sites, amount of rail and
motor vehicle exposure, number of protected
crossings, and other factors. The data necessary

  ‘ Sf[lf 1+ t /( L?/ ,.1 )l[//l/. / + (lp c I t , pp s-b,
52 . Railroad Safety—U,            S.-Canadian Comparison

                                                                  Table 26.—Casualties, 1966-76

                                     E m p l o y e e a- – – - ‘ - – – P a s s e n g e r                                          Trespasser                                               Other b             —
     Year —      -. — —       Killed
                              — . —              n         d
                                              — I— j—u r—e —      — ‘Killed                    Injured              Killed                   Injured                 — Killed               —       Injured
                                                                                                                     –   –
     1966                       26              2,270                        3               905                     74                          60                             205                  640
     1967                       29              2,499                        3             1,294                     57                          66                             208                  576
     1968                       28              2,093                        6               982                     53                          59                             143                  586
     1969                       26              2,072                        4               731  ,                  53                          60                             148                  566
     1970                       21              2,248                        4               704                     50                          55                             120                  543
     1971                       18              2,280                        3               560                     56                          43                             131                  656
     1972                       32              2,436                        6               565                     66                          80                             149                  598
     1973                       21              2,421                        2               575                     48                          58                             157                  545
     1974                       24              2,839                        1               813                     55                          48                             121                  592
     1975                       23              2,764                                        484                     59                          65                             105                  457
     1976                        8              2,940                        1               523                     32                          49                             104                  464
                                                               – - -                                                                                       -
       Total                  256              26,862                  33                 8,136                     603                      643               ‘ - 1,591                            6,223
     Percent              —
                                                       —   —
                                                                            1 %            -    19%   --       -             –           –        -             —–          64%
                                                                                                                                                                             –              –       14 8%
                                     —   .                             —                       —                                                                           —.         —

                                                                                         United States
     1966                     168               18,651                   23                  1,244                   678                         702                   1,815                        4,955
     1967                     176               18,055                   12                  1,054                   646                         696                   1.649                        4.718
     1968                     150               18,116                   11                  1,329                   628                         663                   1,570                     4,500
     1969                     190               17.255                    6                   862                    627                         674                   1,476                     4,565
     1970                     172               16,285                    8                   489                    593                         646                   1,452                     3,907
     1971                     123               14,191                   16                   536                    551                         607                   1,320                     3,638
     1972                     133               12,973                   47                   680                    537                         586                   1,228                     3.691
     1 9 7 3                  161               13,511                    6                   503                    578                         614                   1,171                     3,577
     1974                     144               16,002                    7                   574                    565                         674                   1,192                     3,568
     1975C                    113               47,855                    8                 1,307                    524                         703                     915                     4,441
     1976                     109               58,477                    5                   999                    458                         768                   1,112                     5,143
                                                                                  –   -
       Total              1,639               251,411      -
                                                                        149             9 , 5 7 7-                 6.385             -
                                                                                                                                         7,333         -
                                                                                                                                                           <4,900                               46,703        -

     Percent                  7%                79 8%                   .06%                    3%                 27.6%                     2.3%                     64.5%                         14 8%
            -.                                                     —                            — —      — — — — — —                   —               . — —
     aEm@oyees Inlurles reporfed 10 RTC hsted above do not lake Into account occupational safety and health Injuries reported 10 La bour C a n a d a    U S emp~oy;e In
      lur!es represent OSHA type Injuries
     bcomprlsed predomlnan[[y 01 crossing casualties
     cAcc[den[ reporllng requirements charged making 1975 data Incomparable w(fh that of Prevlolls Years
     SOURCES Bureau of Management Consulllng Sr~r/sI/c~l Arrdjys(s 195673 RTC Safely and Sfandards Branch Summary Analysls 1978 1977 Railway Accldenl: ummary

     population to rail hazards could be signifi-                                                        report. The Canadian Ministry of Transport is
     cant factors in the differing rates between                                                         currently issuing a policy to deal with the
     the two countries.                                                                                  trespasser problem. This policy, entitled
                                                                                                         “Pedestrian Safety at the Railroad Right of
   Comparisons of trespasser fatalities (table 30)                                                       Way” will become public in 1979.
shows that the United States had approximately
                                                                                                           Overall findings on the fatality rate com-
11 deaths to every 1 in Canada when the data is
                                                                                                         parisons between the two countries indicated
viewed in the aggregate. When measured by
train miles, the average rate for the United                                                             that:
States in 1966-76 is approximately 70 percent                                                              q       Fatalities and fatality rates in both coun-
higher than that of Canada, or 1 .02 to 0.61 in                                                                    tries declined between 1966 and 1976.
Canada. The reasons for the trespasser fatality                                                            q       U.S. fatality rates were higher than
rate differences between the two countries could                                                                   Canada’s primarily due to grade-crossing
not be ascertained for this report. To under-                                                                      and trespasser fatality rates.
stand the differences in rates, factors such as the                                                        q       The higher grade-crossing and trespasser
locations of trespasser deaths, i.e., rural or ur-                                                                 fatality rates in the United States appear to
ban areas, the population densities, and rail                                                                      be a function of population size and level of
traffic exposure should be correlated with the                                                                     exposure to rail hazards.
number of deaths. These types of data from                                                                 q       Employee fatality rates in the two countries
both countries were not available for this                                                                         were similar.
                                                                                                                                  Ch. IV The Accident Picture                       q   53

            Table 27. —Fatalities in Canada and the                                                   Table 29.—Grade.Crossing Fatalities in Canada and
                     United States, 1966-76                                                                      the United States, 1966-76

                                          Canada                       — — States
                                                                      United— —                                                      —Canada
                                                                                                                                        .                         United States
                                              Per milliona                  Per millionb                                                  Per million                    Per million
Year                             Fatals        train miles        Fatals     train miles              Year                     Fatals     train miles         Fatals     train miles
19~6–                             318         3.31                2,684          418                  1 9 6 6                   186           1 94             1,780           2.77
1967                              297              315            2,483          408                  1967                      197           209              1,632           268
1968                              230              264            2,359          404                  1 9 6 8                   121           1.39             1,546           265
1969                              218              253            2,299          403                  1 9 6 9                   120           1 39             1,490           261
1970                              195              224            2,225          304                  1970                      116           1.33             1,440           261
1971                              208              239            1,010          309                  1971                      121           1 39             1,356           263
1972                              253              281            1,945          373                  1     9     7      2      150           1 65             1,260           241
1973                              228              257            1,916          338                  1973                      150           1 69             1,185           209
1974                              201              207            1,908          327                  1974                      109           1 12             1,220           209
1975                              187              211            1,560          292                  1 9 7 5                    99           1 12               978           183
1976                              145              1.66           1,684          302                  1976                      108           1 24             1,168           210
                                                   250                           369                  Total average                           1.49                             241
                                              average rate                  average rate                                                                                       62%
        —     — —            .
aU S !ri[n m!les u s e d f o r lhls table w e r e der!ved !rom combmmq Iocomolwe m!les Iwhlch tn      SOURCE Bureau of Management Consulbng SIallsflcal ~nalysls d Radway Accldenls 195673
 eludes tre(qhl and passenqer Ira(n miles and molor Iraln miles I                                            RTC Summary Accldenl Analyses and Federal Railroad Admlmslrabon Accldenl
bcanad(do lraln ~lle$ for 197276 used In this table Included motor fraln miles and frelghl and               BulletIns
 passenqer miles
SOURCE Bureau of Management Consult!nq Statlsllcal Analysls of Railway Accidents 195673
          0 12 Railway T r a n s p o r t PI I Comparaflve S u m m a r y 1 9 7 2 7 6 Iable 9 U S FRA
           Acrlr3Enf E?,,jllelln ‘ 14 a n d 145 p 1                                                    Table 30.—Trespasser Fatalities in Canada and the
                                                                                                                    United States, 1966-76
   Table 28.—Employee Fatalities in Canada and the                                                                                     Canada                      United States
               United States, 1966-76
                                                                                                                                           Per million                    Per million
                                                                                                      Year                      Fatals    train miles          Fatals     train miles
                             — — —      Canada                         United States
                                                                                                      1966                       74               77            678             1.06
                                           Per million                        Per million
                                                                                                      1967                       57               60            646             1. 06
Year                             Fatals    train miles             Fatals     train miles             1968                       53               61            628             1.08
 1966-                             26               27               168                26            1969                       53               61            627             1.10
 1967                              29               .31              176                29            1970                       50              .57            593             1. 08
 1968                              28               32               150                26            1971                       56               64            551             1 07
 1969                              26               .30              190                33            1972                       66               73            537             1 03
 1970                              21               24               172                31            1973                       48               54            578             102
 1971                              18               21               123                24            1974                       55               57            565                91
 1972                              32               35               133                25            1975                       59               67            524                98
 1973                              21               24               161                28            1976                       32               37            458                82
 1974                    .         24               25               144                25            Average rate                                61                            1 02
 1975                              23               26               113                21
 1976                               8               09               109                 20           SOURCE Bureau of Management Consullmg StalMca/ ~flalysls Of ~a~lway Acclderrk /956-73
                                                                                         26                  RTC Summary Accident Analyses and Federal Ratlroad Admtmstrabon Accident
Average                                             26

S~U~C; B;re;u~ ~an;q=e;~n;l~g=l=s;cafifla/ys/s Radway Acc(decrls 1 9 5 6 7 3
       RTC Summary Acc)denl Analyses and Federal Railroad Admlmslratlon Accident
       Bulle!lns                                                                                      $1,750 in 1975 and $2,300 in 1977 to account for
                                                                                                      inflation. Only U.S. accident data for 1975-77
                                                                                                      can be broken out to isolate mainline and
                     Accident Comparisons                                                             branchlike data from yard data. However, due
                                                                                                      to the differences in reporting thresholds, Can-
   Direct comparisons of accident trends, i. e.,
                                                                                                      ada could be reporting proportionately more of
collisions, derailments, etc., are complicated by
                                                                                                      their nonyard collisions and derailments.
significant differences in Government reporting
requirements in the United States and Canada.                                                            As previously indicated, the Canadian a g -
The Canadians do not report yard accidents.                                                           gregate data shows that with the exception of
Their dollar-loss threshold value for reporting                                                       derailments, all other accidents have remained
accidents is $750. U.S. carriers report both yard                                                     relatively constant or declined slightly (see table
and mainline/branchline accidents. The United                                                         23). In Canada, derailments increased through
States adjusted the threshold reporting value to                                                      1974 and then stabilized in the following 2 years
54 . Railroad Safety—U.S. -Canadian Comparison

(table 3 1). In the United States, collisions and                                    ments (table 35). Between 1975 and 1977, track-
“other” mainline and yard accidents remained                                         caused derailments represented 46 percent of all
relatively constant from 1966 to ‘1974. How-                                         derailments on the mainline and branchline
ever, mainline and yard derailments nearly dou-                                      only.
bled in that same time in the United States (table
                                                                                      When examining the causes of derailments in
32). Between 1975 and 1977, U.S. collisions, de-
                                                                                    Canada for- the 1966-76 period, both defective
railments, and other train accidents on the
                                                                                    equipment and track conditions combined, ac-
mainline/branchline also increased (table 33).                                      count for 74 percent of the derailments. The
   While the total for U.S. derailments increased                                   split between equipment and rack causes was
over the period studied, there is a wide range of                                   almost equal by 1977 as shown in table 31. In
derailment rates among U.S. carriers. As indi-                                      contrast, the chief cause of U.S. derailments be-
cated by table 34, the derailment rates on a                                        tween 1966 and 1974 was defective track as
billion gross-ton-mile basis for 1976 and 1977                                      shown by table 35.18 In 1975-77, track-caused
among U.S. carriers ranged from a low of 0.28                                       mainline and branchlike derailments continued
to a high of 12.50. From the information pro-                                       to be the chief cause for derailments as shown
vided, the averages of the accident rates for the                                   by table 36.
eight or nine largest (ton mile) U.S. railroads in                                      As indicated in the previous OTA Evaluation
1976 or in 1977 are not significantly different
                                                                                     of Railroad Safety, the reasons for- the increase
from the values for either CN or CP recorded in
                                                                                    in train accidents, particularly track-caused ac-
the respective year. However, the averages of
                                                                                    cidents, appear to relate to a combination of
the accident rates for the next 10 U.S. railroads
                                                                                    factors. Included among these are: the increased
in 1976 and in 1977 are significantly higher than
                                                                                    axle loading on freight equipment, deferred
the values of either CN or CP recorded in the
                                                                                    maintenance, lack of capital among some U.S.
respective year. The differences in the accident
                                                                                    carriers to invest in maintenance and plant im-
rates among the 20 largest (ton miles) U.S. rail-
                                                                                    provements, and the management philosophy of
roads are statistically significant t. The differ-
                                                                                    some U.S. carriers toward maintenance. A
ences in the accident rates on a carrier-specific
                                                                                    downturn in the trend toward increased derail-
basis between the years 1976 and 1977 are not                                       ments does not appear likely in the United
statistical] y significant. The variation among
                                                                                    States unless there are positive industry
the carriers is highly significant, but the varia-
                                                                                    economic changes, particular] v among some
tion from year to year is not significant.
                                                                                    U.S. carriers. Direct correlation between the
   Between 1966 and 1974, U.S. track-caused de-                                     financial condition of some U S. carriers and
railments for mainline /branchlike and yard rep-
resented approximately 40 percent of all derail-

                    Table 31 .—Statement of Derailments According to Major Causes in Canada, 1966-77

                                             Due to track – Rate per billion - Due to equipment Rate per billion                       Total
Year                         —       —        conditions       gross ton miles       defects         gross ton miles   Other       .derailments
1966                                              70         -
                                                                   0.322              125      ‘ - – – 0.574           35      -
1967                                              53               0245                 82                0379          74              209
1968                                              50               0237                100                0474          78              228
1969                                              73               0344                128                0603          45              246
1970                                             119               0511                108                0464          49              276
1971                                             107               0436                 89                0363          69              265
1972                                             134               0525                103                0403          86              323
1973                                             115               0447                104                0405          80              299
1974                                             157               0557                130                0461         133              420
1975                                             136               0527                103                0399          91              330
1976                                             106               0411                107                0415          88              301
1977                                             120               0426          —
                                                                                       111                0394
                                                                                                           —       —
                                                                                                                        81              312
SOU;C~ ~ld~sl;ol Rdl~d~ Accld;n;Slatls;s” 1977 R T C       ‘
                                                                                                                                              Ch. IV The Accident Picture • 55

   Table 32.— U.S. Train Accidents by Class, 1966-74                                                       Table 34. —Mainline/Branchlike— Derailments
                  —        —   — —                                                                                     by Year and Railroad
                                                                                      Total train                 (miles in billions of gross tons)
    Year                Derailments             Collisions           Other            accidents
1966           -
                   ‘-     4,447                  1,552                   794-           6,793                                                                                          Derailment Derailment
1967                      4,960                  1 522                   812            7,294       Railroad                                    976 mile:         977 mile             ate, 197f ate, 1977
                                                                                                                                                  —                                             .
1968                      5487                   1 727                   814            8,028       Conrail                           -   -
                                                                                                                                                                    2392                            247
1969                      5960                   1 810                   773            8,543       Burlington Northern                           2046              221 7                1 44       1 16
1970                      5,602                  1,756                   737            8.095       Southern Pacific                              1703              1733                 1 09       1 25
1971                      5131                   1,529                   644            7,304       Union Pacific                                 160 1             1691                    97         86
1972                      5,509                  1,348                   675            7532        Santa Fe                                      1447              1598                    63
1973                      7,389                  1,657                   652            9,696                                                   (CN 139.4)         (141. 7)             (1.36)     (1.34)
1974                      8,513                  1 551                   630           10,694       Southern                                      1130              121 3                103           92
                                                   — — . —                        —                 Norfolk & Western                             1149              1080                     86        71
SOURCE Feder,~l R,~!lmad Adnllnlslratlon
                                                                                                    Chessie                                       1149              1108                 380        330
                                                                                                    Missouri Pacific                              1082              111 8                102           98
  Table 33.— U.S. Train Accidents by Class, * 1975-77
                                                                                                                                                (CP 101.0)         (106 2)                ( 97)    (1. 02)
                                                                                                     Louisville & Nashville                        81 2              843                 303        339
    Year           Derailments             Collisions   -
                                                             Other                    Total          Seaboard Coast Line                           799               845                 1 55       1 77
1 975’             3600            174-                 –
                                                              266            ‘-       4,040-         Illinois Central Gulf                         626               601                 337        386
1976               4 123           258                        356                     4,737          Chicago & Northwestern                        571               588                 590        510
1977b              4010            256                        329                     4,595          Milwaukee                                     504               488                 645        733
            + 11 -percent Increase                                                                   St Louis-San Francisco                        383               388                 1 98       1 52
                                                                                                     Rock Island                                   347               351                 697        806
 . M]lnll;e branchlne acclde-nts-only Th!s table exclude~y~d ~crfients   -
                                                                                                     Denver RIO Grande                             207               21 2                   72         61
‘A( cioents r?ported ~Ifh es!lmated dam,?qe m excess of $1 750                                                                                     184
bArcldents reported WIln estimated damaqe In excess of $? 3°0
                                                                                                    Soo Line                                                         205                 315        259
SOURCE FedPril R.llroxl Admln, strat!o~ Acc!denl DafA                                                Kansas City Southern                          147               162                 340        1 79
                                                                                                    Western Pacific                                134               138                 209        1 59
their derailment ratios could not be undertaken                                                      Missouri-Kansas -Texas                        11. 6             123                 440        4 15
for purposes of this report.                                                                        Grand Trunk Western                             91                95                 396        221
                                                                                                    Delaware & Hudson                               83                89                 494        472
                                                                                                    Boston & Maine                                  62                61                 323        328
   In both Canada and the United States, only a                                                     Clinchfield                                     59                67                 339        358
small percentage of rail-related fatalities and in-                                                 Colorado & Southern                             47                66                 426        273
juries occurred in derailments compared to                                                          Ft Worth & Denver                               48                68                 354        221
other types of accidents in which casualties oc-                                                    Florida East Coast                              42                50                    48        80
                                                                                                    Long Island                                     38                38                 1 05       1 05
cur. In Canada, only 1 percent of all rail-related                                                  Bessemer & Lake Erie                            38                37                 1. 58        81
fatalities occurred in derailments for 1966                                                         Detroit, Toledo, & Ironton                      32                34                 563       2.94
through 1977. In the United States, 1.7 percent                                                     Duluth & Missabe Iron
                                                                                                         Range                                       36                 23                    28
of all rail-related fatalities occurred in derail-                                                  Richmond Fredericks-
ments for the same period. It appears that de-                                                           burg & Potomac                              27                26                 1 48               222
railments are more significant for their resulting                                                  Pittsburgh & Lake Erie                           25                25                 880                920
                                                                                                    Duluth Winnepeg, &
property losses than for casualties.                                                                     Pacific                                     24                26                208
                                                                                                    Maine Central                                    20                20                950                 500
    q   Examination of the U, S. derailment data on                                                 Elgin Joilet, & Eastern                          18                17                1.1 1               1. 76
         a railroad-by-railroad basis shows a wide                                                  Toledo, Peoria & Western                         15                14                333                 500
                                                                                                    CP-U.S. Lines                                    1.4               15                214                   67
         range of derailment rates among U.S. car-                                                  Georgia                                          14                14                2 14                7 14
         riers. Examination of the averages of acci-                                                Northwestern Pacific                             12                12                4 .17
         dent rates for the eight or nine largest (ton                                              Illinois Terminal Co                             12                12                750               1250
         mile) U.S. railroads in 1976 or in 1 9 7 7                                                 Bangor & Aroostock                               12                12               1250                667
                                                                                                    Chicago & Illinois Midland                         9                7                556                429
         shows that the values for either CN or CP                                                  Central Vermont                                    7                7                714                1 43
         in the respective year are not significantly                                               Detroit Toledo Shoreline                           5                5               1200                800
         different from the top (ton mile) carriers in                                                                   —
                                                                                                    S O U R C E Fe(ierdl Rdllroad Aclmlntstr,]t(orl 4[ c!dent I (lforn) IIIOP   Jnd   A, ~r,c l,mnr o! Anwr I( ,tr R,, II
         the United States. However, the averages                                                              road~
56 . Railroad Safety—U.S.-Canadian                                     Comparison

         Table 35.—U.S. Derailments by Contributing                                          q   Canada has a stable or declining derailment
                      Cause, 1966.74*                                                            picture whereas U.S. derailments appear to
                                                                                                 be increasing.
   Year             Track Equipment factors Miscellaneous                     Total
1966,               1,388    1,550      647        862                       4,447
1 9 6 7 ,           1,800    1,611      668        881                       4,960
                                                                                             q   The U.S. problem attributable to track is
1968,               2,062    1.745      743        937                       5,487               nearly twice that of Canada for the 1975-77
1969                2,400    1,863      816        881                       5,960               period. The United States has a higher de-
1970                2,393    1,602      765        842                       5,602
1 9 7 1             2,194    1,389      721        827                       5,131
                                                                                                 railment rate due to equipment and “other”
1 9 7 2             2,481   1,344       792        892                       5,509               causes although the difference is not as
1973                3,477   1,755     1,017      1,140                       7,389               great as track causes for derailments.
1974. : :           4,196   1,967     1,043      1,307                       8,513
“Includes malnllne branchl!ne and yard acctdents
SOURCE Federal Railroad Admlnls!rallon                                                       q   In both Canada and the United States, only
          of the accident rates for the next 10 rail-                                            a small percent of rail-related fatalities oc-
          roads in 1976 and in 1977 are significantly                                            curred in derailments. It appears that de-
          higher than the values of the Canadian rail-                                           railments are more significant for their re-
          roads in either year.                                                                  sulting property losses than for casualties.

