Rail  Safety,  Rulemaking  and  Enforcement  

JOHN  TUNNA  Director  

Office  of  Research  and  Development  Office  of  Railroad  Policy  and  Development    

Content  

•  Who  is  the  Federal  Railroad  Administra;on?  •  How  the  FRA  captures  na;onal  rail  safety  data  and  uses  it  to  improve  safety  

•  FRA’s  approach  to  managing  risk  in  the  U.S.  railroad  industry  

•  FRA’s  approach  to  applying  science  and  engineering  to  improve  safety  

2  

   

Who We Are The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) enables the safe, reliable, and efficient movement of people and goods for a strong America, now and in the future.

•  Safety is our number one priority •  We are laying a foundation for higher performing rail •  Promulgating and enforcing rail safety regulations •  Investing in America’s Rail corridors •  Facilitating and conducting research

and technology development

RAIL– Moving America Forward

U.S.  Railroad  Accident  History  •  Con;nuous  safety  improvement  during  a  period  of  growth  in  freight  and  passenger  traffic  

4  

Railroad  Accident  Incident  ReporDng  System  (RAIRS)  

•  Railroad  opera;onal  data    –  Total  train  miles,  passenger  miles,    

employee  hours    

•  Railroad  casualty  database    –  Fatali;es,  injuries,  occupa;onal  illnesses  –  Employees,  contractors,  passengers,  trespassers,  non-­‐trespassers  

•  Reportable  railroad  accidents  –  Derailments,  collisions,  etc.  –  Threshold:    $9,900  in  property  damage  (2013)  

•  Highway-­‐rail  grade  crossing  accidents  -­‐  ALL  

5  

Grade  Crossing  Inventory  System  (GCIS)  

•  Inventory  of  the  Na;on’s  highway-­‐rail  grade    crossings  –  Crossing  characteris;cs  –  Historical  informa;on  –  Accident  history  –  Railroad  and  State  repor;ng  –  GX32:  free  so[ware  for  railroad  and    State  use  

–  Risk  formulas  –  Historically  voluntary  repor;ng  –  Rule  to  require  updates  every  3  years  

6  

Railroad  InspecDon  ReporDng  System  (RIRS)  •  Railroad  Inspec;on  System  for  the  Personal  Computer  (RISPC)  –  Secure  site  –  Inspec;on  reports  –  Viola;on  reports    (railroad  defects  and  viola;ons)  

•  Serves  as  FRA’s  compliance  monitor  for  the  industry  

•  Informs  the  Na;onal  Inspec;on  Plan  

7  

§  20156.  Railroad  safety  risk  reducDon  program  (1)  PROGRAM  REQUIREMENT.—  ...  the  Secretary  of  Transporta;on  .  .  .  shall  require  each  railroad  carrier  ...  ‘‘(A)  to  develop  a  railroad  safety  risk  reduc;on  program  under  subsec;on  (d)  that  systemaDcally  evaluates  railroad  safety  risks  on  its  system  and  manages  those  risks  .  .  .    (2)  RELIANCE  ON  PILOT  PROGRAM.—The  Secretary  may  conduct  behavior-­‐based  safety  and  other  research,  including  pilot  programs,  before  promulga;ng  regula;ons  under  this  subsec;on  and  therea[er.  

Risk  ReducDon  110TH  CONGRESS  of  the  United  States  of  America  H.R.  2095  -­‐  Rail  Safety  Improvement  Act  of  2008  

Regulatory  and  Non-­‐regulatory  Approaches  

RegulaDons  

•  Available  at  www.ecfr.gov  Title  49  Transporta;on  •  Include  civil  penal;es  for  viola;ons  

10  

NaDonal  InspecDon  Plan  

•  Based  on  an  analysis  of  safety  risk  in  each  region  

11  

Research  Program  Areas  

12  

Tank  Car  Releases  

Hazmat  Tank  Car  Head  Shield  Research  •  Reducing  the  loss  of  hazardous  material  a[er  accidents  involved  designing  and  tes;ng  head  shields  

Early testing Head shield

From  Research  to  Rulemaking  

15  

•  Ac;vity  between  1970  and  1981  •  FRA’s  R&D  agenda  evolved  to  match  FRA  rulemaking  priori;es  •  Connec&on:      

