->• 6.
yij q
'*>0
COMPARATIVE SAFETY
ON BRITISH AND
AMERICAN RAILROADS
An Address by Charles Frederick Carter,
Author of "When Railroads Were
New," "Big Railroading," etc.,
Before the Safety Section
of the American Rail¬
way Association.
St. Louis, Mo.
April 27, 1926
COMPARATIVE SAFETY ON BRITISH
AND AMERICAN RAILROADS
An Address by Charles Frederick Carter, Author of
" When Railroads Were New," " Big Railroad¬
ing," etc., Before the Safety Section of
the American Railway Association
at St. Louis, Mo., April 27, 1926.
If any of the gentlemen present are nervous, I recom¬
mend that they shut their eyes and hold their hands
over their ears; for I am about to explode a venerable
myth.
For lo! these many years we have been confronted
from time to time by news items in daily papers and
articles in Sunday supplements and periodicals proving
to the satisfaction of the writers that British railways
were vastly safer than .those of the United States.
On this showing, editorial fingers of scorn are waggled
at American railroad management. No voice has ever
yet been raised to controvert, or even to question, the
alleged superior safety of British railroads. If the
subject is mentioned to an American railroad executive
he blushes and begins to talk about the weather. Let
me read to you a sample of the stuff referred to. It is
part of a press cablegram from London widely published
3
in American newspapers under date of February 20,
1920.
"Great Britain claims world leadership in rail¬
way safety. Last year (meaning 1925) only one
passenger was killed in a train accident
As 1,700,000,000 passenger journeys are made by
train every year, the chance of death is infinites¬
imal.
Only one killed out of 1,700,000,000 passengers—
not passenger-miles, remember. And just look at our
own record!
I cannot tell you when this tribute to British perfec¬
tion was first published; but I do know that it appeared
on page 815 of the "Railway Gazette," of London,
June 12, 1925, or 202 days before the end of the year
to which the statistics quoted in the press cable¬
gram referred. You see, some amateur prophet
dashed off this gem one morning before breakfast
and thus put it up to Providence to make good his
prophecy that British railroads would carry 1,700,000,-
000 passengers that year and that only one of them
would be killed in a train accident. Yet some Americans
try to maintain that our British cousins are not enter¬
prising!
Suppose we turn for a moment from the lucubrations
of volunteer soothsayers to official reports of the
British Ministry of Transport and our own Interstate
Commerce Commission. Figures for 1925 not being
available until about August, let us take, instead, those
for 1924.
At once we catch the amateur prophet in the act
of padding the returns. To make an impressive show¬
ing for British railways he counts passengers in London
tubes as railroad passengers. Instead of 1,700,000,000
passengers annually on steam railroads, official figures
4
shrink to 1,235,802,000 originating passengers, which
is somewhat less than 1,700,000,000.
Further, it appears from government figures that 24
passengers were killed in train accidents in 1924 instead
of only 1, as compared with an annual average of 36
for 10 years ending with 1922, indicating that 1924 was
an unusually favorable year. On American railroads
41 passengers were killed in train accidents in 1924—
41 against 24 in Great Britain.
Before handing the silver cup to Great Britain, sup¬
pose we look a little farther. Remember, I have
spoken of what are classed as "train accidents" only.
There are others. In fact, those who set out to get
themselves killed or maimed on a railroad have a wide
range of choice in the means to that end, and train
accidents are the least popular. In accidents of all kinds
to passengers, employes, trespassers and others, 6,215
persons were killed and 48,371 were injured on Ameri¬
can railroads in 1924 as compared with 606 killed and
25,703 injured on British railways.
The latter figures do not include 213 persons who
committed suicide on British railways during the year.
The Ministry of Transport does not reveal the reasons
for so many suicides on railroads; but any one who
knows anything about the service on British railroads
can, probably, form his own conclusions.
So far the case looks black for the United States;
but before bringing in a verdict suppose we try to estab¬
lish a comparable basis. To draw fair comparisons
between railroads with the primitive equipment which
seems to meet the requirements of a country with a
railroad freight traffic of only 484 ton-miles per capita
per annum with those of the United States, moving more
than seven and a half times that volume of traffic, as
measured in ton-miles per capita per annum and having
5
a different system of keeping statistics, is not so simple
as it seems; but at least we can come nearer the truth
than those British soothsayers. Figures hereinafter
quoted are as nearly comparable as possible, those for
American railroads excluding accidents classsed as
"non-train and industrial/' that is, shop accidents,
because these are not reported by British railways.
While 94 per cent, of the "non-movement accidents"
enumerated in the Ministry of Transport's accident
report for 1924 are called "industrial," they all seem
to be included in Table 55 of Accident Bulletin No. 93,
issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission and
may, therefore, be included in comparisons herein¬
after drawn.