                                            Table 36.—U.S. Derailments by Contributing Cause, * 1975.77

                                                   Per billion gross                  Per billion gross                   Per billion gross
Year                                Track             ton miles           Equipment      ton miles          Other            ton miles           Total
1 9          7 5     a
                                    1,633                 88                1,242              67            725                1 94             3.600
1 9           7 6                   1,921                 96                1,405              71            797                207              4,123
1977           b
                 .,                 1,844                 92                1,324              66            842                199              4,010
       T o t a l                    5,398                                   3,971                           2,364
       P e r c e n t                                                         34%                             20%

“Malnhnelbranchhne only
a A b o v e $1 75o estimated loss
b A b ove $2 3(IO estimated 10SS

                                                               LABOUR CANADA DATA
   Labour Canada’s Accident Prevention Divi-                                             and Health Division as well as the Accident
sion is responsible for receiving reports and in-                                        Prevention Division within Labour Canada are
vestigating accidents. l9 Additionally, its Divi-                                        responsible for administering programs to all
sion of Occupational Safety and Health is re-                                            Canadian industries. For example, the accident
sponsible for rail employees not involved with                                           reporting regulations, described below, apply to
train operations. This includes maintenance-of-                                          all industries, not just the rail industry.
way employees as well as employees working in
repair shops, on tunnels and viaducts, and other
employees normally subject to the Division’s
                                                                                            Labour Canada’s Accident Reporting

  This section briefly describes Labour Can-                                                The accident investigation and reporting reg-
ada’s accident data collection system and trends                                         ulation for Labour Canada contains several ma-
in the rail industry. The Occupational Safety                                            jor features. First, it places responsibility on the
   I   *p.t IV ,cd na~ian Labou r Code.                                                    1“Lab{~ur Canada, Accident Rep{~rtinX Regl Iatif}n.
                                                                                                                Ch. IV The Accident Picture                          q   57

employer for investigation and reporting acci-                                 of man-hours worked during the period and
dents resulting in: disabling injury or death of                               multiplying by 1 million.
an employee, a shock or contaminated atmos-
                                                                                  The accident reporting regulation also re-
phere causing an employee’s loss of conscious-
                                                                               quires that every employer with workplaces of
ness, implementation of rescue or revival pro-
                                                                               15 or more employees keep a record of all minor
cedures, or explosions. Second, the regulation
                                                                               injuries for that location. * Minor injuries where
requires that in an employer investigation of the
                                                                               there are fewer than 1 5 employees at a given
accident, the steps necessary to prevent its re-
                                                                               location are also reported, but with fewer items
currence be enumerated. These reports are sent
                                                                               of information necessary for the report.
to regional safety officers within 10 days of the
accident. In addition to the written reports, em-                                Each March, all employers are required to
ployers are responsible for notifying by tele-                                 report their accident history for the preceding
phone the regional safety officer of a disabling                               year for each workplace.
injury to two or more employees, a fatality, or
an explosion. A telephone report is required
within 24 hours of an accident’s occurence.                                                    Accident Data Reported by
                                                                                                    Labour Canada
  The Labour Canada regulation defines a “dis-
abling injury” as any work injury that:                                           Injuries (normalized by man-hours worked)
                                                                               for non-operating rail employees, according to
  q   prevents an employee from reporting for
                                                                               Labour Canada data, appear to have remained
       work or effectively performing all of the
                                                                               constant in the 1972-76 time period. Although
       duties connected with his regular work on
                                                                               the rate of disabling injuries to man-hours
       any day subsequent to the day on which the
                                                                               worked was 18.3 in 1976, the highest recorded
       injury occurred, whether or not that day
                                                                               for a 5-year period, a long-term trend of in-
       was a holiday or other nonworking day; or
                                                                               creases in disabling injuries cannot be estab-
  q   results in the loss by an employee of a body                             lished. See table 37 for injury data reported to
       member or part thereof or in a complete                                 Labour Canada. (Figure 3 shows the injuries
       loss of its usefulness or in the permanent                              plotted by year. )
       impairment of a body function whether or
                                                                                   ‘The items to be          includ[,d in t h e , rec(~r[] .]rL,. th[, (jatt, ~n~ tjnlt, ~,f
       not the employee is prevented from report-                                                                           emplo>rw; t h e m’ork~ite or lo-
                                                                               t h e a c c i d e n t ; t h e n a m e of the in]urcd
       ing for work or effectively performing his                              cat ion m’here the acc idcn t OCCU rrd; the principal ca LIW or causes
       regular work as described above.                                        ot the accident; the name (>I the dcpa rt men t or u n i t t C) which the
                                                                               employee reports for work; a brief description of the Injury and I t~
It identifies disabling injury frequency rate by                               direct cause; the date, time, and type of treatment provided; the
                                                                               initials or name of the person who provided the treatment; and the
dividing the number of disabling injuries in-                                  na t u rt> .a nd mt i ma ted c(~st clf a n y propert~r da mdgt’ (Jr ma ter]a I l(~ss
curred in a specific period of time by the number                              re~u I t i n~ t rom t h(~ accident.

           Table 37.—Labour Canada Work Injury Experience for Industries Under Federal Jurisdiction,
                                            5-Year Comparison

                                                                                    Disabling Injuries per —
                 Number of disabling         Number of          Man-hours worked     million man-hours    Injuries per 100                      Ratio of nondisabling
                 . — Injuries           nondisabling Injuries     (000,000’s)              worked             workers                           to disabling injuries
1972 -                 2 ’ 8 6 7– ‘ -         22,493                 1780                      161                             278      —
1973                   2,287                  20,093                 1469                      156                             297                        88
1974                   2,578                  19,954                 1479                      174                             297                        77
1975                   2236                   16643                  1390                      160                             265                        74
1976                   2420                   16,301                 1326                      183                             275                        67
5-year average         2478                   19,097                 1489                      166                             283                        77
58 Ž Railroad Safety—U.S.-Canadian        Comparison

           Figure 3.— Rate of Disabling Injuries               worktime. Beginning in 1975, all injuries requir-
                                                               ing medical attention were reported as well as
                                                               those injuries resulting in 1 or more days of lost
                                                                 When comparing the United States and Can-
                                                               ada, several differences in the reporting criteria
                                               Injuries per
                                               100 workers
                                                               and procedures become apparent.
                                                                 q   Labour Canada collects occupational safety
                                                                     and health data whereas the U.S. FRA col-
                                                                     lects this data as well as operations employ-
                                                                     ees injury data.
10                                     Disabling injuries        q   Labour Canada defines “disabling injury”
                                       per million manhours          and minor injury and includes fatality
                                                                     under the term “disabling .“ The United
                                                                     States does not have this distinction, how-
                                                                     ever, it does report disabilities and subse-
 01                   1            1           1          1          quent fatalities. Canada does not break out
           1972     1973          1974       1975       1976         subsequent fatalities.
                           year                                  q   Until 1975, the U.S. railroads did not have
                                                                     to report minor injuries or all incidents re-
                                                                     quiring medical attention whereas Cana-
Differences Between U.S. and Canadian                                dian railroads have reported such accidents
    Occupational Safety and Health                                   since 1971.
   Prior to 1975, FRA collected injury data on                    Given the differences in reporting require-
railroad employees involved in train operations                ments, and collection procedures, the occupa-
as well as those not involved in train operations.             tional safety and health trends, particularly in-
The injuries reported to FRA, were only re-                    jury data, of the two countries cannot be use-
ported if they involved more than 1 day of lost                fully compared.

   Both major Canadian railroads are required                     Information obtained from one railroad (CN)
to report accidents and casualties to CTC and                  showed that a wide variety of accident data are
Labour Canada under their respective accident                  compiled on a monthly basis for use by the com-
reporting regulations. In addition to these re-                pany. Included in the information are: accident
ports and agency accident investigations, the                  performance and disabling injury rates and
railroads have their own extensive accident re-                graphs, monthly claims and accident estimates,
porting and investigation systems. This section                expenses due to train accidents and employee in-
describes those reporting systems, their uses,                 juries, comparisons between performance and
and the trends evident from available railroad                 projected safety targets, regional safety per-
data.                                                          formance (actual and projected goals), and
                                                               departmental totals by region. CN’s yearly
   Each railroad compiles complete accident and                reports include, among other things, data on the
injury data and reports such information to                    number of accidents, costs, and causes. The CN
chief operating officers on a monthly basis. In                data include all train accidents (yard and
addition, CP reports accidents trends to its cor-              mainline) for the year reported, not just those
porate board on a quarterly basis. CN reports                  reported to RTC over $750 and occurring on the
accidents trends to its board on an annual basis.              mainline. Accidents reported to the Govern-
                                                                                                                       Ch. IV Tile Accident Picture                              q   59

mentin 1977, acccording to the $750 threshold                                                      Table 38.—Accidents Resulting From
reporting figure, represented 17 percent of the                                                 Transportation Problems or Rule Violations
total accidents for CN that year.                                                                            (1977–CN data)

   Accident data and information were available                                                                     Cause                                Number of accidents
from both railroads. The information provided                                          Rule 112: Handbrake and Coupling Rule                                        210
                                                                                       Rule 104 Hand-Operated Switches                                              202
by CN shores several patterns for 1977.                                                Other                                                                        100
                                                                                       Special Instructions                                                          67
                                                                                       Rule 103 Switching Signals                                                    52
                                 CN Data                                               Rule 105 Restricted Speeds on Other Than
                                                                                         Main Track                                                                   22
      • While the number of accidents involving
         train movement occurring in the yards and                                                                   Costs of Accidents by Cause
         on the mainline was roughly the same, for
         CN in 1977, those accidents occurring on                                                                                                      Percent of total cost for
                                                                                       Cause                                                            [ran sport problems
         the mainline accounted for  91 percent of ac-                                 Rule 105                                                                      36%
         cident costs excluding lading claims.                                         Other                                                                         21
      q Of the total CN mainline accidents only 10                                     Rule 112                                                                      18
         percent cost over $50,000 in 1977. This                                       Rule 104                                                                      15
                                                                                       Special instructions                                                           6
         percentage of severe train accidents is                                       Rule 103                                                                       4
         similar to that of the United States. Be-                                                                                                              $3.075M
         tween 1966 and 1974, less than 10 percent
         of U.S. train accidents were over $50,000.21
      q Of the total number of yard and train ac-

         cidents for CN in 1977, 52 percent were
         caused by operating rules violations, 16
         percent by track failure, 12 percent by
                                                                                            Table 39.—Engineering (Track) Responsibility*
         equipment failure, 8 percent by noncom-                                                         (1977–CN data)
         pany fault, 5 percent by combination, and
         7 percent by miscellaneous causes. In terms                                                              Cause                                  Number of accidents
         of costs, track failure accounted for 53 per-                                 Sno–wind                    ice- ‘ -   - -
                                                                                                                                                                     37      -

         cent, equipment—l 7 percent, human fail-                                      Broken rail                                                                   32
                                                                                       Subgrade                                                                      30
         ure—l 5 percent, combination —5 percent,                                      Tie and fittings                                                              30
         noncompany —2 percent, and miscellan-                                         Other                                                                         30
         eous- 7 percent.                                                              Switches                                                                      29
                                                                                       Line and gauge                                                                16
      q While operating rules violations accounted
                                                                                       Employee failure                                                              14
         for the largest number of accidents, track                                    Rockslides, etc..                                                             12
         responsibility or track-related failures were                                   Total                                                                    “230–
         the most costly of accidents, for the single
         year studied. (Tables 38 and 39 display spe-
         cific human failure and track-related causes                                  Cause                                                                  Cost percent
         respective] y.)                                                               Tie         and                fittings            -
      q In terms of equipment responsibility or
                                                                                       Broken rail                                                                 24
                                                                                       Employee failure                                                             9
         failure for CN, journal and wheel failures                                    Subgrade                                                                     7
         accounted for the largest number of ac-                                       Slides, rocks                                                                6
                                                                                       Switches and points                                                          4
         cidents respectively. Journals and track                                      Snow and Ice**..                                                             3
         failures accounted for the largest costs.                                     Other                                                                        3
         (Table 40 gives a breakdown of leading                                        Line and gauge                                                               2
                                                                                         “Thts dafa repre~en~ all ac;ldenf~ occurring on—C~ In;l just I hose reoorled (n excess 01$75010
  ‘   I A . E. Shulman anci   C E   Ta}rlor, A tI A )1[//vsI\ tlf Ni)~(’ Y~TL~r+ CIf      RTC
                                                                                       “ “This caleqory appears 10 not be reflecfec in Canad!an Government data due 10 IIS low cost The
/<L/Ilr tJflL/ A(-I-I[{L1)It Dut[i 1 W-74 ( Rc+carch & Tc+t D e p a r t m e n t ,         same slfuallon nkiy be true for the Unl!ed Stales on some ra(l carriers
A\w~clati(~n (~t Arncr]can Rallr(,ad+, 1 Q76), pp. 10-1 I                              SOURCE CN Rail
60    q    Railroad       Safety—U.S.-Canadian Comparison

      Table 40.—Equipment Responsibility Accidents                                                       in 1974 reflect the rise in accidents for that
                        for CN                                                                           year.
                      (1977 only)                                                                    q   In analyzing available injury information,
                           Cause                                 Number of accidents
                                                                                                         the chief causes contributing to employee
                                                                                                         injury were getting on and off trains; mate-
J o u r n a l s                                                              33
W h e e l s                                                                  28                          rial handling and improper lifting proce-
Coupler                                                                      17                          dures resulting in back, hand, foot injuries
Employee failure                                                             15                          (need for hand protection); and servicing
T r u c k                                                                    15
B r a k e .                                                                  14                          equipment. These injury causes are similar
Body frame                                                                   14                          to those in the United States. The leading
O t h e r                                                                    13                          causes of employee injuries in the United
A       x        l              e         s                                   3
                                                                                                         States for 1966-74 were: getting on and off
   Total                                                                   152
                                                                                                         trains; construction and maintenance of
                                                                                                         equipment; track maintenance; stumbling,
                                                               Percent of total cost for                 slipping, and falling; coupling and un-
Cause                                                         equipment responsibility                   coupling; and flying object:.
J o u r n a l s                                                          460/o
T r u c k s                                                              17                          CN’s injury data was not modified to show
Wheels                                                                   12                       severity until 1978. Table 42 shows CN’s 5-year
Couplers                                                                 11                       injury profile.
Body frame                                                                 9
B r a k e                                                                  4                         CN prepares comparative analyses of train
O t h e r                                                                  3
Axles                                                                        8                    accidents and disabling injury ratios for internal
Employee failure                                                             6                    review. These analyses take CN accident and in-
  T     o    t   a    l
                                                                                                  jury data and that of CP, selected U.S. rail-
                                                                                                  roads, and U.S. railroads in the aggregate. As
“This data represents all acctdents occurrlnq on~N–not lust those reported In excess of $750 to
                                                                                                  indicated on tables 43 and 44, CP showed the
SOURCE CN Rad                                                                                     lowest train accident ratio compared to that of
                                                                                                  any of the railroads and to the [J. S. railroads in
                                                                                                  the aggregate. CN showed the lowest injury
          equipment-caused problems and their                                                     ratio from 1975 to the present. Prior to 1975 in-
          costs. )                                                                                juries reported by U.S. and Canadian railroads
          Track-related failures accounted for only                                               could not be compared. From the CN analyses,
          16 percent of CN’s accidents but 53 percent                                             overall the Canadian railroads appear to have a
          of accident costs for 1977. The leading                                                 better accident and injury ratio than the U.S.
          causes of track accidents were snow and                                                 railroads in the aggregate.
          ice, broken rail, subgrade, tie and fittings,
          and switches and switch points. The lead-
          ing causes in terms of costs were tie and fit-
                                                                                                                        CP Data
          tings, broken rail, and employee failure.                                                   CP supplied its train accident data on an FRA
          Employee failure is defined as an accident                                              basis for this study. As indicated by their
          cause when the employee fails to perform a                                               1974-77 accident data and rates, equipment,
          prescribed task, for example, if an inspec-                                              track, and “other” train accidents constitute the
          tor failed to detect defective equipment that                                           greatest losses in terms of costs, while employee
          resulted in an accident.                                                                negligence appears to be the category in which
          For the 5-year period 1972-77, CN’s ac-                                                 the greatest number of train accidents occur.
          cidents associated with track, equipment,                                               (See table 45. ) When adjusted for inflation,
          and operating rule violations appear to be                                              dollar losses resulting from train accidents for
          declining except for 1974. In constant                                                  CP appeared to have declined. In addition the
          dollars, accident costs declined by 24.6 per-                                           overall accident rate for CP has al SO declined in
          cent from 1972-76, as indicated on table 41.                                            terms of aggregate numbers and by accident
          However, over the 5 years, costs increases                                              rates.
                                                                                                                                  Ch. IV The Accident Picture                    q   61

                                               Table 41 .—CN Train and Yard Accidents by Cause, 1972-76

                                       Employee                                   (Track)
Year                                transportation         Equipment            engineering     Noncompany          Combination Miscellaneous            Total                       —
1      9             7       2          1.321                 252                  623              158                65            236                 2,655
1     9             7      3            1,202                 202                  436              220                69            168                 2,297
1    9            7      4              1,607                 296                  556              187                77            198                 2.921
1       9              7          5     1,081                 199                  351              162                49            147                 1,989
1976                           .,         783                 163                  316              104                43              98                1,507

Cost   of All Train and Yard Accidents (Excluding Merchandise Claims) in Dollars

                                          Employee                                (Track)                                                                              1972 constant
Year                                   transportation      Equipment            engineering Noncompany Combination Miscellaneous                         Total            dollars
1972                                    $3,170513        $2,273,813            $5,557,182         $543,041           $569,052           $1,568.836   $13682.437 $13,682,437
1973                                     2,383,354         1,671,933             4,394,653         627,590            448,986            2,131,610    11,638,126 10,298,698
1974         :         :.....            4,537,636         4,136,867             4,788,853         872,295            472,085            2,213.649    17,021,385 13,266,863
1    9           7        5              3,880,695         3,203,970             6,772,869         600,289            827,064            3,123,655    18.408,542 12,256,020
1976              .:         ’.,         4.072,015         2,250,241             7,146,065         536,204            295,225            2,498,009    16,797,759 10,311,700


                                                          Table 42.—CN 5-Year Disabling Injury Ratio
                                                                (per million man-hours worked)