•  All  relevant  research  reports  were  referenced  in  FRA  rule  making  documents  All  FRA  rule  making  documents  referred  to  relevant  research  reports  

0  

10  

20  

30  

40  

50  

60  

70  

1965  

1970  

1975  

1980  

1985  

1990  

1995  

2000  

2005  

Num

ber  o

f  Acciden

ts  

DOT-­‐105,  112  and  114  Cars  with  Head  Damage  in  Accidents  and    Losing  Lading  through  Heads  

Lading  Losses  

Number  of  Reports  1970:  1  1976:  2  1971:  5  1977:  0  1972:  1  1978:  2  1973:  4  1979:  0  1974:  3  1980:  2  

                 1975:  16                                  

Rulemaking  1974  Final  Rule  

HM-­‐109  

1977  Final  Rule  HM-­‐144  

1981  Final  Rule  HM-­‐174  

January  14,  2008  –  Lawrence,  IL  Post-­‐accident  InspecDon  

17  

79” high by 48” wide dent 10-11” average depth

No Release of Hazardous Materials – Ethylene Oxide

(PIH)

Improving  Safety  Culture  

Non-­‐regulatory  Approaches  

What  is  C3RS?  •  A  close  call  is  “an  opportunity  to  

improve  safety  prac;ces  in  a  situa;on  or  incident  that  has  a  poten;al  for  more  serious  consequences.”    

•  Railroad  workers  observe  individual  events  and  submit  a  confiden;al  report  

•  Peer  Review  Teams  (PRT)  consis;ng  of  labor,  management,  and  FRA  analyze  the  groups  of  events,  to  iden;fy  safety  hazards  and  develop  solu;ons  to  these  threats.    

•  The  pilot  is  a  small-­‐scale  test  of  a  close  call  repor;ng  system  for  the  railroad  industry  

20  

Example  of  Improvements  

Safety  Culture    •  Improvements  in  Safety  

Culture  have  been  seen  •  Based  on  interviews  and  the  

Railroad  Safety  Culture  Survey  –  Compared  at  start  of  C3RS  

and  midterm  

Midterm  Survey  Results  

21  

Significant  Improvement  

Managers Labor Labor-Management Relations ü ü Organizational Fairness During Change ü

Supervisor Fairness ü ü Supervisor-Employee Relationship ü Management Safety ü ü Raising Concerns with Supervisors ü Work Safety Priorities ü Helping Behavior ü Coworker Safety ü

Example  of  Railroad  Impact  

22  

-­‐100%  -­‐90%  -­‐80%  -­‐70%  -­‐60%  -­‐50%  -­‐40%  -­‐30%  -­‐20%  -­‐10%  0%  

Human  Factor  Derailments   Excess  Speed  Reports   Disciplinary  Cases  

31%  ReducDon  

48%  ReducDon  

90%  ReducDon  

Joint  Bar  InspecDon  System  

Derailment  at  Eunice,  LA  in  May  2000  §  33  freight  cars  derailed;  15  contained  hazardous  materials  resul;ng  in  explosions  and  a  fire  

§  ~3,500  people  were  evacuated  from  the  area  

§  Total  damages  exceeded  $35  million  

§  NTSB  concluded  that  the  cause  of  the  accident  was  the  failure  of  a  set  of  rail  joint  bars  that  had  remained  in  service  with  undetected  and  uncorrected  defects  

24  

Joint  Bar  InspecDon  System  ImplementaDon  

25  

•  Three  Class  1  railroads  own  joint  bar  inspec;on  systems  

•  two  are  deployed  on  full-­‐size  rail  inspec;on  vehicles  

•  one  is  installed  on  a  hi-­‐rail  

•  Maximum  survey  speed  currently  is  65  mph  

•  The  system  provides  a  joint  bar  inventory,  measures  rail  gaps  and  detects  cracks  