The first question is, how long is a railroad ?
The American practice is to build a railroad just long
enough to reach from one terminus to another. On this
basis Class I railroads alone have attained 11.6 times as
many miles of line as British railroads. As for cross-
section, the New York Central mileage of six-track
main line across the State of New York is equal to the
aggregate of four-track line in all Great Britain.
If we killed as many passengers in train accidents per
mile of line as Great Britain, we should have slaughtered
278 in that particular way instead of 41.
In this connection it is well to bear in mind that while
United States railroads carried only a little more than
75 per cent, of the number of originating passengers on
British railways, the average journey here was more
than three times the average in Great Britain, so that,
measured in passenger-miles traffic here was 2.6 times
passenger traffic there. On the basis of passenger-miles
British railroads would have killed 62 passengers in
train accidents in handling the American volume of
traffic while, if British railroads were as safe as our
6
own, only 17 passengers would have been killed in train
accidents in 1924, instead of the 24 actually killed.
Already a ray of hope illumines our accident record,
although comparisons are difficult because of the wide
diversity in all conditions. Take equipment. So far as
figures show, England is nearly on a par with the
United States in passenger cars, the difference being
only 3,472 cars in our favor. But what a difference!
Instead of the big, light, cheerful, roomy, well-venti¬
lated day coaches seating 84 persons to which we are
accustomed, the greater part of British passenger cars
are modeled after the cages which the Grand Monarque
reserved for his pet prisoners; cages in which the victim
can neither stand up nor lie down. These unventilated
compartments are so small and stuffy that in order to
breathe, passengers have to stick their heads out like
a crate of chickens going to market. At least, that
assumption seems warranted by the fact that 30 passen¬
gers were killed and 45 injured by falling out of carriages
while trains were running, in 1924. Such mishaps are
not classed as 'Train accidents." Now, perhaps, you
can see why British statisticians, when talking about
"safety," limit their remarks to train accidents.
America has more than 3.2 times as many freight
carrying cars as Great Britain, and mark the contrast.
If one of those British freight cars, or "wagons," as they
call them were to run onto your foot, and you found it
out, you could reach down and lift the car off and set
it aside. Then you could move your foot; for, of course,
you would not want to block the line. On the other
hand, if a British railroad man were to see a string of
our 70-ton coal cars coming toward him he would be
scared to death.
Methods, too, are different. When an English con¬
ductor—excuse me, the guard—is ready to go to the
7
next man's town, he blows a police whistle and waves
a green flag until he attracts the attention of the
engineer, and then he winks at him. A wink with the
right eye means "go ahead"; a wink with the left eye
means "back up." If you were to wink either eye at
an American locomotive engineer he would jump out
of his cab and make you prove it.
No! When an American freight conductor wants to
communicate with the front end of his train he writes
the engineer a postal card. In fact there is an uncon¬
firmed rumor, which is submitted here for what it is
worth, that the New York Central is considering a
plan to lengthen its operating divisions, so it can get a
train in to clear on one division. When a train extends
clear through a division and hangs over into the adjoin¬
ing division at each end it involves three dispatcher
jurisdictions; and if those three dispatchers were to
give conflicting orders the consequence might be a
break-in-to.
British railroads have no "switchmen," but "shun¬
ters," instead. They also have 736 shunt horse drivers;
for those Britishers actually do a part of their switching
with horses. The total motive power includes 1,058
horses used in railroad operation. That makes 4.1 per
cent, of motive power units of all kinds. I am not
familiar with British railroad lingo, but in fancy I can
hear in a British railroad yard something like this:
" T Bill! 'Arness the bye mare and 'urry to the
'ump. There's a bally lot of bloomin' waggins to be
marshalled."
Even with such primitive motive power our English
cousins contrive to roll up a goodly list of accidents.
A sample from the official reports of the Ministry of
Transport describes an attempt to make a flying switch
with a horse. When the draft chain was unhooked it
8
caught on a buffer, yanking the single-tree up so vio¬
lently that it bounced on the bean of the shunt horse
driver and Mr. Shunter took the count.
But the worst is yet to come. The official roster
includes 1,481 employes classed as ''capstan men."
I realize that it is an awful strain on your credulity to
ask you to believe that those Britishers actually do a
part of their switching with ropes and capstans; but
you dare not question a British Blue Book.
Capstans!
Can you imagine an American yardmaster bawling
out to a bunch of hard-boiled boomers:
"Come, you fellers! Man the capstan anr tail on to
that rope an' less shuffle these here box kyars."
Apparently they do not have car riders in British
railway yards; for there are government rules regulat¬
ing the use of the sprag, which is a stick to be thrown
between the spokes of the wheels in lieu of a brake to
0
stop the car. An official report describes how a shunter
had his fingers amputated by being caught between the
end of a sprag and a journal box.