                                                  Year       T.E.Y.                      Others        Equipment          Engineering
                                                  1 9 7 2          3660                   480            1880               1640
                                                  1 9 7 3           3455                  441            2152                1570
                                                  1974             3488                   595            2044                1942
                                                  1975.            3391                   372            2034               1733
                                                  1976              2729                  388            1844               1667
                                                   (Jan -
                                                   Sept. )          2413                  298                1921               1452
                                                  Variance– 1972
                                                   base better
                                                   (worse) %       341                   379                 (2 2)              11. 5
                                                  TEY = (Transporfatlon   equipment and yard)
                                                  SOURCE CNRall

                                               Table 43.— FRA Comparative Statistics—Train Accidents

                                1972                      1973                        1974                    1975a                            1976a             1977 b (Jan -Aug. )
                        Number         Ratio     Number           Ratio         Number     Ratio         Number     Ratio                Number      Ratio        Number        Ratio
CN Rail .                 604       861            661           991             880       1184           524       778                   518         797          305          727
CP Rail                   218       531            214           534             285        6.69          220       563                   247         657           124         486
U S. railroad             521       838            586           924             641        990           504       879                    735       11 73         480         11 33
U.S. railroad             236      1043            257          1088             287       1216           296       940                   441        1266           278        11 11
U. S. Class I
 railroads              7,012          9.65      8,648          11 10           9,913         1263       8,041           1065                 N/A                      N/A
Raflo = Number of accldenls mulflphed by 1 mllllon dwlded by Iocomotwe miles
apropefly damage Increased to $1 750
bprope~y damage Increased TO $2300
62   q   Railroad Safety—U.S.-Canadian Comparison

                                     Table 44.— FRA Comparative Statistics— Employee Disabling Injuries

                                                                                   1975*                                 1976                                1977
                                                                  Killed          Injured       Ratio          Killed   Injured       Ratio       Killed   Injured       Ratio
C N     R a i l                                                    12          2,092            17,84           8        1,827        15.45         4       1,186        16.44
C P     R a i l                                                    10          1,621            24,5            7        1,586        24,29          8        812        18,59
U S railroad                                                        6          3,939            48,87           1        3,368        3947           2      2,416        40.83
U S railroad                                                        2            734            19.66           4          774        19,92          2        501        18,91
U.S. Class I railroads                                            102         22,338            22.87          94       27,040        27,61        80      20,203        30.69

“Elfeclwe Jan 1 1975 FRA Regulallon changed all Iosl lime cases are changed which resulted In U S road increases

                                                         Table 45.—CP Train Accidents on FRA Basis

     Year             Responsibility                                                                    Number                    Rate per MLM*             Total damage
     1974       Employee        negligence         .     .      .                                         70                          1.64                 $ 771,741
                Detective equipment. ., .,                                                                60                          1.41                   5,157,417
                Defective track and structure. ., ., : : : : : :                                          44                          1.03                   4,591,223
                Others                           .                                                        63                          1.48                   3,452,609
                Crossings             :              .        .                                           54                          1.27                   1,628,999
                  Total                               .    .    .                                        291                          6,83                 $15,602,089

     1975       Employee                             negligence                          .,               63                          1,61                 $ 1,017,217
                Defective                          equipment     .      .,         .,     .               51                          1,30                   2,635,172
                Defective          track       and    structure.   .      .        .    ...               30                           .77                   2,660,846
                Others                   ...              .          .                    .               40                          1,02                   3,104,999
                Crossings                    .            .,         .,                  .,               34                           .87                   2,258,731
                   Total                                                                                 218                          5.58                 $11,676,965

     1976       Employee           negligence               .,             .                              83                          2.21                 $ 1,384,396
                Defective          equipment              .             .                                 37                            .99                  2,865,553
                Defective    track      and     structure          .,     .,                              36                            .96                  5,692,913
                Others                                  .                                                 56                          1,49                   2,054,498
                Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                         38                          1.01                     413,995
                  Total   .,    .,   .,    .  .,     .,        ...    .    .                             250                          6.66                 $12,411,355

     1977       Employee negligence                                .          .             .             51                          1.33                 $6,500,547
                Defective equipment                        .                                              46                          1.20                   3,755,786
                Defective track                          and           structure                          36                           .94                   2,863,512
                Others              .                              .            .                         38                           .99                   3,133,552
                Crossings                                     .                .                          19                           .49                     296,405
                  Total                                   .                                              190                          4.94                 $16,549,802

“MLM –Million Iocomollve   miles
                     Chapter V

                                                                                                    Chapter V
                                              THE RAILROAD SAFETY INQUIRY

   Railroad officials, labor representatives, and            Jan./March Series of accidents involving dangerous com-
officials of the Canadian Transport Commission               1971       modities (sulfuric acid, propane gas, liquid
                                                                         sulfur, fuel, etc. ) and a derailment in the
(CTC)/Railway Transport Committee (RTC)                                  Fraser River Canyon
generally agree that a major step towards im-
                                                             Jan. 18,    Resumption of the satety inquiry to include
proving Canadian railroad safety was the rail-               1972        investigation of a C N d e r a i l m e n t n e a r
way safety inquiry conducted by RTC. This                                Dun robin, Ontario
chapter covers that inquiry, the events leading              April 19,   Filing of the initial report of the railway
to it, and some activities that were a direct result         1972        safety inquiry
of the inquiry.                                              July 17,    Filing of the second report of the railway
                                                             1972        safety inquiry
  Critical dates and activities leading to the in-
quiry and inquiry milestones were as follows:                Dec. 28,    Filing of the third report of the railway
                                                             1973        safety inquiry
                                                             1973        CTC approached the Treasury Board request-
1904        Jurisdiction for safe operation of Canadian                  ing additional staff resources to be used to en-
          trains came under Federal jurisdiction through                 sure railroad satety — request denied
          the Board of Transport Commissioners               1974        Beginning of the Bureau of Management
1967      Authority for regulating the safety of the rail-               Consulting study of railway safety
          roads transferred to the Canadian Transport
          Commission/Railway Transport Committee
                                                               As indicated in this chronology, the inquiry
          Series of accidents, including derailments in
 (summer) Cobourg and Port Hope and a collision in           was divided into three phases during the Sep-
          Brockville                                         tember 1970 through December 1973 period.
Sept. 1,    RTC issued a formal notice that a public in-     This chapter describes: the events leading to the
1970        quiry would be held regarding three accidents    safety inquiry; the inquiry process, findings,
Sept. 24,   lnquiry on three accidents began                 and recommendations; and, the steps following
1970                                                         the inquiry including the Bureau of Manage-
Jan. 18,    Second phase of the inquiry on Midland Struc-    ment Consulting study and the creation of the
1971        tural Company —safety of a subway structure      Railway Safety Advisory Committee.

   The Railway Transport Committee and its                   heavier tonnage trains and an increase in ac-
predecessor, the Board of Transport Commis-                  cidents involving dangerous commodities. 2 A
sioners, had jurisdiction over the safe operation            series of accidents occurred during the summer
of the railroads from the early 1900’s. 1 As a re-           of 1970 including two derailments and a colli-
sult of its authority and growing concern at                 sion. These three accidents were the subject of
CTC about the safe operation of Canadian rail-               the initial inquiry.
roads, RTC began an inquiry on railway safety
in 1970. The inquiry was prompted by an in-
crease in the number of accidents involving
                          AND RECOMMENDATIONS
   The Railway Transport Committee con-                . a derailment in the Fraser River Canyon in-
ducted the inquiry by the authority contained in          volving a rockslide that killed three crew
section 226 of the Railway Act and sections 4 5           members; and
and 46 of the National Transportation Act. On          q a number of accidents involving dangerous

September 1, 1970, RTC issued a formal notice             commodities.
that a public inquiry would be held regarding          After hearings, investigations and analyses,
the three accidents. In addition, evidence was       RTC issued its report. Among the major find-
requested concerning maintenance and oper-           ings of the general inquiry were:
ating practices, and other matters related to de-
railments and collisions.                              q   the need for more active research into pos-
                                                           sible improvements for the design of rail-
  The inquiry took several forms including                 road signaling devices and equipment;
public hearings and field investigations. The          q   derailments caused by journal failures re-
Canadian National (CN) and Canadian Pacific                quired better evaluation;
(CP) Railroads, and the Canadian Railway La-           q   reporting requirements for accidents at rail
bour Association participated in the inquiry.              grade crossings should be improved;
   RTC received evidence about three specific          q   systems to detect rockslides were often in-
accidents (Cobourg, Port Hope, and Brock-                  adequate and should be improved; and
ville). However, during the hearings, the panel        q   deteriorating track conditions were increas-
decided to observe operating procedures first-             ing the potential for derailments.
hand. The panel conducted onsite investigations
                                                        Based on its findings, RTC recommended sev-
of the yards of both CP and CN. 3
                                                     eral research projects on specific safet y prob-
   RTC attributed the Cobourg and Port Hope          lems identified during the inquiry. It also recom-
accidents to journal failures that resulted in the   mended that the Government’s regulatory and
derailments (the Port Hope accident also in-         oversight functions be strengthened. For exam-
volved postcrash leakage of toxic and flam-          ple, it called for increases in RTC staffing. Most
mable weedkiller). It attributed the Brockville      significant, it created a Railway Safety Ad-
accident, a collision between a train and a track    visory Committee. The committee consists of
motor car, to human error on the part of the         railroad company representatives, CTC mem-
track car operator who apparently misjudged          bers, one of which chairs the committee, and
the closing speed of the train.                      representatives from the railroad unions. Its
                                                     purpose is to explore solutions to safety prob-
  The investigation of the three accidents con-
                                                     lems and make recommendations to CTC. 5 (Ad-
vinced RTC that an expanded investigation was
                                                     visory committee activities are discussed in
necessary to determine: whether the railroads
                                                     chapter VI. )
were implementing CTC rules and regulations,
the adequacy of the railroad’s maintenance pro-        In 1973, CTC requested that the Treasury
cedures, and the adequacy of its own review          Board grant it 55 additional staff to conduct a
procedures.4 The expanded inquiry specifically       number of rail safety programs. The Treasury
explored:                                            Board initially denied the request on the basis
                                                     that the need for the programs was insufficiently
  q   a CN derailment near Dunrobin, Ontario,        documented. ’ The Board requested justification
       where 39 passengers reported minor in-        of the programs by careful analysis and demon-

  ‘ I b i d , p Q.
 JIbld    , p   10
stration of their potential effectiveness. CTC                                              q   The accident data was not fully reliable.
then requested that the Bureau of Management                                                    Differences existed in the data collected by
Consulting (BMC) conduct an independent                                                         the Government and that collected by the
study of rail safety problems. Specifically, CTC                                                railroads.
requested comments on the functions of a reg-                                               q   Problems existed in implementing pro-
ulatory agency and proposals for a rail safety                                                  grams to deal with the highway/rail-
program. The resulting study, which required 4                                                  crossing problem. (Highway/rail-crossing
man- years, produced a 13-volume report con-                                                    findings are discussed in chapter VI. )
sisting of:                                                                                 q   Problems existed in the handling and ship-
                                                                                                ment of dangerous commodities. (See chap-
    q   an evaluation of current CTC programs,
                                                                                                ter VI. )
    q   a study of the railroad environment,
    q   an analysis of railroad accident statistics,                                         The safety programs of RTC were evaluated
    q   a compilation of the views of railroad and                                        and a number of further improvements were
        union officials,                                                                  suggested by BMC. These included the redesign
    q   research on the economics of safety regula-                                       of inspection programs, accident investigation,
        tions, and                                                                        data reporting and analysis, and the introduc-
    q   policy alternatives.                                                              tion of some new standards. 8
    BMC concluded that:                                                                      BMC made the following policy observation:
                                                                                          In order to set a level of collective risk, the
        Much of the increase in derailments could
                                                                                          Government must consider the societal costs of
        be attributed to increased traffic and larger
                                                                                          damage and societal benefits from transporta-
        heavier trains.
                                                                                          tion, as against the railway cost and railway
        Rail grade-crossing accidents declined be-
                                                                                          benefits. The difference between the societal
        tween 1956 and 1973.
                                                                                          costs and railway costs from accidental damage
        The number of collisions during that period
                                                                                          arises due to the fact that the railways do not
        had not changed substantially.
                                                                                          suffer the total economic loss from accidents.
        The economic input into maintenance of
                                                                                          The societal costs of accidents are greater than
        rails and associated structures had pro-                                          that considered by the railways. To induce a
        gressively decreased over a period of 2 0
                                                                                          higher level of safety, society can use the follow-
        years. (It recommended that the issue of                                          ing three policy instruments: subsidy, taxation,
        deferred maintenance be studied by Gov-
                                                                                          and regulatory measures.9
        ernment in cooperation with the railroads
        and if a problem was found to exist, it
        should be addressed by a combination of
        fiscal and regulatory policies. )
   I{[{lli[(l \/ $(/f(’( lj >11(1{1/ ( I;l] rt,<lu {~t hlc~ncl~c>mt,n t (’t}n~l]lt in~,
C dn<]~ld, 1~75 )
             Chapter Vl

                                                                                    Chapter VI
                                                     GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

   Two Federal organizations have responsibili-       vincial jurisdiction does not extend to railroads
ty for Canadian railroad safety: the Canadian         under CTC jurisdiction.
Transport Commission’s (CTC) Railway Trans-
port Committee (RTC), and the Department of             The Department of Labour’s Occupational
Labour’s Occupational Safety and Health Divi-         Safety and Health Division is a regulatory body
sion.                                                 similar to the U.S. Occupational Safety and
                                                      Health Administration within the Department
  CTC was established in 1967 by the National         of Labor.
Transportation Act. CTC is the Federal Govern-
ment’s regulatory body responsible for all trans-       This chapter is organized as follows:
portation modes. RTC is responsible for limited
economic regulatory activity, safety regulatory         Canadian Transport Commission Activities
activity, and financial assistance programs for           Regulation
Canada’s railroads. RTC has six commissioners,            Inspection
some of whom have responsibility for the                  Dangerous Commodities/Explosives Safety
regulation of other transportation modes. RTC             Highway/Railroad Crossing Safety
is organized around the following activities: rail      Labour Canada’s Occupational Safety and
systems engineering, rail safety and standards,              Health
rail services, rail economic analysis, and tariff         Regulations
and traffic. The CTC/RTC regulates all rail-              Activities
roads except those that are intraprovincial. Pro-       Railway Safety Advisory Committee


                 Regulations                             The Canadian body of law that is comparable
                                                      to title 49 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regula-
   A range of subjects directly or tangentially       tions, with respect to railroads, is the Revision
significant to railroad safety is covered by          and Consolidation of General Orders of the
regulations in Canada and in the United States.       Board of Transport Commissioners of Canada
The regulations in the United States applicable       (now CTC). This is, as the name suggests, a
to rail safety are primarily developed and ad-        compilation and revision of all orders estab-
ministered by the Federal Railroad Administra-        lishing regulations of general applicability is-
tion (FRA). Promulgation of the Canadian rail         sued by CTC and its predecessors since 1906. It
safety regulations is one of the functions of         has four parts of which two—Operating and En-
CTC. Other important regulations are those for        gineering—have safety implications. These
occupational safety and health, which in the          orders, generally, were effective as of February
United States are issued by the Department of         1965, when the consolidation occurred.
Labor and in Canada by Labour Canada. In
both countries there are not any workplace safe-
                                                      Accident Reporting
ty and health rules applicable exclusively to the
railroads. Table 46 indicates the range of rail          The regulatory requirements for accident re-
safety regulatory subjects covered by each coun-      porting are substantially more broad than the
try.                                                  statutory requirements for accident reporting.

72 . Railroad/    Safety—U. S.-Canadian Comparison

                                        Table 46.—U.S. and Canadian Railroad Safety Regulations

                           Subject                                                         U.S. provision                        Canadian provision
Hazardous materials,                                                      49 CFR 172-174, 178-179, 209               Gen. Order no. 0-29 to O-34
Ambient noise . : ., : : :                  :   :     :           :   :   40 CFR 20 (EPA), 49 CFR 210;               N/A
                                                                          49 CFR 171, 211
Procedural     rules     .,    .,    .,   .   .   .   .                   49 CFR 171, 211                            Gen. Order no. M-2
State/Province     participation      .   .    .    .   .                 49 CFR 212                                 None
Track safety standards ., .,                                              49 CFR 213                                 None
Freight car safety standards ., : : : : : : : :                           49 CFR 215                                 None
Special notice, emergency orders                                          49 CFR 216                                 None
Operating rules–general. . : : : : : : : : :                              49 CFR 217                                 Gen. Order no. 0-8
Operating rules–specific (blueflag, etc. )                                49 CFR 218                                 Gen. Order no. 0-8
Two-way            radios            .,        .        .                 49 CFR 220                                 None
Rear-end marking devices. . . . . . . . . . . . . .                       49 CFR 221                                 None
Accident     reports.      .,    .      .  .    .   .   .                 49 CFR 225                                 Gen. Order no. 0-
Hours of service ., ., ., . ., ., ., .,                                   49 CFR 228                                 None
Locomotive      design,       performance    .     .    .                 49 CFR 230                                 Gen. Order no. 0- 1 to 0-14,0-16 to
Safety          appliances.         .    .                                49 CFR 231                                 Gen. Order. no. 0-10
Power    brakes       and   drawbars. ., .                                49 CFR 232                                 Gen. Order no. 0-20 (air brake only)
Signals and related devices ., ., ., .,                                   49 CFR 233-236                             Gen. Order no. E-12 and E-13
Occupational Safety and Health                                            29 CFR 1910                                SOR 71-30, 71-483, 71-481, 71-584,
                                                                                                                     71-605, 71-616, 72-663, 72-13, 72-23,
                                                                                                                     72-66, 72-666, 72-171, 72-288,
                                                                                                                     73-679, and 78-559
Mixed passenger/freight equipment–
   v e s t i b u l e                  d     o   o         r       s   .   None                                       Gen. Order no. O-6
Testing employees–sight, hearing                                          None                                       Gen. Order no. O-9
Loading open top cars. . . .                 . . . . .                    None                                       Gen. Order no. O-15
Special equipment regulations (mailcars,    snow
   plows,    grain   cars).     .,     .       .    .  .,                 None                                       Gen. Order no. 0-22-0-24
Air pollution and control . ., . .           ., ., . . .,                 None applicable exclusively to             Gen. Order no 0-26
Fire extinguishers and emergency tools in
   passenger      cars    .     .   .    .      .            ..           None                                       Gen. Order no. 0-27
Fire prevention from railroad causes .                .   . .,            None                                       Gen. Order no. 0-28, E-16
Grade crossings. ., . . . . . . .                 .    . . .,             None                                       Gen. Order no. E-3 and E-9
Railroad design (plans, profiles, etc. ) .,             . . .             None                                       Gen. Order no. E-1 and E-2
Utilities   on      or    near    rail     line        .,   .,            None                                       Gen. Order no. E-lo and E-12
Fencing       .,       .,    .,     .        .        .      .            None                                       Gen. Order no. E-17