CP-­‐TEC63  

Inspec&on  Services  

 Rail  Gap  Measurement/Excep&on  Detec&on  

$250K  

Joint  Bar  related  accidents  per  year  

Timeline  

Joint  Bar  InspecDon  System  EvaluaDon  

26  

 Source:  FRA  Office  of  Safety    *Par&al  data  available  only    

2000  

2001  

2002  

2003  

2004  

2005  

2006  

2007  

2008  

2009  

2010  

2011  

$75K   $71K   $193K   $358K   $348K   $425K   $2K  

2001    Discussion  about  this  task  started  

2004    Amtrak    &  UP  Derailment    3rd  Field  Test  

2005    Field  Test  at  UP  and  CP  Data  CollecDon    and  System  Dev  

2006    Demo  RSAC  Final  Rule  Published    

2000    UP    RR  Derailment  in  Eunice,  LA  

2007    Commercial  Vehicle  1  

2008  Commercial  Vehicle  2  &3  

2011  Commercial  Vehicle  4  

2003  1st  and  2nd  field  test    

FRA  $   Commercial  $  ?  ?   ?   ?  

Actual  applica;on  of  the  technology  in  its  final  form  and  under  opera;onal  condi;ons,  such  as  those  encountered  in  opera;onal  test  and  evalua;on.  In  almost  all  cases,  this  is  the  end  of  the  last  “bug  fixing”  aspects  of  true  system  development.    

Technology  readiness  level  

FRA  Total  Funding:  $1.3  M  

Engineer-­‐in-­‐Charge  Portable  Remote  Terminal  

PosiDve  Train  Control  Background  The  Rail  Safety  Improvement  Act  of  2008  requires  certain  freight  and  passenger  railroads,  by  2015,  to  deploy  PTC.  PTC  must:    •  Prevent  train  to  train      

collisions  •  Prevent  over  speed  

derailments  •  Prevent  incursions  into  established  work  zones  

•  Prevent  movement  of  a  train  through  a  switch  le[  in  the  wrong  posi;on  

  28  

Router

Dispatch  System

PTC-­‐Equipped  Locomo;ve  

Train  Control  System  Office  Equipment

Office  Segment

EIC-­‐PRT

Cellular Radio  

Internet

WWAN  Base  Sta;on

VPN

SBD  

Work  Limits  

Enters  instrucDons  Reads  instrucDons  to  train  crew  Approves  instrucDons  

Train  moves  out  of  Work  Limits  TMC  sends  train  out  of  work  limits  

Back  Office  Archives  request  and  instrucDons  

TMC  displays  locaDon  of  Work  Limits  ~3  miles  out  Crew  acknowledges  intenDon  to  enter  Work  Limits  TMC  enforces  stop  at  Work  Limits  unDl  EIC  permission  is  received  

TMC  Sends  request  for  EIC  instrucDons  

EIC-­‐approved  instrucDons  

Back  Office  Voice  CommunicaDon  :  Engineer  requests  entry  and  EIC  gives  instrucDons    

TMC  displays  and    enforces  instrucDons  

Track    Bulle;n  

 NoDfies  EIC  of    pending  request  

Back  Office  

Train  Approaches  Work  Limits  

Sends  to  PRT  that  has  control  

Train  transiDons  Work  Limits   TMC  enforces  EIC  instrucDons  

Portable  Remote  Terminal  OperaDon  

TMC:  Train  Management  Computer    SBD:  Safe  Braking  Distance  

Example:  Proceed  with  Speed  RestricDon  and  Stop  

15.0   20.0  

16.0   17.2  

Timeline  

Engineer-­‐in-­‐Charge  Portable  Remote  Terminal  Development  

31  

2004  

2005  

2006  

2007  

2008  

2009  

2010  

2011  

2012  

2013  

$350K   $350K   $350K   $350K   $350K   $350K   $750K  

2005    Concept  of  Op  &  Sys  Design  started  

2007    2nd  sys  demo  

2008    Field  Test  at  TTCI  Office  Server  &  Loco  Simulator  

2009    Sys  IntegraDon  into  BNSF  ETMS  Sys  

2004    Discussion  about  this  task  started  

2010    Build  1  FuncDonality  Development  

2011    Build  2    Concept  Document  Review  

2006  1st    sys  demo    

FRA  $  

FRA  Total  Funding:  $3.8  M  

$100K   $500K  

Technology  readiness  level  

$500K  

2012    Build  2  tesDng  &  evaluaDon  

2013    Build  3    Concept  Document  Review  

2014  

$500K  

LocomoDve  Engineer  

Request    EIC  

instruc;ons  

EIC  

Read    instruc;ons  to  crew  

   

 

RAIL– Moving America Forward

   

Visit us at: www.fra.dot.gov