Employes on American railroads fare better than on
British. They are involved in only 62 per cent, of all
casualties, while on British railways no less than 81 per
cent, of all accidents happen to employes. This would
seem to indicate that American safety work may be
more effective than is realized.
On the basis of locomotives miles, British railways
make a better showing in employes killed, worse in em¬
ployes injured; the rate per million locomotive miles
being decimal seventy-five (.75) for the United States,
decimal forty-five (.45) for Great Britain. Employes
injured per million locomotive miles in the United
States are 19.51 as compared with 35.9 in Great Britain.
9
However, this is not a fair comparison. The average
train load in Great Britain is only 130 tons as compared
with an average of 647 tons for all American roads.
On the Pittsburg & Lake Erie, one of the New York
Central Lines, the average revenue train load in 1924
was 1,569 tons. The average load for British cars is
only 5.54 tons as compared with 24.46 tons for American
cars. On the Pittsburg & Lake Erie the average car
load was 45.42 tons.
To approximate a comparable basis we must take
the ton-mile and passenger-mile. On this basis let us,
first, dispose of accidents to passengers.
To get killed in any way that would entitled him to
be counted by the Interstate Commerce Commission
in 1924, the American passenger had to travel an average
of 242,220,714 miles; but if he was in a hurry about it
he could cross to England and be killed in a railway
accident of some kind by traveling an average of only
124,904,273 miles. In other words, British railroads
kill 1.94 times as many passengers in proportion to
passenger-miles as the American railroads do. At the
British rate for 1924, American railroads would have
killed 288 passengers instead of the 149 they actually did
kill in accidents of all kinds, while at the American rate
British railroads would have killed only 58 passengers
instead of 112.
While 5,354 passengers were injured in accidents of all
kinds on American railroads in 1924 as compared with
2,966 on British roads, on a British passenger-mile
basis the American list of injured would have been
7,652 instead of 5,354. At the American passenger-mile
rate, British railroads would have injured only 2,075
passengers instead of 2,966.
To rub it in a bit, official statistics show that while
the number of passengers killed in 1924 showed a de-
10
crease of 24 per cent, from the 10-year average ending
with 1922, the corresponding decrease for American
railroads was 43^ per cent. That is to say, American
railroads are improving the safety record, so far as
passengers are concerned, nearly twice as fast as the
British railways.
Perhaps the most equitable basis of comparison would
be to lump together all casualties, both fatal and non¬
fatal, to all persons, passengers, employes, trespassers
and all others, except suicides, then combine both ton-
miles and passenger-miles, call their sum traffic-miles,
as representing the aggregate public service rendered,
and see what relation casualties bear to traffic-miles.
It may emphasize the fairness of this method to say
that United States railroad employes moved 260,888
traffic-miles per employe in 1924 as compared with only
50,444 traffic-miles per British employe. That is, the
average American railroad employe, with the help of
our up-to-date equipment, is five times as efficient as
the average British employe.
Since accidents happen in moving non-revenue freight
as readily as in hauling revenue freight, I have combined
both figures with revenue passenger-miles, making a
total of 462,926,375,289 traffic-miles for the United
States, which divided by 54,586 casualties of all kinds
gives one casualty to 8,480,677 traffic miles. Traffic-
miles for Great Britain, 35,339,393,785 casualties,
26,309, or one casualty to 1,343,243 traffic-miles. On
this showing British railroads have more than six times
as many accidents as American railroads.
At the British accident rate of traffic-miles per casual¬
ty, the United States would have had 344,633 casualties
in 1924 instead of the actual 54,586, while at the Ameri¬
can rate British railroads would have had only 4,167
casualties instead of the actual figure, which was 26,309.
11
Now for a cap sheaf let me dispose of that too-familiar
stuff about grade crossings. Whenever that subject is
mentioned some Oracle is sure to announce that no one
is ever killed at a grade crossing in England because
there are no grade crossings; and that no trespassers
are ever run over because it is an offence severly punish¬
able to walk on railroad tracks.
Strange as it may seem, the Ministry of Transport
does not agree with these members of these numerous
oracles. In its accident report for 1924 the Ministry of
Transport publicly confesses that 29 persons were killed
and 6 injured on grade crossings that year; and,
further, that no fewer than 141 trespassers were killed
and 62 injured, exclusive of the 213 suicides. Of course,
this is nothing like our own record of grade crossing
slaughter, but it is an interesting reminder of the fact
that lots of things we know aren't so.
The long and short of the matter is that American
railroads render far better service at less than half the
average cost on British railroads, and they are also
much safer for everybody concerned than the railroads
of Great Britain, or any other country.
12