The regulations require reports on five types of                                                 5. accidents involving handling of dangerous
accidents to CTC:                                                                                    commodities. 1
   1. accidents attended by death or personal                                                Only the first is required by statute. The in-
       injury or whereby any bridge, culvert,                                                formation required in the report and the speed
       viaduct, or tunnel has been damaged;                                                  of its delivery vary depending on the nature and
   2. accidents not attended by death or per-                                                severity of the accident. Reports are not re-
       sonal injury                                                                          quired for accidents that occur for reasons other
      —at public highway crossings, or                                                       than “as a result of transportation, that is to say
      —collisions and derailments on main track                                              where trains, engines, cars, or other rolling
        where damage to railway property is in                                               stock either while in motion or stationary are in-
        excess of $750;                                                                      volved . . . .“2 Accidents occurring in shops or
   3. obstructions on railway causing delay in                                               other facilities are specifically excluded unless
       operations of more than 24 hours,
   4. employees suddenly stricken while on                                                     ‘General Order O-1.
       duty and death ensues, and                                                              ‘Ibid.
                                                                       Ch. VI Government Programs ž 73

they occur directly or indirectly or a result of     carried by the foreman or other person in
transportation as so defined.                        charge.
   By comparison, the FRA accident report regu-         The Canadian rule differs from the U.S. blue-
lations are substantially more comprehensive         flag rule as recently amended in a number of
with respect to casualties. They require report-     substantive respects. First, the Canadians re-
ing of all types of accidents involving rail oper-   quire the signal to be mounted on a steel frame
ations, not just derailments and collisions, if      at a height of 5 feet. The frame is attached to the
damage to railroad property is in excess of          track between the switch and the first piece of
$2,300. It also appears that the amount of detail    rolling stock (presumably at both ends of the
required by FRA concerning a reported accident       track if both are open to a switch). The United
or casualty is substantially greater than that re-   States has a variety of requirements as to the
quired in Canada. On the other hand, Canada          location of the blue signal depending on the
requires accidents resulting in damage to a          nature and location of the equipment involved.
bridge, culvert, viaduct, or tunnel or where         Second, the Canadian rule does not distinguish
there is an obstruction on the track causing a       in its requirements between main and other
delay of 24 hours or more, regardless of whether     track, or between manually operated and re-
there is significant damage or casualty. This        motely controlled switches as does the U.S.
presumably is intended to give CTC notice of         rule. Third, the Canadian rule does not contain
conditions that may impair subsequent safe           most of the operational detail and alternative
transportation. Canada is considering a com-         forms of providing protection that are con-
plete revision of its accident-reporting require-    tained in the proposed U.S. rule. For this reason
ments.                                               the Canadian rule is probably one-tenth as long
                                                     as the U.S. rule.4
Operating Rules                                        The remaining special Canadian operating
   CTC established by general order a uniform        rules, which have no similar U.S. Government
code of operating rules for use by all railroads     requirement, are on the following subjects and
subject to its jurisdiction. These are the rules     generally relate to or modify the requirements
that govern the continuing activities of rail        of the Uniform Code: protection of impassable
employees in the conduct of rail operations. The     or slow track, speed limits and operating pro-
current version of these was adopted in 1976. 3      cedures at crossings of one rail line by another
All employees involved in rail operations must       at grades and drawbridges, speed of trains at
initially pass a written examination adminis-        highway-level crossings, flagging equipment on
tered by the railroads and, every 3 years there-     engines, signals at public crossings, and a p -
after, must pass an oral examination on the          pointment of conductor to protect light engine
operating rules.                                     movements on main track.
   This regulation also sets forth seven addi-          Finally, in a separate order,5 CTC requires the
tional rules that modify or extend earlier rules     testing by the company of the visual acuity, col-
contained in Canada’s Uniform Code. First, it        or perception, and hearing of railway employ-
states the manner and type of blue-signal dis-       ees. The tests are specified in the rule. Periodic
play necessary to meet the requirements of Rule      re-examination is also required. In the United
26 of the Uniform Code. The blue-signal display      States, virtually all aspects of operating rules,
is intended to alert railroad crews that             including the testing of employees, are left to the
employees are working under or between cer-          separate determination of each company.
tain rail equipment and thus that equipment
should not be disturbed. The special Canadian
rules also require locking with special locks for
all switches leading to repair track with the keys
                                                      44 F.R. 2174, Jan. 10, 1979.

  ‘ General Order O-8.                                ‘General Order o-9.
74 q Railroad Safety —U.S.-Canadian Comparison

Safety Appliances and                                          transportation of dangerous commodities i n
Locomotive Inspection                                          piggyback service, adopting the Interstate Com-
                                                               merce Commission (ICC) tariff ‘requirements for
   For the most part the safety appliance regula-              the cargo tank unit. Second, the CTC rules
tions, which establish requirements for certain                cover the design, location, construction, opera-
“appliances” to be used on rail equipment for                  tion, and maintenance of stationary bulk stor-
safety purposes, are virtually identical in                    age facilities for liquefied petroleum gases, flam-
Canada and the United States to the extent they                mable liquids, and anhydrous ammonia; un-
address the same subject. Only three provisions                loading facilities for chlorine tank cars; and
appear in the Canadian orders that do not ap-                  storage of ammonium nitrate and ammonium
pear in the comparable section of the U.S. regu-               nitrate mixed fertilizers. CTC requires the rail-
lation.’ They address safety appliances for                    road to submit the plans and specifications for
“boarding cars” and appliances for locomotives                 each of these for approval. The U.S. Depart-
of special construction. The United States, on                 ment of Transportation does not have similar
the other hand, has provisions for safety appli-               specifications for such facilities. Canada also
ances not covered by Canadian rules. They per-                 regulates design, location, construction, and
tain to certain kinds of unidirectional passenger              operation of gas fuel systems c n railway cars.
cars, box and other house cars with high roofs,                The United States does not.
self-propelled track motorcars, road locomo-
tives with corner stairways, and locomotives                   Rail/Highway Crossings
used in switching.
                                                                  CTC has regulations governing four aspects
   Canadian and U.S. requirements for locomo-                  of rail/highway crossings—grade crossings, 9
tives, including their inspection, appear to be                grade separations, 10 protective devices, 11 and re-
similar in that they address the same areas.                   quirements for financial accounting for grade-
However, design specifications, for example,                   crossing projects. In the United States, these
cab interiors, which do not seem to receive                    subjects are not covered even in part by Federal
treatment in Canada, do receive detailed treat-                regulation, but rather are administered by the
ment by the United States. In some instances                   States using Federal funds. CTC approves the
many of the U.S. and Canadian regulations for                  plans of a railway line before it is constructed as
identical subjects may be similar but the United               well as those of any modification to the line.
States, by comparison, regulates in far greater                Thus, review of the plans of all aspects of
detail than does Canada’ (compare U.S. re-                     rail/highway crossings is consistent with this
quirements for multiple-operated electric units                regulatory scheme.
in 49 CFR 230 D with Canadian requirements in                      In seeking approval for new grade crossings,
General Order 0-21 adopted in 1970 for inspec-                 the crossing party must submit a detailed appli-
tion and maintenance for motive power equip-                   cation to CTC. CTC regulations establish spe-
                                                               cific requirements for the incline of approach of
                                                               the highway, length and width of crossing sur-
Dangerous Commodities
                                                               face, fencing, and signboards. The party con-
   Dangerous commodities regulations of CTC                    structing the crossing must pay the cost of con-
are substantially similar to the U.S. regula-                  struction and maintenance unless it has senior
tions. 8 However, Canadian dangerous com-                      title to the property.
modities regulations cover some areas that are                   Canadian grade-separation regulations
not subject to Federal regulation in the United                (which have not been revised to account for the
States. First, CTC established rules governing                 changes made by the 1974 Railway Relocation
  ’49 CFR   231.                                                ‘General Order E-4.
  ‘Compare 49 CFR 230D with General Order 0-21 re~ardin~ in-    l~Genera] Order E-5.
spection and maintenance of motive power equipment.             1‘General Order E-6.
  ‘General Order O-29 thru O-36.                                IZGenera] Order E-7 thru E-9.
                                                                    Ch. VI Government Programs     q   75

and Crossing Act concerning financial assist-       Summary
ance) also require submission of detailed plans
                                                       In the long established areas of railroad safety
and specifications to CTC for approval. The ap-
                                                    regulation, such as those for safety appliances
plicant must also submit certain financial data
                                                    and locomotives, there appears to be little sig-
when funds are requested. The regulations out-
                                                    nificant difference between the requirements of
line cost-sharing formulas of the Government,
                                                    the two countries, although U.S. regulations, in
the highway authority, and the railroads for
                                                    some respects are considerably more detailed. In
each project and for its future maintenance.
                                                    matters dealing with the fixed plant of the rail-
Allocations vary depending on the type and size
                                                    roads, the approach is quite different. Canada
of the project.
                                                    requires review and approval of initial plans
   Protective device regulations are essentiall y   and specifications and of subsequent modifica-
design and installation specifications for par-     tions. It also establishes many design require-
ticular types of grade-crossing warning devices.    ments. However, it does not establish mainte-
They are guidelines for the railroads to follow     nance standards or minimum inspection re-
when they install and maintain protective de-       quirements. The United States, on the other
vices at crossings. The regulations concerning      hand, prescribes maintenance and inspection
treatment of accounts in joint rail/highway         practices but does not require pre-installation
crossing projects are used in those projects        review.
undertaken pursuant to CTC order. They pro-            The United States and Canada also take an
vide detailed treatment of the subject matter,
                                                    entirely different approach to operating rules.
such as rental rates of 254 different types of
                                                    The United States has traditionally left oper-
                                                    ating rules to the railroads’ discretion. The
                                                    Association of American Railroads has pro-
Signals and Related Systems                         duced a set of operating rules as a guide to their
   CTC retains complete control over all aspects    members. However, in recent years the United
of the design, construction, location, and use of   States has begun to consider piecemeal adoption
interlocking and signal systems. 13 Plans for the   of a Federal operating rule on certain matters
construction and modification of such systems       believed to need nationwide uniformity. An ex-
must be submitted to CTC for review and ap-         ample is the blue-flag rule. Canada, on the other
proval. The regulations establish detailed re-      hand, owing probably to the fact that there are
quirements for these systems and provide, in ef-    only two major carriers, has established a Fed-
fect, for uniformity of such systems on all rail-   eral Code of Uniform Operating Rules. These
roads subject to the jurisdiction of CTC. How-      rules appear to generally follow a relatively sim-
ever, the regulations do not establish require-     ple format and style similar to that used by
ments for inspection, maintenance, or repair of     many U.S. carriers. This simplicity contrasts
these systems. In the United States, a different    greatly with the comparatively detailed and
approach is used. Plans and specifications for      lengthy style used by FRA in the few rules it has
new systems are not approved although any ap-       established. 14
plicable requirements for systems once installed
                                                       While much of the focus of U.S. regulatory
must be observed. Discontinuance or modifica-
                                                    activity in the past 7 years has been on track and
tion of the signal system requires FRA approval.
                                                    freight car standards, Canada does not have any
In addition, the carrier must observe certain
                                                    rules in those areas. Moreover, it has not
periodic inspection requirements and report sig-
                                                    adopted any regulations concerning hours of
nal failures and accidents resulting therefrom.
                                                    service despite a statute specifically authorizing
The U.S. requirements appear to be at least as
                                                    it to do so. This subject is left to collective bar-
detailed as those in Canada, if not more so.
                                                    gaining between labor and management. On the
                                                    other hand, Canada has been very active in de-

 ) ‘General Order E-12 and E-13.                     “4Q CFR 218,
76 . Railroad Safety —- U.S.-Canadian Comparison

signing new programs for rail/highway cross-            Thus, RTC’s organizational structure by com-
ings, whereas in the United States this has essen-   bining inspections with other activities reflects
tially been left to the States with matching-share   the philosophy that railway safety is an integral
Federal funding, with the addition of some fed-      part of all aspects of rail service delivery. None-
erally funded studies and demonstration proj-        theless, safety is considered an essential aspect
ects.                                                of rail service delivery and specific attention is
                                                     paid to it in the particular inspection programs,
   Finally, the Canadians use a somewhat differ-     listed above, that are carried O Ut by the Railway
ent approach for reporting accidents. They do        Services Branch. The Branch itself is organized
not report yard accidents unless they result in      into two divisions: the Infrastructure and Equip-
injury or death. They also do not collect data on    ment Assessment Division and the Rail Systems
occupational safety and health hazards as dis-       Performance Evaluation Division, both of
tinguished from operational safety. However,         which have some responsibility for safety in-
they do require reports of incidents that cause      spection. The Infrastructure and Equipment As-
train delays or obstructions regardless of           sessment Division is responsible for monitoring
whether any injury or damage is incurred.            compliance with track (including all aspects of
   Overall, Canadian regulations suggest a           the right-of-way), fixed structures, and equip-
closer working relationship between the rail-        ment standards and regulations. The Rail Sys-
roads and CTC than exists between U.S. regula-       tems Performance Evaluation Branch is respon-
tory agencies and the railroads in this country.     sible for monitoring compliance with service,
This is supported by the fact that CTC does not      dangerous commodities, and the Uniform Code
rely on collection of fines as its major enforce-    of Operating Rules.
ment tool. Also the fact that CTC has not               The Rail Services Branch is authorized 2 9
sought to revise its regulations continually to      staff in headquarters to carry out all of its re-
meet changing needs seems to indicate, among         sponsibilities; these persons are divided approx-
other things, that it is not relying heavily on a    imately equally between the two Divisions. The
regulatory structure to accomplish its safety ob-    Branch believes that almost all of the activities
jectives.                                            of the Infrastructure and Equipment Assessment
                                                     Division and about half of the Rail Systems Per-
                                                     formance Evaluation Division activities are di-
                 Inspections                         rectly linked to railroad safety. In addition to
                                                     the headquarters activities associated with safe-
   The Government safety inspection programs         ty, RTC has field offices in six different loca-
are carried out by the Rail Services Branch of       tions throughout Canada .15 The field offices
RTC. The safety inspection programs imple-           work in the general areas of accident investiga-
mented and planned by the Branch include             tions, quality control inspection programs, ap-
track, car, locomotive, operations, dangerous        plications processing (for example, applications
commodities, fire prevention, stationary me-         for abandonments), and investigation of com-
chanical equipment, structures (including high-      plaints. In a field force of 84, approximately 59
way grade crossings), and signals. In addition,      persons spend some time on safety-related in-
the Rail Services Branch has responsibilities that   spections. CTC estimates that about 35 percent
are not directly associated with railroad safety.    of the professional person-hours available in the
These responsibilities include such diverse areas    field are spent on safety matters. Although the
as monitoring the rehabilitation of grain-haul-      headquarters Rail Services Branch does not
ing branchlines, administering the branchlike        have direct authority over the regions, it es-
abandonment program (including the capital ex-       tablishes the programs of work and the stand-
penditure fund for lines eligible for subsidies in   ards of performance for the field safety inspec-
connection with abandonment), evaluating             tions.
passenger service, and monitoring station retire:      ‘lsMonOtOn, MOntrea], Toron”to, Winnipeg Ca]gary, and Van-
ment and agency centralization activity.             couver.
                                                                           Ch. VI Government Programs • 7 7

  The top management of CTC views the in-                     nance than they might have otherwise re-
spection priorities as follows:                               ceived. The Rail Services Branch, however,
                                                              acknowledges that it has no absolute meas-
  q   accident investigation,
                                                              ures of effectiveness for the inspection pro-
  q   grade-crossings inspection (including an in-            grams, although such indices are currently
     formal supplement to ongoing programs
                                                              being developed. ”
     administered by the Rail Services Branch),
     and                                                   The Rail Services Branch believes that the ef-
  q safety inspection programs administered by          fectiveness of an inspection effort that is based
     the Rail Services Branch (of which car             on the concept of periodic monitoring must be
     equipment inspection has received highest          based also on the credibility of the inspections
     priority).                                         with the railroads—both with management and
                                                        with the individual supervisor or employee at
These priorities were arrived at by an informal
                                                        the working level. The Rail Services Branch has,
consensus process as well as by management de-
                                                        therefore, followed a policy of hiring personnel
cisions made as a result of top management’s
                                                        who have had considerable experience in the
perception of the existing problems. Some feel-
                                                        railroad industry itself and who have achieved a
ing was expressed by top management that the
                                                        certain stature within the organization of the
Rail Services Branch should give greater priority
                                                        railroad. Thus, it is not uncommon for RTC in-
to the track inspection and operations (human
                                                        spectors to be people who have reached the
error) problems. At this time, CTC acknowl-
                                                        assistant superintendent level after 10 years with
edges that the Rail Services Branch has been
                                                        the railroad. In the opinion of the Rail Services
unable to match the priorities of the inspection
                                                        Branch, however, such a policy is increasingly
program against accident data, because of in-
                                                        difficult to implement given the hiring con-
adequacies in the data collection system. With          straints placed on RTC and the railroads’ ability
regard to the bulk of the safety inspection pro-
                                                        to compete successfully with the Government in
grams, the Rail Services Branch recognizes that
                                                        terms of benefits.
with limited personnel it cannot inspect 100 per-
cent of the railroad’s plant and operations. It           CTC attempts to make the inspection efforts
sees the Government’s role in the inspection pro-       both systematic and representative. However,
gram as monitoring what the railroads are               the individual inspectors are given latitude in
themselves doing. In this monitoring, Govern-           devising their own inspection strategy. A de-
ment inspectors note conditions and defects that        scription of the major inspection activities
require correction and, in this way, the Rail           directly related to safety follows.
Services Branch sees its activities as directly
related to the prevention of and the reduction of       Track Inspection
accidents. In addition, from its perspective the
Rail Services Branch believes that there may be            The goal of the track inspection program is to
two other principal benefits stemming from the          monitor, evaluate, and regulate the quality of
inspection activity. These are:                         track and right-of-way .17 Since there are no
                                                        Government-mandated track standards, RTC
      The fact that Government is concerned
                                                        inspectors check against the railroads’ own
      about railroad safety and is monitoring the       standards, which approximate the American
      railroads’ safety performance by means of
      inspection in itself tends to raise the general      16The Bureau ~lf Management Consulting is conducting a study
      level of compliance.                              to devel{~p measures of effectiveness for the inspection program as
      The fact that Government is concerned             a whole. In the Rail Services Branch, Activity Resource Allocation
                                                        forms, which describe specific program components of the
      about railroad safety and is monitoring the       Branch’s work, set forth “criteria to asses effectiveness and effi-
      railroads safety performance by means of          ciency. ” These criteria do not measure the degree of impact of any
      inspection helps the various operating            given program, but rather indicate what areas should be affected if
                                                        the program is having an impact.
      levels in the railroads’ own organizations           17CTC Activity Resource Association, “Track and Right-of-Way
      justify and receive more funds for mainte-        Quality Control.”
7g q Railroad S a f e t y — U . S . - C a n a d i a n C o m p a r i s o n

