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 FOREWORD 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 programs. JOHN H. GIBBONS Director 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 Association 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 Contractors 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 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 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 allocations. 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. vi SUMMARY 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 major 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 percent 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 clude: 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 maintenance. 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. vii ● 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. ● ● Mandatory use of the Hazardous In- Participation and cooperation between formation Emergency Response form, labor and management in a Govern- which outlines the basic information ment-sponsored forum. Viii CONTENTS 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