The Feb. 3 derailment of a Norfolk Southern train near East Palestine, Ohio, has generated a lot of interest not only in rail safety but also in why train accidents and derailments even happen in the first place.
To help inform the discussion about train accidents, FreightWaves examined some of the safety data the Class I railroads have submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration to see what trends, if any, have occurred over the last 10 years. But in order to look for those tendencies, it’s helpful to define what data points to examine.
What are the different types of train accidents?
FRA collects rail safety data on train derailments, accidents at highway-grade crossings, injuries or fatalities and the causes and frequency of different types of mishaps. The agency collects this data from submissions by all U.S. passenger and freight railroads. In 2022, there were 834 railroads reporting accident data to FRA. Railroads report this data because there are federal mandates requiring them to do so.
As a data category, train accidents consist of collisions — head-on, rear-end, side, raking and broken train — as well as fires/violent ruptures and explosions/detonations.
Derailments are also a subset of train accidents. Among all the U.S. freight and passenger railroads, there were 1,168 derailments in 2022. Among the Class I railroads, there were 911 derailments in ’22.
While the agency collects data on highway-rail grade crossing collisions and trespass events, they are not considered train accidents due to being considered incidental to the operation of a train.
What causes train accidents?
FRA breaks down the cause of accidents by five categories: equipment, human factor, miscellaneous, signal and track.
According to FRA, here is a breakdown of the causes for all train accidents in calendar years 2021 and ’22 as of Feb. 14. This data pertains to passenger and freight rail accidents on the mainline and in the yard:
| Accident cause | Percentage of total |
| Equipment | 14.7% |
| Human factor | 38.1% |
| Miscellaneous | 12.5% |
| Signal | 1.1% |
| Track | 33.5% |
The data below on accident causes encompasses the five Class I railroads headquartered in the U.S. — BNSF (NYSE: BRK.B), CSX (NASDAQ: CSX), Kansas City Southern, Norfolk Southern (NYSE: NSC) and Union Pacific (NYSE: UNP). Canadian railways CN (NYSE: CNI) and Canadian Pacific (NYSE: CP) operate in the U.S., but the bulk of their operations are north of the border. KCS also has operations in Mexico.
The data also reflects accidents happening on the mainline and the rail yard.
In both charts, train accidents caused by human factors constitute the highest percentage across the five Class I railroads. Human factors run the gamut from failure to control shoving movements and improperly lined switches to an absence of a crew member to handle shoving movements and passed couplers.
What is the major freight railroads’ track record for safety?
There are other ways to look at FRA’s rail safety data. One is to look at the accident rates, which can be more reflective of how certain categories perform over time. In contrast, accident totals may vary on conditions beyond the industry’s control, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
The first graph below also accounts for Class I railroad accidents that take place all over the network: on the mainline track, in the yard and at highway-grade crossings. The top graph shows the overall rate of such mishaps.
The second graph is a subset of the top graph and accounts for train accidents that occur on the mainline or while a train is en route. The third graph is also a subset and shows the rate of accidents occurring at rail yards.
The fourth graph in this series shows the rate of injuries for employees on duty per 200,000 workers. When considering all these graphs together, the employee injury rate overall has stayed roughly flat even though the overall accident rate increased.
Since rail safety for hazardous materials is being scrutinized in light of the NS train crash involving the derailment of cars carrying hazardous materials, here is some data showing hazmat rail cars over the last 10 years, as well as the percentage of hazmat cars that have derailed:
Why has the rate for rail yard accidents increased?
While accident rates on the mainline have fluctuated over the last 10 years, one area where train mishaps have ticked upward is those occurring at the rail yard. The four major U.S. Class I railroads — BNSF, UP, CSX and NS — all show an increase in that area.
An example of how an accident can occur at a yard is when a worker does not properly line up a manual switch.
Why there’s an upward trend depends on who you ask. The railroads argue the upward trend is due in part to inflation over the last 10 years since the monetary threshold for reporting accidents hasn’t kept up with the pace of inflation. Even minor accidents might be reported due to the expensive costs of the equipment involved.
The unions argue the head-count reductions brought on by precision scheduled railroading, a tool the Class I railroads deployed to streamline operations, contributed to the rise in yard accidents. The unions contend there either hasn’t been enough staffing to prevent these accidents, or there is staffing, but the training has been inadequate in part because of the rush to get workers on board and on the job.
Another problem is working at the yard isn’t as desirable as other jobs, so there can be frequent turnover as well as a lack of experience as newer employees tackle those duties.
Finally, the need for a more responsive safety culture that emphasizes preventative maintenance might also be coming into play, observers have argued.
What can be done to prevent train accidents, derailments?
There are several ways the industry, its stakeholders and the government have already addressed the prevention of train accidents.
For starters, U.S. safety regulations, as detailed in the federal code, can help play a role in averting train accidents overall, according to FRA.
Ways to reduce train accidents caused by human factors could include further study or regulations related to employee qualifications, such as training and certification, medical fitness for duty, such as looking at hours of service and alcohol and drug testing, and worker compliance with codified railroad operating rules and practices.
Within FRA is the Office of Research, Development and Technology, which sponsors and manages research, development and demonstration programs designed to improve the safety, security, efficiency and capacity of freight and passenger rail transportation. The four divisions within this office are track research, rolling stock research, train control and communications research, and human factors research.
Another way is through research and development by universities and industry research consortiums such as the Transportation Technology Center.
There also are plenty of technological tools aimed at enhancing safety. Many of these — including those that could be involved in preventing another East Palestine derailment — are able to detect vulnerabilities or cracks in equipment or track that might not be visible to the naked eye, according to rail safety experts. The railroads already have deen deploying such technologies in addition to visual inspections.
For instance, Union Pacific uses advanced technology that calculates a train’s forces in real time and allows a 24/7 expert operating team to monitor and make changes to train makeup or handling instructions before departure, reducing the risk of derailments, UP told FreightWaves. This technology-driven approach has reduced mainline derailments throughout 2022 and thus far in ’23. Technology like this, as well as education, help to reduce variability and risk, according to UP.
CSX told FreightWaves it “continues to implement risk-based approaches to safety, while investing in technologies that increase safety and efficiency. While no accident is acceptable, CSX has led the industry with the fewest number of FRA reportable train accidents. In 2022, CSX had the second-fewest FRA train accidents in company history. The vast majority of CSX incidents are in the yard and minor in nature. We continue to instill the ‘One CSX’ safety culture within our new hires, maintain that culture in our experienced employees and focus on the training and discipline we need to reduce human factor incidents.”
Norfolk Southern also said it’s seeking to implement next-generation technologies as it reassesses its program for wayside detectors.
But among industry observers and stakeholders, there remain lingering questions about the best ways to ensure and enhance railroad safety.
The answers are many. The unions have argued adequate training — as well as adequate staffing — are necessary to ensure safe operations. The railroads typically have pointed to technological advancements that can discover physical vulnerabilities that might not be detected by humans.
Researchers have related to FreightWaves the need for more data, especially for hot topics such as electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, in order to ensure proposed solutions are viable.
Another issue is whether rail stakeholders can take existing data, such as what’s provided by wayside detectors, and use it to anticipate needs or adjust operations in real time.
Politicians, such as congressional members or the president, may also themselves propose regulations as incidents such as East Palestine arise.
The answer may end up being … all of the above.
FreightWaves senior editorial researcher Joe Antoshak contributed to this report.
Subscribe to FreightWaves’ e-newsletters and get the latest insights on freight right in your inbox.
Click here for more FreightWaves articles by Joanna Marsh.