Railway Engineering Association (AREA) rec-                                    Photographing of Mainlines: Based on a pilot
ommended standards and which RTC represent-                                 study, the Rail Services Branch has proposed to
atives feel are adequate. At the present time,                              photograph the mainlines at prescribed intervals
track inspection is conducted generally in the                              (of approximately 300 feet). The photographs
course of other engineering inspection duties,                              would be made by a camera mounted on a high
such as inspecting drainage, fencing, or crossing                           rail car. The camera would take a picture with a
problems, However, the Rail Services Branch                                 wide area of vision (two frames sideways would
stated that it tries to make the inspections as sys-                        constitute one picture) and would code the sec-
tematic as possible.                                                        tion of the track photographed. RTC believes
                                                                            that a photographic record of the track would
  Recently RTC began two additional efforts
                                                                            aid in accident investigation as well as in head-
that can serve as tools of the inspection pro-
                                                                            quarter’s analysis of any particularly difficult
gram. A description of each undertaking fol-
                                                                            inspection issue that might arise. RTC proposes
                                                                            to update the photographic library whenever a
  Comprehensive Track Inspection Effort: RTC                                major change in the configuration of the track
assigned an engineer with substantial railroad                              might occur (e.g., installation of a new grade
experience to inspect the entire mainlines of                               crossing). 19
both CN and CP. The inspector went over both
systems in a high rail car (stopping along the                              Car Inspection
way to make spot checks), passenger train, and
freight train. In addition, RTC obtained infor-                                The goal of the car inspection program is to
mation from the railroads about the type of rails                           monitor, evaluate, and regulate the quality of
and ties installed during the past 5 years, the                             railroad cars. CTC gives this program highest
ballasting and surfacing programs undertaken,                               priority of all inspection activities. As in the
the number of inspectors and track forces (mo-                              track inspections, the principal activities are to:
bile and fixed) assigned, and the tonnage moved                             develop and update information concerning the
over various subdivisions. RTC also gathered                                condition of railroad cars in Canada by a sys-
information on the branchlines and conducted                                tematic cyclical inspection program; to effect
some inspections but it did not conduct a com-                              improvements in related railroad maintenance
plete field inspection.                                                     practices where deficiencies are identified; and
                                                                            to investigate complaints and ensure that neces-
   From the analysis of information obtained
                                                                            sary remedial action is taken ,20
from all these activities, the Rail Services
Branch’s opinion was that, in general, the main-                               The inspection program is based on a risk fac-
lines of both railroads are in good condition.                              tor analysis developed by RTC. In this context,
However, the branchlines are not in as good                                 the term “risk” is defined as “expected severity
condition as they were in the early 1950’s when                             within the system .”21 The concept combines
short section forces were responsible for man-                              probability of defect occurrence with the poten-
ually inspecting and maintaining the road.                                  tial severity of occurrence. RTC developed the
Nonetheless, the Rail Services Branch’s opinion                             risk factor by rating 125 typical defects on a
indicated that the branchlines are not in an un-                            severity scale of 1 to 20. The defects were rated
safe condition. Representatives of the Rail Serv-                           in terms of potential for personal injury and
ices Branch indicated their belief that the condi-                          property damage. The ranking was performed
tion of the lines represented policy decisions by                           by various people knowledgeable in railroad
the railroads to place primary emphasis on the
                                                                               l*The Rai] Services Branch representatives indicated that the
                                                                            Canadian highway department has made a I imilar photographic
                                                                            record of highways; however, the purpose or the record was not
                                                                            safety inspection, but rather to judge efficacy of signing.
   l~on ~i5cu55i{)n5 with CTC representatives, there seemed to be             z~CTC Activity Resource Allocation, “car (~uality Control. ”
some difference of opinion as to the condition of the track. Some              “’’Analysis of Defect Severity and Risk for Railway Car Equip-
high-ranking members of CTC believe that the track may not be in            merit, ” working paper completed for RTC, project no. 3-1265,
as good condition as the inspection reports might indicate.                 August 1977 (draft), p. 1.
                                                                          Ch.   VI Government Programs                q   79

operations. The severity number finally as-          to investigate  complaints and ensure that
signed to each defect resulted from averaging        necessary remedial action is taken .22
the severity numbers assigned to it in the cate-
                                                        The motive power inspection program is car-
gories of personal injury and property damage.
                                                     ried out in a similar way to the car inspection
  When an inspection is carried out and a defect     program. Inspectors check a sample of motive
is discovered, the inspector enters the defect       power units at various points in service, such as
code on their inspection report. The information     in the receiving yards, and the leaving yards.
is computerized. By the time that the end of a       RTC is developing a risk factor for motive
quarter is reached, a “scientific random sam-        power units that will be similar in concept to
pling” of cars has been made. RTC is then in a       that developed for cars.
position to describe what the condition of the
fleet is, based on the established measures. The     Dangerous Commodities Inspection
inspectors examined a total of 11,000 cars in a
representative quarter; however, the risk factor        The goals of the dangerous commodities in-
for that quarter does not mean anything in iso-      spection program are twofold: to ensure the safe
lation. RTC believes that the significance of the    storage, handling, and transportation of dan-
risk factor lies in the comparisons that it will     gerous commodities on the railroad system in
enable RTC to make over different time periods.      Canada; and to monitor, evaluate, observe, and
The risk factor inspection of car equipment is a     regulate railroad and shipper compliance with
new program of RTC.                                  CTC regulations for the transportation, storage,
                                                     and handling of dangerous commodities. The
   RTC inspectors are instructed to inspect cars     major activities of personnel in this program are
at the large centers through which cars pass, and    the systematic inspection of various railroad fa-
at points where there might be captive cars (cars    cilities, the ongoing inspection of shipper and
that run only between certain points and do not      carrier facilities, and the conduct of training ses-
go through one of the large interchange centers).    sions to ensure understanding of the regula-
Inspectors are also to inspect cars in receiving     tions. 23 The inspectors look primarily at the
yards, on repair tracks, and in leaving yards. In-   adequacy of the storage and handling of the
spectors inspect one side of a train only and        dangerous commodities being shipped .2’
check the brakes on every 10 cars that they in-
spect. They are assisted in making their inspec-        RTC has one full-time dangerous commod-
tion reports by recording equipment, from            ities officer in Vancouver. Otherwise, the dan-
which they transcribe their findings onto a          gerous commodities inspections are conducted
standardized form. The forms are in triplicate:      by the car inspectors, the transportation offi-
one copy for the railroad supervisor, one filed      cers, and the operations inspectors. CTC esti-
with headquarters, and one retained by the in-       mates that any given inspector can inspect from
spector. The Rail Services Branch estimates that     40 to 80 tank cars a day. The inspector must
between 30,000 and 40,000 units are inspected        break the seal on each car, check empty cars,
annually.                                            and verify that the Hazardous Information
                                                     Emergency Response form (HIER), giving infor-
Motive Power Inspection                              mation about action to take in the event of an
                                                     accident, is present for shipments of dangerous
   The goal of the motive power inspection pro-      commodities.
gram is to monitor, evaluate, and regulate the
quality of motive power units. As in the car and
track programs, the principal activities are: to
                                                       ‘2CTC Activity Resource Allocation, “Motive Power Qualit
develop and update information concerning the        Control. ”

condition of railroad motive power units by a           “CTC Activity Resource Allocation, “Dangerous Commodities
systematic cyclical inspection program, to effect    Regulations Compliance”.
                                                        ‘“The Canadian Government’s Bureau of Expl(~sive\ has resp(~n -
improvements in related railroad maintenance         sibi lit ~ to protect carriers from committing infractions but is not a
practices where deficiencies are identified, and     regulatory agency.
80   q   Railroad Safety —U.S.-Canadian Comparison

   Every 30 days, the inspectors concentrate on                        servance of the operating rules generally—both
 a specific dangerous commodity activity, pay-                         by labor and by management.
ing particular attention to what defects are pres-
                                                                          When an employee has violated an operating
ent in the aggregate, RTC uses this information
                                                                       rule, the RTC inspector reports the violation to
to determine whether trends might be develop-
                                                                       the employee. Depending on the nature of the
ing. Inspectors are authorized to stop a train if a
                                                                       violation, it may be reported also to the rail-
specific defect found during the course of any in-
                                                                       road. However, representatives of the Rail Serv-
spection is sufficiently serious, in the judgment
                                                                       ices Branch stated that the violations do not
of the inspector.
                                                                       usually warrant discipline by the railroad. In-
   In addition to the inspection activities, R T C                     stead, the violations are usually of such a type
staff hold regional seminars to develop aware-                         that they relate to the system of operations.
ness among both RTC staff and railroad em-
ployees about the requirements for handling                            Other Inspection Programs
dangerous commodities. These seminars are ori-
                                                                          Other RTC inspection programs are designed
ented to the practicalities of handling commod-
                                                                       to ensure that measures taken by the railroads
ities—i.e., setting up trains, re-railing cars,
                                                                       are adequate to prevent, detect, and suppress
handling leakage, and the like—as well as to the
                                                                       fires on and near the railroad right-of-way; to
overall requirements and enforcement policies
                                                                       monitor, evaluate, and regulate the quality of
of RTC. RTC is also beginning to conduct sem-
                                                                       railroad stationary mechanical equipment; to
inars for the shippers of dangerous com-
                                                                       monitor, evaluate, and regulate the quality of
modities. Dangerous commodities are discussed
                                                                       maintenance of railroad structures; to ensure
in greater detail in the following section.
                                                                       that the protection, safety, and convenience of
                                                                       the public is provided for by an adequate level
Operations Inspection                                                  of maintenance of highway/railroad crossings
   The goal of the operations inspection pro-                          and ancillary installations; 27 and, to monitor,
gram is to monitor, evaluate, and regulate the                         evaluate, and regulate the quality of railroad
quality of railroad operations of trains on main-                      signal installations.
line and yard operations. The operations inspec-
                                                                          The inspection programs for stationary me-
tors systematically monitor railroad operating
                                                                       chanical equipment, railroad structures, high-
procedures to determine the quality of railroad
                                                                       way grade crossings, and signal installations are
operations as they relate to safety and, in par-
                                                                       based primarily on a systematic approach to in-
ticular, to the Government-mandated Uniform
                                                                       spection and secondarily on response to com-
Code of Operating Rules and other related in-
                                                                       plaints. However, the fire prevention inspection
structions and regulations .25
                                                                       program, is directed by a greater responsiveness
   All written complaints by operating crews                           to incidence of complaints. The five inspection
concerning operating conditions are inves-                             programs mentioned here are similar to each
tigated. Two inspectors, one in headquarters                           other and the others discussed above in that
and one in Calgary, concern themselves almost                          they operate from a regional base. Taken to-
exclusively with operating practices, including                        gether, these five programs are intended to pro-
in-cab observation of engineers. Inspectors in                         vide assurance that the rail operating environ-
each of the regions conduct operations inspec-                         ment does not in itself pose hazards.
tions in addition to their other responsibilities.
The two inspectors who are concerned almost
exclusively with operations inspection devote
most of their time to engine handling. Other op-                          z~CTC Activity Resource Allocation, “F re prevention, Sta-
erations inspectors are concerned with the ob-                         tionary Mechanical Equipment Quality Cent-ol, Structures Qual-
                                                                       ity Control, Signal Quality Control, Crossinl; Safety, and Protec-
                                                                       tion Evaluation. ”
  Z5CTC   Activity ReSC}Urce Allocation,   “Train Operations Quality      Zzsee a subsequent section of this chapter fc r a ful] discussion of
Control. ”                                                             the highway grade-crossing program.
                                                                                                      Ch. VI Government Programs                    q   81

   A detailed quality control program is being                               frequent, presented the potential for major
developed for signal and crossing inspections. 28                            catastrophes. Available data for the years
This program will entail compiling an inventory                              1970-73, showed 2 fatalities and 34 injuries
of signal equipment by subdivision and inspect-                              resulting from accidents involving dangerous
ing crossing warning devices and various signal                              commodities. Table 47 provides the information
systems in a comprehensive way. This effort is                               of the Bureau.
planned to take place in cooperation with the
railroads. However, staff limitations have im-                               Dangerous Commodities Safety
peded the implementation of a planned struc-                                 Responses
tures comprehensive review similar in concept
                                                                               Transportation of dangerous commodities
to the signal and crossing review.29 RTC is cur-
                                                                             comes under the jurisdiction of the Federal Gov-
rently reviewing the procedures and effective-
                                                                             ernment. Canada’s Railway Act specifies that:
ness of the fire prevention inspection programs.
In the view of the Rail Services Branch, a meet-                                 • No passenger shall carry, except in con-
ing arranged by RTC between railroad officials                                     formity with a CTC order, gunpowder,
and forestry representatives in British Columbia                                   dynamite, nitroglycerine, or any other
and Ontario resulted in greater cooperation and                                    goods of a dangerous or explosive nature.
fewer railroad-associated fires .30                                              . Every person sending dangerous commod-
                                                                                   ities shall indicate the nature of the ship-
                                                                                   ment on the outside of the package and give
             Dangerous Commodities                                                 written notice of the commodity to the em-
                                                                                   ployee of the company receiving the goods.
   The Railway Transport Committee, in its ini-                                  • The railway shall not carry goods of an ex-
tial report of the railway safety inquiry, noted a                                 plosive or dangerous nature except in con-
“factor of grave concern was the rapidly in-                                       formity with CTC regulations. s’
creasing involvement in railroad accidents of
cars carrying a wide variety of dangerous com-                               Dangerous Commodities Task Force
modities whose cargo, if accidentally released,
could pose a serious hazard not only to railroad                               During the general inquiry, RTC explored
employees but also to the lives and property of                              problems associated with the shipment of dan-
the public. ”31 During the inquiry, derailments                              gerous commodities. It examined, for example,
occurred involving dangerous commodities that                                whether new railroad technology was increasing
increased the inquiry panel’s interest in that type                          the hazards; whether railroad practices and
of accident .32 The inquiry panel concluded that                             rules for dangerous commodities were adequate
shipment of dangerous commodities confronted                                 to meet the increased hazards; and whether ex-
Canada’s regulatory authority with a new di-
mension in destructiveness and danger of life                                          Table 47.—Canadian Incidents Involving
and limb. 33                                                                                  Dangerous Commodities

  In 1974, the Bureau of Management Consult-                                                                    Total incidents for   Average number of
                                                                             Type of commodity                       1970-73          incidents per year
ing (BMC) concluded that very little data was
                                                                             Flammable            solids. ., ., 14                           3.5
available on incidents involving dangerous                                   Flammable      liquids     .   .      .    53                  13,25
commodities. BMC contended that dangerous                                    Oxidizing     organic.       .      .      22                   5.5
commodities incidents, although relatively in-                               Poison ... ., . . . . ., 18                                     4.5
                                                                             Corrosive . . . . . . . . 27                                    6.75
  Z~Raj ] Servjces Branch, “Status of Program s,”    June 30, 1978, PP.      Explosive           ...        ...           0                  0.0
                                                                             Radioactive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2                    0.5
  ‘91 bid., p. 7.                                                            Compound gas . . . . . . . 8                                    2.0
  ‘“Ibid., p. 15.                                                              Total. ... ... ., ., . . . .            144                  36,0
  ~l~nitia~ ~eport of t h e R a i l w a y Safety Inquiry ( C a n a d i a n
Transport Commission, 1972) p. 1.                                            SOURCE Slat! stlcal Analysls 1956-73 p 75
     1 bid., p. 1.
     1 bid., p. 19,                                                             JdRai]Way Act, Ch. ‘-2.
 82 . Railroad Safety U.S.-Canadian Comparison

isting rules were being properly applied and                          Dangerous Commodity Program
monitored. RTC felt these issues about the ade-                       Implementation
quacy of the research effort were not satisfac-                          CTC specifications for the design and/or per-
torily answered during its inquiry .35 RTC there-                     formance of tank cars are similar to those issued
fore proposed that CTC create a task force to                         by the U.S. Department of Transportation
examine rail transportation of dangerous com-                         (DOT). The most recent DOT tank car stand-
modities. In 1971, CTC created a task force with                      ards have been adopted by CTC almost com-
representatives from CP, CN, and the Canadian                        pletely. However, the compliance schedule dif-
Railway Labour Association. This group was to                        fers.
review the hazards associated with the transpor-
tation of dangerous commodities by rail. T h e                          The present plan for the assurance of safety of
task force was to recommend measures to en-                          the tank cars does not provide for retrofitting.
sure the highest level of safety compatible with                     Nor does CTC have the authority to require ret-
the economy of operation and expeditious                             rofitting. RTC officials note, however, that
movement of goods. The task force had avail-                         many of the tank car manufacturers are cooper-
able to it some of the best expertise in industry                    ating without regulation.
(chemical, gas and oil industries, and tank car
lessors); other Government agencies (such as                                          Highway Crossings
those dealing with the military, atomic energy,
explosives, and natural hazards); other carriers                        There are about 34,210 public highway/
(such as motor vehicle, aviation, and water);                        railroad crossings in Canada. Approximately 8
certain shippers of dangerous commodities; and                       percent of the public crossings are grade sepa-
health, firer environmental, and safety special-                     rated; 21 percent have some form of automatic
ists.                                                                protection, such as flashing lights or automatic
                                                                     gates; and the remaining have crossing signs .37
Reporting Requirements
                                                                        Between 1956 and 1973, the average number
   Canadian regulations require certain reports                      of crossing accidents was 1,156, There were on
whenever trains, engines, cars, or other rolling                     the average, 160 fatalities and 618 injuries an-
stock are involved in an accident that results in                    nually. Crossing accidents are the largest cause
the release of a pollutant or a dangerous com-                       of railroad-related fatalities. 38 The Rail Systems
modity. 36                                                           Development Branch of RTC roted in a 1 9 7 8
   In addition, RTC requires that each danger-                       report that:
ous commodity shipment be accompanied by a                                 At the crossings that are not grade separated
HIER form, which is completed by the shipper                            there is an inherent danger to road and rail users
of explosives or other dangerous commodities.                           of colliding with each other at the crossing; how-
The form, included in appendix C, contains the                          ever, the extent of hazard is a site-specific condi-
following information.                                                  tion and depends on the features of the crossing;
                                                                        one is more or less hazardous than another be-
   q   designation of the commodity/explosive,                          cause the features of all crossing differ. For ex-
   q   commodity/explosive classification (e. g.,                       ample, over the period 1970-75 there have been
       flammable compressed gas),                                       no accidents at 90.6 percent of all crossings, one
   q   potential hazards (fire, explosion, and                          accident at 7 percent of all crossings, two ac-
       health), and                                                     cidents at 1.5 percent of all crossings, three acci-
   q   immediate action information (general,                           dents at 0.5 percent of all crossings, four acci-
       fire, spill or leak, first aid, and emergency                    dents at 0.2 percent of all crossings, five ac-
       phone).                                                          cidents at 0.1 percent of all crossings; none had
                                                                        more than six accidents. 39
                                                                       ‘ Raiklay Safety Stzidy, op. cit., 1974,

   ‘5 Raih(w.v SUfety Study (Bureau of Management Consulting)          ‘“Ibid.
   lbRevisicln and Consc}]idation of General Orders, General Order
                                                                       “Rail Systems Dezwlopn?e~lt Brauch Report (Railwa y Transport
0-1.                                                                 Committee, 1978).
                                                                         Ch. VI Government Programs         q   83

RTC representatives note a steady decrease in            Under the Railway Relocation and Crossing
the number of crossing collisions over the past 5      Act, up to 80 percent of the project installation
years. Automobile mileage has increased.               cost can be funded by the Federal Government.
                                                       The remaining 20 percent of the installation cost
   The objectives of CTC regarding crossing
                                                       is divided between the road authorities and the
safety are to: 1) establish the characteristics of a
                                                       railroads. The Act does not provide for Federal
crossing in accordance with the regulations and
                                                       funding of the maintenance of the protection.
standards developed by the Commission for the
                                                       Usually 50 percent of the maintenance cost is
safety of the users of the crossing; 2) authorize
                                                       borne by the road authority and 50 percent by
or encourage road authorities or railroad com-
                                                       the railroad.
panies to carry out works improving physical
features or to install warning devices with or
                                                       Program Implementation
without grants in order to reduce hazard to the
users of the crossing. 40                                Past Evaluation of CTC Program                Effective-
                                                       ness. One of the most comprehensive            reviews of
Legislative History                                    CTC’s grade-crossing program was               conducted
                                                       by BMC in 1974. The Bureau found               relative to
   The Canadian Government first addressed
                                                       highway crossings that:42
the highway-crossing problem in 1909 with
amendments to the Railway Act. These amend-              q   RTC has not initiated much of the activity
ments established the railway grade-crossing                 in bringing about crossing safety, but rath-
fund. The prior 1888 Railway Act led to interest             er is in a reactive posture. Over 90 percent
in the crossing problem by raising the general               of the projects originate from art external
level of consciousness of the public and the rail-           application or complaint. RTC places reli-
road industry on the issue of crossing safety.               ance almost entirely on the railroads and
Following that 1888 Act were the beginning in-               the highway authorities to identify those
stallations of passive protections, such as cross-           crossings that present the greatest hazard.
bucks and signs. Legislative provisions are dis-         q   Since there is a shared funding responsibili-
cussed in chapter 111. The following summary                 ty for the installation of crossing protection
includes the basic provisions of the 1909 amend-             and since the responsibility for the mainte-
ments, the 1958 Act, and the 1974 Railway Re-                nance of automatic devices is with the rail-
location and Crossing Act. The basic provisions              roads and the highway authorities, RTC
in chapter R-2 of the Act are as follows : 41                initiatives in reducing risks at hazardous
                                                             crossings are sometimes difficult to
  q Railroads shall submit to CTC a plan and
     profile showing the portion of the railroad         q   Insufficient attempts are made to establish
     and highway to be affected by proposed
                                                             priorities based on risk in decisions to ap-
     rail construction. CTC may withhold ap-
                                                             prove a grant.
     proval of an application pending adequate           q   The criteria for fund dispersals did not ap-
     railroad steps to ensure the safety.
                                                             pear to include an analysis of the relation-
  q Where a railroad is already constructed,
                                                             ship between the crossing problem and the
     CTC may on its own motion or upon com-
                                                             most cost-effective protection.
    plaint, order the railroad to provide addi-
     tional safety at a crossing.
                                                                 PRESENT PROGRAM STRATEGY
  q A railway grade-crossing fund exists to aid

     construction work for the protection, safe-         Survey and Data Collection: Data on approx-
     ty, and convenience of the public at cross-       imately 30 typical attributes of grade crossings
     ings. Amounts from the fund are available         have been collected for a number of crossings
     only to crossings 3 years old or older.

