WASHINGTON, D.C. — According to the Baton Rouge Advocate, the massive train derailment in Eunice, La., two years ago prompted the National Transportation Safety Board to recommend that track inspectors revise their schedules and pay more attention to routes carrying large volumes of hazardous materials, Congress was told Wednesday.
However, systematic track improvements remain on a list of about 50 safety recommendations that have not been implemented by the railroad industry or the Federal Railroad Administration, NTSB Chairman Marion Blakely told the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee.
The condition of railroad tracks and a lack of automatic-control systems to stop errant trains are NTSB’s two most-serious railroad safety concerns, Blakely said.
In the Eunice derailment, a Union Pacific train carrying chemicals burned and exploded, forcing a widespread evacuation and causing about $30 million in damage.
The NTSB determined that track weaknesses contributed to the Eunice derailment. Track-inspection records maintained by the Federal Railroad Administration, or FRA, showed the weaknesses probably existed for a long time before the accident, the Commerce Committee said.
“We asked the FRA to consider the volume of hazardous waste shipments made over tracks when they are looking at the frequency and types of inspections they order,” Blakely said.
Blakely and other rail experts said misalignments and other track problems are a factor in 30 percent to 40 percent of train accidents. Hazardous material routes and those carrying a lot of passengers “deserve a higher degree of inspection and oversight,” Blakely said.
According to statistics compiled by the office of U.S. Sen. John Breaux, D-La., Louisiana has had 24 train accidents from January to April.
The incidents, which resulted in two injuries and more than $1 million in damage, involved 63 cars carrying hazardous materials, including 18 that derailed or were damaged.
Breaux is chairman of the Commerce Committee’s surface transportation subcommittee and presided at Wednesday’s hearing.
Blakely complained that some railroad operators have been slow to address track improvements or install “positive train control” systems.
Such systems are designed to stop a train when an engineer has not complied with a safety signal.
“Positive train control has been on our most-wanted list of safety improvements since 1990,” Blakely said. “PTC systems have the ability to eliminate almost all rail collisions.”
Breaux said the Bush administration’s proposed rail-safety legislation does not address either positive train control systems or what he said is another well-known problem — fatigue. The Federal Railroad Administration should mandate new work rules to ensure train crews are rested and alert, Breaux said.
Allan Rutter, administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, replied that omitting the work rules “was a conscious decision.” Railroad operators and rail labor unions can not agree on new work rules, and a series of rail-safety commissions “have bogged down on these issues,” Rutter said.
“Basically what you’re saying is ‘Because it’s controversial, we didn’t want to touch it,’ ” Breaux said. “I find that very deficient.”
Representing railroad operators, Edward Hamberger of the Association of American Railroads said the industry spent $30 million to test one positive train control system and discovered that it destroyed computerized communications and signal-control equipment.
“There is no PTC system that you can pick off the shelf,” Hamberger said.
More tests are needed to devise systems that are suitable for “real world” conditions and for different rail carriers, Hamberger said.
Breaux replied that the technology for positive train control systems has been around since 1990.
“My own thought is you are way too late,” Breaux said.