  ‘“Interviews with representatives of CTC, 1978.
  JIRai]way Act, ch. R-2.                               41Rajlu)ay Safety Study,   Op. Cik. , 1%’4.
84 . Railroad Safety—U.S.-Canadian             Comparison

and placed in a computerized file. The data can                    for crossing improvement work. Funding was
be grouped into the following six categories:                      provided for 399 of those projects, totaling over
   q   location and jurisdiction,
                                                                   $17 million. The projects qualifying for assist-
                                                                   ance included 29 grade separations, 166 installa-
   q accident history,
                                                                   tions of new or improved automatic protection
   q protection at the crossing,
                                                                   devices, and 36 improvements in approach
   q track and train characteristics,
                                                                   and/or visibility at grades .44
   q road and road vehicle characteristics, and

   q   year of last inspection.
                                                                   Present Problems With the
During 1978, RTC conducted onsite surveys of                       Grade-Crossing Program
some 12,000 of the likely most dangerous cross-
ings. Specific attention was paid to: the annual                      According to RTC officials, some problems of
traffic (based on the daily traffic rate), the                     the grade-crossing program identified by BMC
nature of crossing physical characteristics (e.g.,                 in 1974 still exist today. Following is a discus-
description of the sight lines), and the type of ex-               sion of some of the grade-crossing program
isting protective devices. These data supple-                      problems and the present efforts to deal with
mented other information already computer-                         those problems.
ized. Following the survey, CTC officials met
with many of the road authorities with jurisdic-                        RTC uses inadequate methodology to set
tion over surveyed grade crossings. The purpose                      correction priorities by degree of hazard, or
of those meetings was to come to some agree-                         to determine the most cost-effective method
ment on the most cost-effective approach to                          of reducing existing hazards.
dealing with the problems on a crossing-by-                           The Rail Systems Development Branch of
crossing basis.                                                    RTC is attempting to develop an objective eval-
                                                                   uation method to determine the most cost-effec-
Federal Government Funding of                                      tive crossing improvements. A statistical anal-
Crossing Projects                                                  ysis of crossing accident data, including phys-
                                                                   ical and warning characteristics of the crossings,
   The Canadian Federal Government provides
                                                                   is being developed. The resulting mathematical
financial assistance for crossing improvement
under the authority of the Railway Relocation                      model, called a hazard index, would represent
and Crossing Act. Each application is reviewed                     in the aggregate, the average number of acci-
against criteria developed by RTC. The criteria                    dents that a typical crossing with a given set of
are based on protection, safety, and conven-                       charactistics could be expected to have. The
ience to the public.                                               next step in the analysis will be to determine
                                                                   what the effect of altering certain characteristics
   Six months is usually required between the                      will be on the number of accidents. The method-
time of receipt of a crossing improvement assist-                  ology is expected to provide a means for: 1)
ance application and a grant approval. Another                     ranking crossings by hazard, and 2) determining
3 years is generally needed for funds disburse-                    the relative effectiveness of one type of improve-
ment and project implementation .43 A large ma-                    ment over another.
jority of the projects begin with an application
from a local jurisdiction or a complaint. For                         While the research is being conducted, RTC is
those applications under serious consideration,                    funding projects based on a subjective evalua-
RTC sends an engineer to make an onsite in-                        tion of the physical characteristics of a crossing,
                                                                   and the road and rail traffic.
spection to validate or alter the proposal, as
necessary, from the jurisdiction applying for the
grant. In 1977, 1,519 applications were received

  aJReview Committee of Railway Transport Committee, Sept.
22-23, 1975, Bureau of Management Consulting presentation, slide
6-12, CXtawa.                                                        ddReport of the Canadian Transport COmIT ission, 1977.
                                                                  Ch. VI Government Programs      q   85

     Intermediate protection devices (between       crossings are not under the jurisdiction of the
  passive protection and automatic devices)         Federal Government, hence the public is not
  are currently ineligible for funding.             adequately protected.
   Some argue that no intermediate technology
                                                        The fact that maintenance is not funded
exists; others argue that such technology exists,
                                                      by the Federal Government results in inade-
but is not accepted for funding. RTC is explor-
                                                      quate protection for many of the smaller,
ing options, given the fact that many municipal-
                                                      poorer municipalities.
ities cannot afford the automatic devices and
believe that they do not need such level of pro-       Efforts are underway to amend the law to
tection. The “ditch lights” now being used by       provide some level of Federal support for main-
CP serve as an intermediate option that some        tenance of automatic devices.
argue should be considered. Statistics (which
have yet to be analyzed by RTC) show a reduc-            It is possible that grade crossings will no
tion in accidents at crossings when railroads         longer receive the necessary attention or re-
have been using ditch lights.                         sources because of changes in the allocation
                                                      of funds.
    An increase in the number of illegal (de
                                                       Under the urban transportation assistance
  facto) crossings presents a hazard to the
                                                    program, provinces can use funds formerly au-
  general public.
                                                    thorized solely for grade-crossing protection, to
   Agreements between the railroads and a num-      finance grade separations, equipment, and other
ber of private landowners have produced cross-      highway programs. The railroads fear that
ings that the landowners can use when the rail      broadening the discretion of the provinces will
track crosses their land. Increasingly those        decrease the amount of money spent on grade
crossings are being opened to a larger public       crossings and possibly increase the number of
with the acquiescence of the railroads. These       grade-crossing accidents.

  The Department of Labour (Labour Canada)          industry. In addition to the protections cited
has responsibility for safety of some railroad      above according to Department officials, em-
employees; CTC has responsibility for others.       ployees can refuse to work if the work environ-
Employees under the jurisdiction of Labour in-      ment presents an imminent danger.
clude: employees involved in maintenance-of-
                                                       Labour Canada requires investigation of
way activities, repair shop employees, freight
                                                    every injury if the employee loses 1 or more
handlers, and porters and dining car employees.
                                                    day’s work. In addition, the Occupational Safe-
                                                    ty and Health Division, or its agent, investigates
                                                    all fatal accidents and “significant” disabling ac-
           Protections Provided                     cidents. Accident investigators are used for en-
                                                    couraging compliance and for the training of
   The Department of Labour has issued rules
that protect employees under its jurisdiction.
The rules are applicable to employees, irrespec-       In addition to accident investigation, the
tive of the industry. In other words, the Depart-   Federal Government is involved in inspection.
ment of Labour attempts to provide the same         Representatives of the provincial governments
level safety to railroad employees as it provides   have performed the investigations under con-
to employees of a steel mill. The only Canadian     tract with the Federal Government. However,
industry that has specific standards is the coal    the arrangements with the provincial govern-
86 . Railroad Safety—U.S.-Canadian Comparison

ments did not extend beyond February 1979.             The environmental hazards for railroad em-
After that time the Department of Labour will        ployees have been identified as follows:
conduct its own investigations relying on in-          q the potential for harm to those involved in
formation from local safety committees com-               welding because of the nitrogen dioxide
posed of railroad and union representatives.              fumes,
The sanctions that can be imposed for violations       q the potential for harm from nitrogen diox-
of Department rules can be up to $10,000 or in-           ide to those employees spending long per-
carceration. The Department of Labour also has            iods of time in the tunnels, and
authority to close operations until there has          q noise level in shops.
been compliance with the rules.
                                                     (The Department of Labour is, however, work-
                                                     ing with one of the railway companies to devel-
                                                     op a pilot program of audio-metric examina-
  Problems Associated With Providing                 tions. This project may be a joint rail-
         Occupational Safety                         road/Occupational Safety and Health Division
                                                     noise evaluation system. )
   According to Department of Labour officials,
problems in providing the necessary level of            One other problem relates to the effectiveness
safety to railroad employees are both jurisdic-      of the regulations. The Department is required
tional and substantive. The jurisdictional prob-     to conduct socioeconomic analyses when the
lem arises from the division of responsibility be-   cost of implementing a regulation has the poten-
tween Labour and CTC. The fact that CTC has          tial of exceeding $10 million. The Department
not issued occupational safety rules appears to      has the difficulty of obtaining the resources to
compound the jurisdictional problem.                 conduct meaningful analyses.

   One major initiative of RTC prompted by the         q   Track and Structures Technical Commit-
safety inquiry was the establishment of the                tee,
Railway Safety Advisory Committee in 1973.             q   Crossings and Signals Technical Commit-
That committee is a tripartite committee with              tee, and
representation from the railroads, the unions,
and RTC. Initially the committee was organized
                                                       q   Rolling Stock and Operations Technical
into working groups for addressing such matters            Committee.
as public disclosure of accident information,
track inspection requirements, maintenance of        Each of the technical committees has repre-
signal devices and equipment, detection of rock-     sentation from the railroads, the unions, spe-
falls, and the development of standards for          cialists as required, and RTC staff officers. The
track right-of-way.                                  administrative committee consists of RTC staff
                                                     members only since its responsibility is to
   Since 1973, the committee has established         translate the standards/criteria into orders and
four technical committees and one administra-        regulations. Working groups may be organized
tive committee: The administrative and tech-
                                                     within each technical committee in order to ex-
nical committees that form part of the Safety
                                                     plore specific issues in greater detail.
Advisory Committee are:
  q O r d e r s and Regulations—Administra-             The technical committees operate under the
    tive/Legal Committee,                            principle that although they should attempt to
  q Dangerous Commodities Technical Com-             integrate divergent points of view, they will not
    mit tee,                                         seek consensus.
                                        Chapter Vll

                      RAILROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS

50-171   0   -   79   -   7
                                                                                                                             Chapter Vll
                                                                      RAILROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS


   The management philosophy of both major                                                Individual responsibility for safety into indi-
railroads in Canada, although different in many                                        vidual accountability is done in various ways by
other respects, appears to be characterized to a                                       the two railroads. However, in both case, the
considerable extent by an active concern for                                           significance attached to safety is indicated by
safety. Managements of both railroads perceive                                         the fact that the most senior operating official,
operational safety as directly related to produc-                                      the vice president for operations, is responsible
tivity and efficiency. Thus, in both cases, an ef-                                     to the board of directors for the safety record of
fort has been made to extend a concern for safe-                                       the railroad. The Canadian Pacific (CP) requires
ty throughout the organizations. Each railroad                                         the vice president for operations to report to its
places emphasis on supervisor accountability                                           board of directors specifically on the subject of
for safety as well as on conveying to the individ-                                     safety four times every year. The Canadian Na-
ual employees that they have a responsibility                                          tional (CN) requires the vice president for oper-
for ensuring safety. The Government-mandated                                           ations to report to its board once a year. In each
Uniform Code of Operating Rules says, in its                                           case, the significant point is that safety is a sub-
first point, “Safety is of first importance in the                                     ject of explicit concern and accountability at the
discharge of duty.’”                                                                   highest corporate levels.

  ‘   (-f)lifort)] Codr of 0/Jrrutitl,y   /?11/(75   Revision of 1962, approved and prescribed by the Board of Transport Commissioners   for Canada by
General Order N{). 873, dated the 1.5th day of November 1961. Effective Oct. 28, 1962, p. 2.

                                                     SUPERVISOR ACCOUNTABILITY
  Since the highest ranking officials of CN and                                        personal injuries—for any particular month as
CP must answer for the safety records of their                                         early as 10 days into the following month. Man-
companies and since both managements appear                                            agement discussions and decisions flow from
to be convinced that safety and productivity go                                        this information. A headquarters office in each
hand in hand, they have both implemented sys-                                          railroad is charged with accident prevention and
tems for monitoring the safety performance of                                          so with managing this data system. In CP, when
their various divisions. Both managements trace                                        an accident occurs—whether it involves per-
their increased concern for safety in the work-                                        sonal injury or property damage—the costs for
place to about 1974. A representative of CP said                                       that accident are charged directly to the budget
that he saw personal injuries in the workplace as                                      of the division responsible. CN’s system consists
an “attitude problem, ” and in assigning manage-                                       of safety performance goals against which
ment priority to safety believes that attitudes                                        supervisors are judged. Goals are set by the
have changed.                                                                          joint headquarter/field process. Individual per-
                                                                                       formance of each division is discussed by con-
  Each railroad is able to get a complete picture                                      ference call with headquarters every month. CP
of its safety r e c o r d –both train accidents and                                    has a similar safety performance goal system.

90   q   Railroad Safety - U.S.-Canadian Comparison

                                     PREVENTIVE PROGRAMS
   In addition to their accident and casualty               There are specific examples of continuing
reporting systems, the data analyses they con-           track improvement programs undertaken by the
duct, and their systematic program of super-             railroads. For instance, CN has recently insti-
visor accountability, the two railroads ap-              tuted a program of installing concrete ties in cer-
proach the problem of promoting and maintain-            tain areas where track curvature exceeds two
ing safety in a variety of ways. Generally, the          degrees and where there is significant traffic
programs implemented by the two railroads are            with heavy axle loadings. As another example,
preventive in nature and attempt to integrate            CP recently overhauled a difficult section of
safety concerns with other functions. The major          track along which several derailments took
programs are:                                            place. Both railroads agree that well-maintained
     q   inspection and maintenance,                     track is the backbone of a productive railroad.
                                                         However, they acknowledge that the problem of
     q   training,
     q   r e s e a r c h ,
                                                         maintaining the roadbed is complicated by in-
                    and other activities, and
     q safety committees
                                                         creased traffic with heavier axle loadings.
     . rehabilitation.                                      There appears to be a consensus of the two
                                                         railroads that deferred track maintenance has
Each of these programs is undertaken to some
                                                         not been a problem in the same sense that it has
extent by both railroads. However, the empha-
                                                         in some places in the United States. Canadian
sis placed on one program over another may
                                                         railroads recognized in the early 1970’s that
differ between the railroads.
                                                         maintenance of the roadbed had to be a priority
                                                         item if they were to remain v able. Although
             Inspection and Maintenance                  track conditions may not have been ideal at that
Track                                                    time, the railroads believe that maintenance had
                                                         not been deferred to the point of causing irre-
   The railroads inspect the roadbed for a num-          versible problems. However, they acknowledge
ber of reasons. In most cases the inspections            that this is more true for the mainlines than it is
have some implications for safety. Neither of            for the branchlines. Many of the branchlines are
the railroads differentiates between safety in-          principally used for hauling grain and are not
spections and maintenance inspections. How-              revenue producing, For that reason, the rail-
ever, in the track and roadbed area, both rail-          roads have consciously limited maintenance on
roads agree that safety standards are “minimal”          these lines, However, they emphasize that the
standards. Both claim to maintain their track at         branchlines are still maintained above a mini-
a level higher than the standards prescribed by          mum level of safety.
the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration
                                                            Both railroads are organized by regions.
(FRA). 2 A representative of one of the railroads
                                                         Their inspection force operates four of the
said that if the track gets to the point of being
                                                         regions; however, the headquarters Office of
maintained to a level of safety rather than above
                                                         Engineering serves a quality control function,
the minimum safety standard, “then, you have a
                                                         providing the regions with the standards of in-
real problem, ” in terms of the economic well-
                                                         spection and performing spot checks to see how
being of the railroad. Both railroads apparently
                                                         the inspection function is being carried out.
recognized that track-related accidents were be-
                                                         Track inspections are carried out on a schedule
ginning to be very costly at about the time of the
                                                         determined by the frequency of track use. One
1971 safety inquiry. Since that time both rail-
                                                         railroad representative stated that although pre-
roads claim to have expended significant sums
                                                         cise inspection requirements exist for different
to upgrade their track system.
                                                         sections of track, it is possible to generalize that
  ‘There are no Government-mandated track standards in   the mainline track is inspected at least once
Canada.                                                  every two calendar days. Foremen, supple-
                                                                           Ch. VII Railroad Safety Programs          q   91

                                               Photo CP Rail                                                  Photo CN Rail

 Upgrading —CP Rail spends millions of dollars each year        Upgrading —CN concrete tie and rail installation machine
                 upgrading its track

mented by roadmasters, inspect the track by                    husbanding of capital. In other words, freight
high rail car, by track motor car or, sometimes,               cars are not maintained to standard unless they
by train looking for specific aberrations.                     are called into use or unless there is an influx of
                                                               money that has not been earmarked for other
   The inspections reports are used to allocate
                                                               purposes. Generally, motive power units are in-
immediately available resources. The reports
                                                               spected every 45 days, with a major overhaul
also provide some input to decisions about how
                                                               every 4 years. Freight car equipment is inspected
the projected resources available to the railroad
                                                               every 500 miles, with a major repair every 10 to
as a whole should be allocated in the long term.
                                                               12 years.
However, the two railroads appear to rely on
different systems for general allocation of re-                   CN instituted a program in the last 4 to 5
sources. CN relies, to a considerable extent, on               years to analyze a 10-percent sample of the roll-
a sophisticated data bank that provides infor-                 ing stock twice a year. The analysis includes
mation on the condition of the railroad plant,                 looking at the equipment both by type and by
specifically to assist in such decisionmaking. In-             series. The railroad has found that, by con-
put to this data bank with regard to track is pro-             structing a profile of freight equipment charac-
vided by an inspection report issued after track               teristics, sufficient leadtime is given to correct
inspection has been made by track recorder car,                problems before they become severe. The rail-
which looks at rail surface, gauge, and cross                  road believes that the program prevents acci-
alinement.                                                     dents. In addition to the safety implications of
                                                               such an inventory, the program provides a data
Locomotive and Car Equipment                                   base to the railroad that helps it in allocating its
   Canadian railroads are subject to Govern-                   resources.
ment-imposed locomotive and car equipment
                                                                 Generally, the equipment used by the Cana-
standards. The standards are similar to those
promulgated by the U.S. FRA.                                   dian railroads is very similar to that used by
                                                               U.S. railroads. However, the locomotives have
  One railroad official indicated that a critical              certain safety features such as a collision post,
difference between the approach of the Cana-                   expanded area of vision, and personal facilities
dian railroads to equipment maintenance and                    in the cab that are Canadian-designed. Many
that of the U.S. railroads in general is a greater             Canadian freight cars still have plain bearings
92   q   Railroad Safety—U.S.-Canadian Comparison

(the failure of which has been related to ac-       training school that CN operates at Gimli. This
cidents), but hot box detectors are becoming in-    school attempts to replace informal, on-the-job
creasingly common.                                  training that locomotive engineers received in
                                                    the past with a structured program. The engi-
   As in the case of track, the railroads do not
                                                    neers receive a 2-month course of which 1
consider it profitable to invest in new equipment   month is concerned almost exclusively with
for hauling grain. Thus, the Government of
                                                    safety. To aid in making the training realistic
Canada itself bought grain hoppers, which the
                                                    and transferable, CN built locomotive simu-
railroads are now using to transport grain. The
                                                    lators that it uses during the training. (CP also
railroads are responsible for maintaining these
                                                    has two locomotive simulators, which it uses as
cars and replacing them if they are damaged
                                                    training aids for locomotive engineers. The
beyond repair.
                                                    simulators are used also as research tools to
                                                    determine causes of derailments ) After the engi-
                                Training            neers have completed the training program at
                                                    Gimli, they must go through a period of on-the-
  Both railroads have instituted several dif-       job training and other qualification procedures
ferent types of training programs for their         before they can become engineers. Representa-
employees. The training may be skill-oriented       tives of CN state that locomotive engineers
with a specific focus on safety aspects or it may   trained at the school have considerably better
be directed toward safety in a more general         safety records with regard to human failure ac-
way. An example of skill-oriented training that     cidents than do engineers not trained at the
has a specific ‘safety focus is the engineering     school .


             motion system
             .               equipment

 Locomotive and Train Simulator                                               Simulateur
                                                                                       Ch. VII Railroad Safety Programs   q   93

   The school is located at the site of a former air                       search carried out by any entity—Government
force base. It has a permanent staff of 28. A n                            or private—in Canada, is conducted by CN. A
estimated 1,500 employees attend the school                                description of the research activities of the two
each year. In addition to locomotive engineers,                            major railways follows.
training programs are also conducted for tele-
graphers, train dispatchers, and railroad of-                                 CP’s research is directed primarily toward the
ficers. 3 The school is beginning retraining ac-                           application of new technology to continuing
tivities to reinforce and refresh knowledge                                problems, such as research on traction motor
gained previously by employees. CN estimates                               performance. It is also reviewing technology for
that it spends about 1 percent of its transporta-                          application in the Canadian environment, such
tion budget on its training activities.                                    as the field trials being carried out on self-
                                                                           -steering freight car trucks. In addition, CP has
   An important aspect of training for both rail-
                                                                           also had some research projects with outside
roads is the promotion of safety consciousness
                                                                           groups such as the National Research Council
among employees. Both railroads give supervi-
                                                                           and various universities.
sor training courses in safety in order to inform
employees about the safety implications of
various aspects of employee management and                                    CN’s research program began in 1945 when
railroad operations. This training emphasizes                              the railroad established the first rail research in
the responsibility that the railroads assign to                            Canada. In 1965, CN built an integrated re-
supervisors for the safety records of their units.                         search facility in Montreal. The bulk of CN’s re-
                                                                           search work now is conducted for the rail divi-
The training efforts result in a greater level of
                                                                           sion, emphasizing track/train dynamics. In ad-
safety consciousness in both general and specific
                                                                           dition, the CN research centre is responsible for
terms. For instance, in its operations and main-
                                                                           quality control of materials. Under this pro-
tenance supervisory safety training program,
                                                                           gram, 18 inspectors are employed by CN to in-
CN instructs its supervisors in such diverse
                                                                           spect those materials critical to the operation of
areas as accident problems, human relations,
                                                                           the railroad; these materials are inspected in the
maintaining interest in safety, industrial hy-
                                                                           plant, prior to their delivery to the railroad.
giene, material handling and storage, and fire
protection. ’ The supervisors are told, “Accident                          (CN also requires that suppliers themselves
                                                                           maintain adequate in-plant inspection a n d
prevention and efficient production go together
.,, Implementing the company program, mak-                                 monitors this activity. ) The inspection reports
ing sure his work area is safe, and that his peo-                          are sent to the research centre for analysis to
                                                                           detect any trends that might be developing.
ple work safely, is an integral part of the super-
visor’s responsibility.”5 CP emphasizes training                           Another major activity of the research centre is
for first- and second-line supervisors, dispatch-                          to conduct failure analysis on all components of
                                                                           the railroad that fail and are involved in an acci-
ers, yardmen, trainmen, and enginemen in or-
der to prevent accidents and promote safety.                               dent. The centre looks for trends as well as for
                                                                           specific aberrations.

                           Research                                           At the present time, in addition to the on-
                                                                           going activities mentioned above, CN is con-
   Both railroads are engaged to some degree in                            ducting research in the following areas that
research activities. The most extensive rail re-                           relate specifically to safety:
   ‘The U)~ifor-t~~ Code of Operating Rules requires that railroad of-
ficers be re-examined for proficiency in the rules at periods of 2           q   fatigue life of track structures,
(for operating officers) or 3 years. This requirement extends
through the hierarchy to the vice presidents for operations.                 q   fatigue life of bridges,
   40ther items covered in the course are: instructing safety, per-          q   hunting of vehicles,
sonal protective equipment, industrial housekeeping, machine                 q   radially articulated trucks,
guarding, hand tools, and power tools,
   ‘Canadia)l Naflo)zal Railumys Operatio)ls and M a i n t e n a n c e ,
                                                                             q   accident investigation—conducted by hy-
Superz~isory Safety Traini)lg Progra)?l, pp. 1-2.                                brid computer to simulate the accident and
94   q   Railroad Safety— U. S.-Canadian Comparison

        determine what might have occurred under                      ployees who have had no lost-time injuries and
        a variety of conditions, and                                  the Golden Shoe Club of CN for employees who
     q alerter for train crew.                                        avoided injury because they were wearing pro-
                                                                      tective footwear) are used to some extent to en-
Further, in response to specific problems that
                                                                      courage the use of protective equipment and
have arisen, CN research has been conducted to
                                                                      general safety practices. The railroads also use a
modify six-axle trucks and to address “rock and
                                                                      variety of safety films, posters, pamphlets, and
roll” problems on the track.
                                                                      information sheets to direct the employees’ at-
                                                                      tention toward safety matters in general as well
Safety Committees and Other Activities                                as the importance of wearing appropriate garb
                                                                      for different work situations.
   Both railroads have a system of safety com-
                                                                         When an employee is involved in an accident,
mittees 6 established in the field by supervisors in
                                                                      an attempt is made to analyze the reasons for
the different departments, such as the car de-
                                                                      the accident. In some cases, an employee judged
partment or the motive power department, at
                                                                      to have been negligent, is rebuked or disciplined
the operating level. These committees have been
                                                                      for having been involved in the accident. How-
a cooperative effort between labor and manage-
                                                                      ever, the approach of the railroads is not merely
ment and have been used to promote and to
                                                                      disciplinary. Its emphasis is to determine ways
monitor safety practices. In general, the com-
                                                                      of preventing accidents in the future.
mittees do a certain amount of accident in-
vestigation, observe jobs performed, and make                            In addition to the employee-focused safety
safety recommendations to management. In ad-                          programs, CP has a program that is aimed at the
dition, for instance, CN encourages its safety                        public. CP rail police visit schools located near
committees to conduct safety audits, for which                        railroads to instruct on the dangers of trespass-
it provides forms. CN uses the audits to monitor                      ing on railroad property. CP a so has a snow-
the safety programs of the various supervisors.                       mobile safety program to help reduce snowmo-
CP has a similar safety audit program.                                bile/train accidents.
   Both railroads indicated that employee in-
volvement in activities that give them responsi-                                  Rehabilitation Programs
bility for their own safety has paid off in terms
of fewer accidents. Peer pressure and better                            The Uniform Code of Operating Rules states,
communication between labor and management                            “The use of intoxicants or narcotics by employ-
about the potential for accidents are seen as the                     ees subject to duty, or possession or use while
primary contributing factors to the success of                        on duty is prohibited. ”7 The railroads indicated
the safety committees.                                                that until recently anyone caught “drinking on
                                                                      the job, ” for instance, was summarily dis-
   The railroads have detailed requirements for
                                                                      missed. Today, this is still true for anyone in-
situations in which protective clothing—such as
                                                                      volved in train operations who is found to be
goggles, protective footwear, hard hats, and
                                                                      under the influence of alcohol or narcotics while
gloves—must be worn. The railroads generally
                                                                      on the job. However, several years ago, both
either provide the protective equipment for their
                                                                      railroads recognized that employees with alco-
employees or they contribute to its purchase. In
                                                                      hol or drug problems should be assisted with
addition, CN maintains a list of suppliers, ap-
                                                                      these problems, As a consequence, both rail-
proved for the safety performance of their prod-
                                                                      roads have rehabilitation programs in which the
ucts, from which all CN purchases are made.
                                                                      troubled employees can get professional help.
Award programs (e.g., the annual certificate
                                                                      The railroads are working with the local union
program in which CP recognizes groups of em-
                                                                      representatives to encourage employees with
  bThe 13cpartment of Lab(>ur require~ the e~tahlishment c~f satety   alcohol or drug problems to seek the help that is
commit tees i f the Department find~ them necessary, However, the
ra ilrc>ads safety c o m m i t t e e s ~reciate this legislation.      ‘U)liform Code of Operati)]g Rules, op. cit   p.   3.
                                                                            Ch. VII Railroad Safety Programs               q   95

available. Although the programs have been in                 that alcohol and other drug-related accidents
effect for several years, a representative of one             have been statistically reduced since the pro-
of the railroads stated that it does not appear               gram’s inception.

   Both CN and CP believe that one of the sig-                point of view, however, the product was not
nificant outcomes of the RTC safety inquiry of                adequate, and CN and CP, working together,
1971 was the formation of the tripartite Railway              drafted a different proposal that they then sub-
Safety Advisory Committee. This committee                     mitted to RTC for consideration.9 In the area of
provides a forum for management, labor, and                   dangerous commodities, however, both rail-
Government to discuss mutual problems and to                  roads believe that significant progress has been
put forward their varying points of view in a                 made using the technical committee structure
nonadversarial situation. One of the major                    and the advisory committee forum. There has
tasks of the Railway Safety Advisory Commit-                  been agreement, for instance, about the useful-
tee (see chapter V for discussion of committee                ness of the Hazardous Information Emergency
organization) is to “integrate divergent view-                Response (HEIR) form, which suppliers are re-
points and provide the Railway Transport Com-                 quired to furnish railroads with each shipment
mittee with a consentaneous exposition of                     of dangerous commodities and which railroads
specific actions required for purposes of im-                 are required to carry. This form gives the rail-
proving levels of rail safety. ”8 This purpose is             road employees information about what steps
carried out to a large extent by a series of                  to take if the shipment of dangerous commod-
technical committees, which report to the Rail-               ities is involved in an accident. The initiative for
way Safety Advisory Committee. The Railway                    the HIER form came from a technical committee
Safety Advisory Committee reviews suggested                   of the Railway Safety Committee, with the ac-
changes in the rules and regulations that come                tive support of the railroads.
from the committees, in addition to advising
                                                                 Both railroads seem to view the regulatory
generally on railway safety policy.
                                                              process with regard to safety as nonthreatening.
   Both railroads and labor have representatives              Neither railroad expressed the view that it is not
on each of the technical committees as well as                adequately consulted or that it does not have
on the advisory committee itself. The railroads               adequate opportunity to participate in the for-
recognize that the tripartite forum is one way                mulation of regulatory safety policy. They view
for the day-to-day concerns of the railroads to               their relationship with the Government as large-
be integrated into regulatory policy considera-               ly nonadversarial and view compliance with
tion and so to help ensure that the resulting                 Government-imposed safety requirements as a
policies are realistic from a railroad operations             serious responsibility. The incentive to comply
point of view.                                                with various safety requirements is not the
                                                              avoidance of penalties, since the Government
  Nonetheless, while both railroads indicate
                                                              has not and is not viewed as likely to assess ma-
their support for the committee, they also both
                                                              jor penalties against the railroads; rather, the in-
indicate that the accomplishments, amount of
                                                              centive seems to come from a combination of
cooperation, and consensus achieved to date
                                                              the knowledge that operations may be shut
vary with the subject matter. For instance, a
                                                              down if a violation is considered serious
proposed revision to the power brake regulation
                                                              enough, and of the respect for what one railroad
was developed in a technical committee with                   official referred to as “the law of the land. ”
representatives from labor, railroads, and
Government participating. From the railroads’
                                                                 ‘The outcome of the revision to the power brake regulation is
  “’Railway Safety Advisory Committee Organizational Struc-   still pending. The railroads proposed revision was submitted in the
ture, ” October 1978.                                         first part of October 1978.
                  Chapter Vlll

                                                                                                                  Chapter Vlll
                                                 RAILROAD LABOR AND SAFETY

   The majority of Canadian rail labor organiza-              strike in the 1950’s, significant changes in labor-
tions are represented by a bargaining group                   management relations began to occur. A move-
called the “Associated Railway Unions. ” This                 ment toward joint negotiations gained momen-
organization brings together 18 unions under its              tum.
umbrella. It represents the largest single bar-                  The safety of operating employees, locomo-
gaining unit in Canada. ] The Canadian Railway
                                                              tive engineers, conductors, and trainmen while
Labour Association represents the same unions                 operating trains is regulated by the Canadian
for all purposes (including safety) other than
                                                              Transport Commission (CTC). The safety of the
collective bargaining, The Association consists               rest of the rail employees is under the jurisdic-
of five major groups. They are:
                                                              tion of Labour Canada. However, the jurisdic-
  q nonoperating employees . . . . . . . . . 55,800           tional clarity is somewhat clouded by the fact
  • shopcraft employees . . . . . , . . . . . . 18,800        that Labour Canada has jurisdiction over the
  • United Transportation Union                               safety conditions of the operating employees’
     —trainmen . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .14,500    workplace environment during their off-hours
     —enginemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,646   (e.g., while they are laying over on a lon g trip).
  q Brotherhood of Locomotive                                 Labour Canada also has jurisdiction over the
       Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .4,6002   workplace of such employees as dining car em-
                                                              ployees even when the train is operating.
The United Transportation Union, the Brother-
hood of Locomotive Engineers, and the shop-                      Labour Canada approaches its responsibilities
craft unions are associated with the unions of                for developing safety standards as much as it
these names in the United States.                             can from a generic point of view by considering
                                                              problems common to all industries rather than
   Collective bargaining has existed within the               considering problems on an industry-by-indus-
Canadian railroad industry almost since its be-               try basis. The Department of Labour is current-
ginning. Railroad employees were organized
                                                              ly in the process of developing a set of regula-
along craft lines. For many years they negoti-
                                                              tions that will standardize a minimum level of
ated with railroad management as individual
                                                              safety to be applied across all industries under
entities. Before 1947’, an Act of Parliament com-             its authority, CTC has not promulgated safety
pelled labor and management to negotiate peri-
                                                              regulations related to the conditions of work for
odically. 3 As a result of a series of disputes, cen-         the operating employees under its jurisdiction.4
tering largely on the subject of wages, and a
                                                                  ‘ T h e l a c k (~t regulati[~n (~t the satety (It th(we ra[lwa} c,nlpl(]leei
                                                              u rider the ju riscl]cti(~n (~t CTC is a current w~u r-c-e of dlsa~reemc’n t
                                                              between the Department (>f Tran\p(~rtatl(~n and the Department (~t
                                                              l.ab(~ur. T h e D e p a r t m e n t [~f I.ab[lur teel~ that regulati(~rl~ are nec-
                                                              t’>+] r-y and that i t sh(~u ]d a ssu rne th(, j u ris(j iction, or a ] terncl ( i \,(. I ~,
                                                              t h a t t h e D e p a r t m e n t of Tran\p(~rta t i(>n should ad(>pt it+ re~ula -
                                                              t I(}ns. The uni(~n~ are \LIPPort in~ the Department (>t [.ab(}ur’> p(wi -

100    q   Railroad Safety—U.S.-Canadian Comparison

                                                  LABOR/RAILROAD RELATIONS
   The railroad industry has experienced gen-                                concept in which the injured employee is en-
erally good relations between management and                                 titled to compensation—which is paid for either
labor at the working level. 5 Testifying to this                             directly or indirectly by the employer-and i n
fact is the long-standing existence of a plethora                            which the injured employee is not permitted to
of committees at the local level—including those                             sue the employer with regard to the injury or ill-
that deal with safety matters—that have, i n                                 ness incurred.
many instances, evolved into consultative bod-                                  The Province of Quebec, for instance, has im-
ies that negotiate particular local matters with                             plemented the no-fault concept to workmen’s
management. Despite the history of coopera-                                  compensation through assigning wide-ranging
tion, the unions on the national level believe                               responsibility to the Quebec Workmen’s Com-
that the effectiveness of the labor/management                               pensation Commission, the five members of
committees that have been established to deal                                which are appointed by the Lieutenant-Gover-
with safety problems at the local level would be                             nor in Council and serve on a full-time basis ad-
enhanced by the participation of a Government                                ministering the claims of injured employees in
body with the authority to regulate matters of                               Quebec. ’ The Act provides for certain cooper-
safety. The Canadian Railway Labour Associa-                                 ative arrangements with other provinces when
tion believes that a cooperative arrangement in                              an employee also works in provinces other than
this regard between the Railroad Transport                                   Quebec.
Committee (RTC) and Labour Canada would be
beneficial and made the suggestion to RTC.6 At
the present time, according to a national
representative of the Canadian Railway Labour
Association, a major priority of the unions with
regard to railroad operational safety is the
upgrading of track.                                                              a.

   From a national perspective, it appears that in
addition to the historical relationships, two
other principal factors affect the way in which
the unions and the railroads relate to each other
with regard to safety. These factors are de-                                     c.

scribed below.

               Canadian Injury/Disability                                       d.
                Compensation System

   The Canadian injury compensation system is
a provincial responsibility and each of the pro-                                e.

vinces has its own compensation law. Thus,
there is variety in the way in which the Cana-
dian worker’s compensation for injury and ill-
ness incurred on-the-job takes place. However,
the approach to compensation in each of the
provinces is similar. It is premised on a no-fault
  ‘1’eitchini\, t~p. c i t . , p. 3 1 7 .
  “Letter from J. F. Walter, Vice Chairman, Canadian Railroad
Labour Association, to G. H. Cooper, Executive Director, Rail-
way Transport Committee,                    Canadian Transport Commission,
Jan. 26, 1978.                                                                                                        (continued)
                                                                                                          Ch. VIII Railroad Labor and Safety   q   101

  The claims for compensation benefits are cal-                                                  accident; provisions are also made for depend-
culated on the basis of the employee’s average                                                   ent and survivor claims. In certain cases, t h e
earnings for a 12-month period preceding the                                                     commission may authorize lump-sum payments
7(continued )                                                                                    or may advance a 1 u m p sum of compensation
             aC [ <lrd I ng t t> equ it}’ and on the rc>a I meri t > ~ nd just ice (~t
                                                                                                 that will be due. Generally, however, the com-
             t h e c aw, not heinx bt~unci to it~llotfi the (~rdl n a r y rules of               pensation is paid on a weekly basis.
            L’vidcnre lnstitutln~ a m e c h a n i+m t or homolga” t ion of
             c(lm m is~l cln dw isl (~ns by the supc’r i~~r c-ou rt and e~ta b-                     For purposes of compensation payment, em-
             l]~h]nx >uch jud~ment~ h(~m[)lxating dec l>i(~ns as t inal an~i                     ployers in Quebec are divided into two major
            LN.I t h (lu t app(>a I C, II’ I ng t t) the c[tnl m ls>i(~n br<~ad re~u la -
             tory p(~wer> \\ri t h in I t~ area 01 ILI ri+dict ion.
                                                                                                 groups by the statute. The first major group
       ~. C o n t r i b u t i o n by t h e p r o v i n c e      prt~vlding for as~i+tancc        must contribute, based on a percentage of its an-
            b y t h e pr(~tlncial ~(}\’crnment in dctraying c(~mmissi(}n                         nual payroll determined by the commission, to
            expenws an ann Llal \Llm not exceeding $100,000.
       h A c c i d e n t f u n d e+tahli\hinX a n a c c i d e n t fL1nd t(> be
                                                                                                 an accident fund. This accident fund is admin-
            f u n d e d b?” c (lntributi(ln> h}’ emplo}’er-s ]n th(m indu~tries                  istered by the commission, and when an em-
            iden t If id u rider the fl rst ma I(I r ~r(~ LI p (T1 i ndLIst rim wt               ployee in an industry falling into this first major
            I(lrth in thi> law. ~’(~ntr}bLlt i~~n~ are made based on a per-
            ccn t agc ()[ a n nLla I pa~r r[~] I; t he~ ma~ n{~t be LI n II (~rm f (}r
                                                                                                 category is injured, compensation is made from
            a ] ] i ndu~t rle< i n the ma l(~r gr( }LI ~ or a ntr ot her \LJ bgrou p,            this fund. The second major group is composed
            but arc’, instead, determln(’d b} t ho conl”ml+~lon.                                 of industries in which employers are individual-
        1. S t a t e m e n t s   to be f u r n i s h e d b} e m p l o y e r s req Ljiring rt>-
            p[~rt~ of ac tLlal and antic lpated pa}rr(~]]~ for the prweding
                                                                                                 ly responsible for compensation of injured em-
            and u pc(lm in~ }’ea r< to be made to the c(}mnl is+t(~n by a 11                     ployees, Although the commission administers
            emp]t)ycrs In in(]L~>tries I n th(~ } ]r\t maj(>r’ ~r(>LIP.                          the compensation of employees in an industry
       j. A s s e s s m e n t s — r e q u i r i n g t h e c o m m i s s i o n to assess a con-
            tribution to cover the compensation for injured employ-
                                                                                                 failing into the second major category, the funds
            ees in the appropriate category of industry, to maintain a                           to pay for the compensation are not drawn from
            reserve fund, t~> meet commission administrative ex-                                 the accident fund. Employers in the second ma-
            penses, and for other purposes.
       k . I n d u s t r i a l di~ease+ est abll<h i ng that a n employee i~ t’! i -
                                                                                                 jor category are also responsible for paying for a
            ~ible l[)r compc’nsat lon when a d iwaw dLIe to the nature                           portion of the commission’s administrative
            of any em pl t~ym~’n t I n wh I( h ht’ ;~ra< ~,n~a~ed a t a n y t i me               costs. Railroads fall into the second major group
            u’ i t h ] n 12 n~(~n t h~ pre~” i (}us t (~ the date (~t hi< d i~ablemcn t;
            estabt ish I n~ t h[, c [~nd i t I (~n~ LI rider w h ich t ho c (~mpensa t i on
                                                                                                 of employers and so are individually liable for
             WI I I be rnad(’.                                                                   payment of compensation to injured employees
       I,  Preventive            association+ e~tabl ishing            the      right    of      in Quebec.
             em pl (~yc’r> I n i ndLl+t ries I n the t ] r>t gr(~Llp t (~ t (~rnl them-
             WI ve~ i n t (~ a ~r(~u p t ~lr pLI rp(wc> t)t accident pre~rrn t i(ln                 As a general rule, as is the case in Quebec, the
             a r-d may, Ii’ I t h certain c(~nd I t it>n~, pre~cribe rLl Im that \\. i II
             b e binding on all ernpl(~yer< In the particular cla+s in in-
                                                                                                 provincial acts cover employees in all indus-
             dLl+t rv                                                                            tries—that is, there is not a specific compensa-
       m . C{~ntributi(~n by empl{~>’er~ in indListrie\ i n S c h e d u l e 11                   tion system solely for employees of a railroad
             reel L] i ri ng the c(~m m is~i on t t) a~w~s pa~~men t \ t (~ meet i t \
             c[~~ts t r(~m the emp l(~}~ers i n the w’c[>nd major ~r(~Llp i n a
                                                                                                 industry. The laws establish provincial work-
             manner \i m ila r to f ha t i n ti’h]( h f Llnd\ are (~htalned t(~r the             men’s compensation commissions to administer
             accident t LI n(i.                                                                  the compensation laws and to decide, within the
        n. Genera] provisions – [’xc] LId i n~ the ] nd u~t rie> ()} farming
             (}r domest IC wrk’ Ice I r(~m c(~\rera~e LI rider the AC t; \et t i ng
                                                                                                 parameters of the law, how to compensate indi-
             dowrn certain req Ll i remcn t~ as to +LI i ts f(~r the rec(~ver}r (~1              vidual employees. The approach to workmen’s
             tines provided I(}r b} the Act: and establtshirlg that l“incs                       compensation that the provincial laws take has
             rec ei Y’ecl belong [’n t i re] ~’ t () t h~> commission and a r-c t (>
             t(~rm part (~t the acciden’t fund.
                                                                                                 been described as constituting an “inquiry sys-
        (), Compensation to blind workmen- defining blinclnes+ and                               tem” rather that an “adversary system.”8 In this
             wttin~ l(~rth { (~ndi t](lns t(~r retmbLlrwment                 b y      t h e      system, the provincial commissions are given a
             h! In i~t r}’ (~t Flna nc t>, LI rider cert.a i n c(~nd i t l(~ns, for c(~m-
             penwti(ln pa>rable b y rc’a~(>n a n a c c i d e n t to a b l i n d
                                                                                                 fairly wide area of latitude with regard to the
             work men                                                                            various benefits that can be made available to
I n addition t(} these ma j(~r secti(ln~, t h e r e arc three schcdLl]e\ ap-                     the injured employee. Although the degree of
p e n d e d to the law. The t ir-~t \ched L1 It, set> f(>rth th(m> industries in
which empl(~yer> nlLlst con tribLl te t (~ the accident }Llnd. The second
sched Llle \ets tort h t how i nd List rim I n w’h ich the enlpl(~yer~ a r-e in-
d i~’ idLlal 1 y resp(~n~lblc [or pa yI ng c[~nlpen>a t ion The t h i r-d sched -
u Ie wt~ t (~rt h a des( ri pt ion of va riou~ d iwasw and the processe>
leading to them.
102   q   Railroad Safety —U.S.-Canadian Comparison

latitude provided varies from province to prov-       requirements for operating employees, engi-
ince, generally speaking, there is a provision        neers, conductors, and trainmen* in Canada
made for the costs of all medical treatment and       allow employees discretion after 11 hours of
rehabilitation services, with no arbitrary finan-     service, as to whether they should continue to
cial or time limits placed on benefits. Total per-    work without a break. This provision places the
manent disabilities are paid for life; there are      responsibility for the safety of employees as it
provisions for survivor benefits; partial and/or      relates to fatigue on their own shoulders.
temporary disabilities are monitored on a con-           In negotiating with the railroads, the Associ-
tinuing basis by the workmen’s compensation           ated Railway Unions does not bargain separate-
commission. In many cases, there are no wait-         ly with CP and CN; instead, the unions bargain
ing periods for the benefits to start. 9              with representatives of both railroads at the
   Once a compensation commission has taken           same time. In the early 1970’s. there were a
over a case, it is responsible for assuring treat-    series of disputes between labor and the rail-
ment, considering rehabilitation possibilities,       roads, some of which went to arbitration. It was
providing reemployment counseling, as well as         during this period that the unions organized
for defining the disability and making decisions      themselves into a single powerful bargaining
concerning income continuation. The degree of         group. However, the principal concern of the
disability is generally a medical judgment and        unions has been job security. Safety conditions
since the commission has continuing jurisdiction      have not been the subject of a railroad labor dis-
and since temporary benefits have no time limit,      pute per se, although safety was brought out as
the actual condition of the injured employee can      an issue in a case concerning crew size during
be assessed with a minimum of external factors        this period. 11
playing into the judgment. Benefits can be ad-           At the present time, the union; participate in
justed upward or downward by the commission           many of the railroads safety efforts at the work-
as the situation warrants. In many provinces,         ing level. The three major areas in which labor/
the commissions place a great deal of emphasis        management cooperation in safe y-related mat-
on rehabilitation. 10
                                                      ters has taken place are:
   Since the employee is guaranteed compensa-            Safety Committees—Unions urge their mem-
tion for work-related injury and illness and          bers to participate and use this forum to under-
since the employer is protected by law from           stand the nature of the workplace and to pass on
suit, the issue of safety in the workplace is not a   the worker’s point of view to the management.
contentious issue between railroad employees
                                                      However, national union representatives have
and the railroads. Further, since the railroads
                                                      expressed doubts as to whether these commit-
are responsible for providing for the compensa-       tees are optimally effective.
tion of the injured employee, it is in their in-
terest to hear and to respond to concerns about         Rehabilitation Programs—The railroads and
safety and to ensure that safety practices are put    the unions are working out a relationship
into place and observed.                              whereby the unions at the local level can en-
                                                      courage its members with drug or alcohol abuse
                                                      problems to seek professional help in one of the
                      Hours of Service                rehabilitation programs that the railroads made
   An employee’s hours of service has not been
regulated as a safety issue nor has it been dealt
with legislatively. Rather it is a matter for nego-
tiation between the labor unions and the rail-
roads. At the present time, the hours-of-service

  “Ibid , p. 31,
  “’ibid., p 31 t}.
                                                                                Ch. VIII Railroad Labor and Safety • 103

   Training Programs—Where training pro-                               ification to take on another job. National union
grams have been developed, the unions have                             representatives would like a greater emphasis on
supported them even where they have replaced                           training (see next section).
the informal apprenticeship programs for qual-

                                  LABOR/GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
   The unions played a major role in the safety                        any order of priority. The listing of concerns in-
inquiry of 1971. Since that time, they have been                       cludes:
active participants in the tripartite forum, the
                                                                         1.   Uniform Code of Operating Rules—The
Railway Safety Advisory Committee, estab-
                                                                              association’s concerns centered on pro-
lished by CTC to promote railway safety in
                                                                              tecting the integrity of the concept of uni-
Canada. The Canadian Railway Labour Asso-
                                                                              formity and on the adequacy of the rules
ciation has membership on the Railway Safety
                                                                              to address all the safety problems encoun-
Advisory Committee and member unions have
                                                                              tered. Specifically, the Canadian Railway
representation on the various technical commit-
                                                                              Labour Association believed that a revi-
tees that consider possible amendments to exist-
ing standards or possible new standards. By this                              sion of the Uniform Code was necessary
                                                                              because of the authority of railroads to
participation, the unions are able to participate
                                                                              issue special instructions that tend to de-
fully in the safety regulation of railroads.
                                                                              stroy the uniformity of practice intended
   In addition, however, the unions have identi-                              by the Uniform Code. The association
fied areas that affect the safety of railroad                                 also believed that additional rules might
employees and have brought these areas to the                                 be needed, such as rules to govern move-
attention of CTC. The unions raised many is-                                  ment of insulated track units other than
sues at the safety inquiry and have continued to                              conventional rolling stock. RTC appar-
follow and to participate in their resolution. For                            ently agreed with these concerns and has
instance, in January 1978, the vice chairman of                               instituted a review of the Uniform Code.
the Canadian Railway Labour Association out-                                  This review is currently taking place un-
lined the current safety-related concerns of his                              der the auspices of the Safety Advisory
Association in a letter to the executive director                             Committee, with representatives of the
of the Railway Transport Committee of CTC.12                                  three major interest groups participating.
Many of the concerns expressed were similar to                                   In addition to believing that the Uni-
those expressed during the safety inquiry; other                              form Code was in need of revision, the
concerns grew from more recent incidents. The                                 association also suggested that certain
listing of the Canadian Railway Labour                                        rules in the Uniform Code—notably rules
Association’s concerns with regard to the safety                              40-44, which govern requirements for
of railroad employees included all aspects of                                 lights in situations involving unattended
railroad safety—the immediate work environ-                                   flagging of trains–were being disregarded
ment, the operating environment of the trains,                                by the railroads. Although the association
and the long-term health of the employees—                                    believed that the rules might be appropri-
without attempting to place these concerns in                                 ately revised, they also believed that they
                                                                              should be adhered to until the revision
 “The points raised were made in a letter from J. F. Walter, Vice
                                                                              had taken place.
Chairman, Canadian Railway La~c~ur Association, to Mr. G. H.             2.   Dangerous Commodities—The Canadian
Cooper, Executive Director, Railway Tran~port Committee of the                Railway Labour Association has sug-
Canadian Transport c(~mmission, dated Jan. 2,6, 1Q78. The letter              gested that a central computer bank be set
was written >ubsequent to a meeting between Messrs. Walter and
Cooper to discuss Lab(~ur’s safety concerns and at the invitation of          up to store coded information about how
Mr. Cooper.                                                                   to handle all existing dangerous commodi-
 104   q   Railroad Safety —U.S.-Canadian Comparison

           ties. The association has requested that                                                   stated that tests conducted in tunnels have
           this suggestion be considered by a techni-                                                 revealed concentrations of nitrogen diox-
           cal committee of the Railway Safety Ad-                                                    ide that exceed certain standards of safety.
           visory Committee.                                                                          The association has urged that CTC issue
     3. Environmental Safety, On-Train Employ-                                                        regulations that would change the existing
           ees—The association believes that the                                                      requirements.
           “on-train” employees should be provided                                               7. Minimum Track and Operating Right-of-
           regulations governing heating, lighting,                                                   Way Standards—The association believes
           ventilation, and noise control in locomo-                                                  that the development of such minimal
           tive cabs and cabooses. They believe fur-                                                  standards should have high priority by
           ther that the adequacy of the working con-                                                 CTC.
           ditions of the “on-train” employees will be                                           8. Training Standards, Railroad Employ-
           guaranteed only after the promulgation of                                                  ees—The association has taken the posi-
           such regulations. In addition, the Associa-                                                tion that training programs for employees
           tion recommended that CTC ensure that                                                      involved with the movement of trains as
           the regulations, once developed, be ade-                                                   well as employees involved with the in-
           quately monitored, by augmenting their                                                     spection and maintenance of rolling stock,
           staff capabilities with the services of the                                                track, and signals are safety programs. As
           safety and health inspectors available to                                                  such, the association believes, the training
           Labour Canada.                                                                             programs should meet minimum stand-
     4. Ditch Lights—The association supported                                                        ards set by RTC. Some steps along these
           a requirement that certain railroads under                                                 lines have been taken; however, the
           CTC’s jurisdiction operating on mainline                                                   association suggests that RTC should
           in mountain territory be equipped with                                                     develop a program of apprenticeship
           ditch lights. Further, the association be-                                                 training standards for selected railroad
           lieves that ditch lights might be safer at                                                 crafts. The association also believes that
           level grade crossings than the revolving                                                   the program should provide a skill certifi-
           lights currently required. ’3 The associa-                                                 cation for the employees.
           tion is undertaking a study of this matter.
                                                                                               The unions are also involved in the standards
    5. Hearing and Sight Restrictions—The asso-
                                                                                            development process for railroad employees
           ciation suggested that technology has suf-
                                                                                            under the jurisdiction of the Labour Canada.
           ficiently improved today to allow the safe
                                                                                            Labour Canada’s policy is to solicit wide par-
           use of hearing aids and contact lenses by
                                                                                            ticipation in the development of standards.
       employees involved in train operations.
                                                                                            Thus, in the past, the unions have had the op-
       These devices are not currently allowed to
                                                                                            portunity to review drafts of standards and to
       be worn. ” In addition, the association
                                                                                            give their comments to the Department of La-
       suggested to CTC that the railroads be re-
                                                                                            bour, along with other interested parties.
       quired to maintain career records of visual
       acuity and audiogram tests so that any                                                  A relatively new amendment to the Canadian
       loss of hearing or vision might be detected                                          Labour Code has implications for the relation-
       at an early date and protective measures                                             ship between the railroad unions and the Gov-
       taken.                                                                               ernment with regard to safety. This provision is
    6. Tunnel Ventilation—Labour Canada                                                     administered by Labour Canada for rail em-
       issued a report in October 1976 in which it                                          ployees under its jurisdiction. The provision af-
                                                                                            firms the right of any worker to refuse to con-
   ‘ ‘At the’ pre~ent time, Order R-22009 requires CP Rail tt~ Install                      tinue to work in an “imminently dangerous
ditch 1 ights c~n all lc>c(~m{>tives used in mainline (]peratl{~n in moun-
tain tcrrit(~ry. CN Ra i] has v[l]untarily used ditch I i~h ts in certain                   situation. ”
a rea~ and CP Rail intends to install ditch lights vt~lun tarilv on ~11                        1’The a~s(~ciati(~n cited appr(~vingly stan(idrds drattuf by              a
lt}c~~motives by the end of 1978.                                                           W(>rking ~r(>up ~>f th e AdvisL>r~ Committee c i!!m] “~uide]ines for’
   I ~Tht> re q u i r e m e n t s gc~vern ing use <~1 h e a r i n g a Ids d ncf C~~n tact   a S ignd I Training Prc~~ra m ft~r S ignd 1 C(~nst ru c t ion, Main tena rice,
Icnww by emplt~yee~ inv(~lved in train (}perati(~ns are c[~ntdined in                       and In\pecti(~n Per\[~nnel. ” Thew >tandarcis were dppr<~vcci by t h e
General Order O-Q.                                                                          Satety Adviw~ry C(~mmittc’c’ and RTC in ] Q76.
                                                                              Appendix A
                        Persons Interviewed During Project Research

           CANADA                 Railway Transport Committee/           L. Stanford
                                  Canadian Transport Commission            New Accident Investigation
CN Rail                                                                       Committee
                                  The Honorable D. H. Jones, Q.C.
J. L.                               Chairman
   Vice President, Operations                                            Konrad Studnizki-Gizbert
                                  G. H. Cooper
R. A. Walker                        Executive Director
   Chief of Transportation
                                  J. H. Green                            Bureau of Management Consulting
G. A. Van de Water                   Assistant Director, Rail Services
  Chief Engineer
                                  E. W. Eastman                          J. H. Johri
R. G. Messenger                      Director, Rail Systems                 Assistant Director and Leader for
  Assistant Vice President                                                    Rail Safety Study
  Operations                      S. K. Rawat
                                     Services Planning and
W. T. Mathers                          Regulations Advisor               Canadian Railway Labour
 Director                                                                Association
 Accident Prevention and Safety   Rail Systems
R. P. Rennie                      G. Gazon                               Ed Abbot
  Chief of Technical Research       Orders and Regulations                 Executive Secretary
H. J. G. Pye, Q. C.                   Committee Officer
  General Solicitor                                                      J. L. Walters
                                  Safety and Standards                      Brotherhood of Locomotive
CP Rail                                                                        Engineers
                                  R. Konchak
E. J. Bradley                       Analyst, Rail Economic Analysis
   Director of Rules, Accident,   R. L. Gray
      and Damage Prevention         Director, Task Force                        UNITED STATES
Charles Pike                        Safety and Standards
  Chief Mechanical Officer                                               John Fowler
                                  E. J. Hase
                                                                           Committee on Transportation
William Stinson                      Director, Safety and Standards
                                                                           National Academy of
 Vice President of Operations     J. E. Reynolds                             Engineering
                                     Assistant Director
Labour Canada                        Safety and Standards                Fred Yocum
Roy Elfstrom                      A. G. Hibbard                            Vice President for Operations
  Director, Occupational Safety     Director, Rail Services                United States Railway
    and Health Branch                                                        Association

                                                                        Appendix B
                                        Accident Information Requested by
                                          the Railway Transport Committee

  1. Year, month, and date of the accident;           7. Associated factors such as speed of train,
  2. The day of the week, time, and the                   whether dangerous commodities were in-
     weather conditions;                                  volved;
  3. The railroad, region, area, or division;         8. The type of train involved, and for cross-
  4. The location—subdivision, mileage,                   ing accidents, the type of motor vehicle;
     town, and province;                              9. The estimated cost of damage to railroad
  5. The classification of the accident ac-               property for collisions and derailments;
     cording to the type of accident, i.e., colli-   10. The number of casualties classified as
     sion, derailment, etc.;                              passengers, employees, and others; and
  6. The primary possible contributory acci-         11. The Commission file number, if one was
     dent causes;                                         created.

                                                                             Appendix C
       Hazardous Information Emergency Response Form
                             HAZARD INFORMATION
                          EMERGENCY RESPONSE FORM
                         (Not to be used for waybilling purposes)
PLACARD ENDORSEMENT:                             DATE:
DANGEROUS                                        SHIPPER: (preprinted)
                                                 ORIGIN : (preprinted
If compartmentized check one:                    WEIGHT or VOLUME:
                                 ccl             (Approximate)
CONSIGNEE:                                       This is to certify that the above named arti-
DESTINATION:                                     cle is properly classified, described, pack-
                                                 aged, marked and labelled, and is in proper
                                                 condition for transportation according to
COMMODITY:                                       the applicable regulations of the Canadian
CLASSIFICATION:        Flammable Solid           Transport Commission.
PLACARD NOTATION:                                Shipper’s signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                 POTENTIAL HAZARDS
Fire         Burns very rapidly and intensely, sometimes with flare-burning effect.
             May be ignited by heat, sparks or open flame.
Explosion    Hazard minimal unless material is finely divided.
Health       Contact with material may cause severe burns to skin and eyes.

                         IMMEDIATE ACTION INFORMATION
General      Keep upwind.
             No unnecessary personnel.
             Identify and isolate hazard area.
             Wear firefighters full protective clothing.
Fire         Move exposed containers from fire area, if without risk.
             On small fires, use dry chemical.
             On large fires, use standard firefighting agents.
             Cool containers with water from maximum distance.
             If fire is massive or advanced, withdraw from hazard area and use unmanned hose-
             holder or monitor nozzle.
Spill or     Stop leak if without risk.
Leak         Within hazard area: Eliminate ignition source.
             No flares, no smoking, no open flames.
             Collect into clean dry metal container and keep tightly covered.
             Flush small spill area with water spray.
First Aid    Call doctor.
             Use standard first aid procedures.
             In case of contact with material or water solution, immediately flush skin or eyes
             with running water for at least 15 minutes.
Emergency (Shipper’s number or his designate for further emergency assistance. )

                                                u. s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING O OFFICE : 1979 0 - 50-171

To top