Historical numbers of railway workers employed and of worker fatalities/casualties?

[david.hill64]

Eurostat publishes some interesting stuff: not very historic though.

 

Typical link here:

 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Railway_safety_statistics&oldid=326173

[roythebus]

It was interesting to see the Sationmaster's description of Green Card men. It was commonly assumed that  "green card' drivers were fit to drive in yards and the like (through medical reasons), while red card drivers were not allowed to drive trains. Much like defective wagon ards, green card, can move to a place of repair, red card, must not go anywhere!

 

A few years back I read an American based encylopaedia. One of the volumes had a lengthy chapter on the railroad men of the 1800s. Fro memory there were thousands of deaths on the US railroads, a vast number being caused through shunting accidents. At the time they used solid bar couplings with a removable pin which meant the shunter had to stand between to get the bar into the coupler pocket. Hence the large number of deaths. It was this that prompted the almost universal use of the buckeye coupler in the USA.

[burgundy]

1 hour ago, roythebus said:

A few years back I read an American based encylopaedia. One of the volumes had a lengthy chapter on the railroad men of the 1800s. Fro memory there were thousands of deaths on the US railroads, a vast number being caused through shunting accidents. At the time they used solid bar couplings with a removable pin which meant the shunter had to stand between to get the bar into the coupler pocket. Hence the large number of deaths. It was this that prompted the almost universal use of the buckeye coupler in the USA.

Walking along the top of freight cars to screw down the brakes must also have been a pretty high risk activity. 

Best wishes 

Eric 

[The Stationmaster]

10 hours ago, roythebus said:

It was interesting to see the Sationmaster's description of Green Card men. It was commonly assumed that  "green card' drivers were fit to drive in yards and the like (through medical reasons), while red card drivers were not allowed to drive trains. Much like defective wagon ards, green card, can move to a place of repair, red card, must not go anywhere!

 

A few years back I read an American based encylopaedia. One of the volumes had a lengthy chapter on the railroad men of the 1800s. Fro memory there were thousands of deaths on the US railroads, a vast number being caused through shunting accidents. At the time they used solid bar couplings with a removable pin which meant the shunter had to stand between to get the bar into the coupler pocket. Hence the large number of deaths. It was this that prompted the almost universal use of the buckeye coupler in the USA.

Interesting Roy - all the Green Card ex=footplatemen men I knew over the years had been taken off as a result of the injury etc which led to them being given a Green Card - in virtually all cases because it affected their ability to walk or climb up onto an engine.  Green NI cards were only issued to Registered Disabled people.  At one depot we had 'light duties' men who were driving - because we had turns on which they could be placed.  But at two of my previous depots we'd had light duties men who couldn't be employed on their normal work so were doing other jobs - but none of them had Green Cards.

 

However in any event National Insurance cards were abolished in 1975 so after that date the previous 'Green Gard' designation ceased to exist and all that applied in the railway industry were medical restrictions applied by the relevant Railway Medical Officer, which very often were the MO's interpretation of how a condition identified by a GP or consultant could be accommodated while still keeping the person involved in railway employment.  

 

However the National Insurance system, and legislation, still recognised Registered Disabled Persons - i.e. those who previously had a green NI card.   The 1944. Disabled Persons (Employment) Act  placed a legal requirement on employers to employ a stated percentage of green NI card holders and that continued after 1975 although those involved were simply regarded as Registered Disabled - the Act was amended several times in the 1990s and subsequently which in effect reduced the level of duty on an employer and gradually changed it to a situation where they could not discriminate against a Registered Disabled person.   In that respect they always were, and no doubt still are, different from people put on light, or different, duties for health or other reasons - where there is effectively no legal protection beyond general employment law. 

 

Thus at the final footplate depot I managed I had a mixture of both Registered Disabled men (who if in that state prior to 1975 would have had a Green Card) and light or restricted duties men - e.g. only allowed to drive on shed or restricted to what was known as a 'domestic turn' for whatever reason.

 

The other bit which used to apply was what was called the Mean Rate on wages - thus for a Green Card man he would retain his original rate of pay (if it was higher than the rate for the job he was doing) less 10/- a week off his basic rate.  A good  example of this would be the Gatemen that could be found way back in the past at many larger sheds and who inevitably tended to be Green Card men.  If they had been, say, a Driver they would be paid the basic pay at their original Driver's rate of pay less 10/-  instead of being paid the much lower basic rate of pay for a Gateman.

[eldomtom2]

Further digging has uncovered a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article giving detailed accident figures for 1908.

[SED Freightman]

On 04/04/2020 at 14:06, The Stationmaster said:

Very interesting and all the high risk jobs seem to be reflected much as expected.  The figure for Drivers doesn't really surprise me as there were numerous ways accidents could occur on shed, particularly with inside motion engines where it was not unknown for drivers to be killed or injured if the engine they were oiling inside was hit or moved while they were 'in between'.  Similarly with 'Labourers' who were basically loco shed staff and could be involved with moving engines and working on engines in steam.

 

One figure which surprises me is the very low injury rate for Signalmen in a grade where ruptures were an ever present hazard.  But I presume injury developing over time is not reflected in the figure which no doubt comes from staff accident reports so doesn't  necessarily include people going sick or placed on light duties because of a long term condition.  Does the book say anything about light duty staff or  - if they existed by then - what were later known as 'Green Card men' who had a green National Insurance Card to reflect thei fact that they had some sort of physical impairment?

Thinking about it, you are of course correct regarding the figures for Drivers and Firemen, I had overlooked the dangers of oiling up and climbing on and off tenders etc. along with all the other shed based hazards.

 

There is no further information in the book beyond the two tables, so I guess the cause of staff being placed on light duties or pensioned off would be contained within the figures for injuries.

 

I have a few older editions of the Railway Year Book and will have a look to see if they also contain similar stats, if so I will post copies here once they have been scanned.

[SED Freightman]

Extract from The Railway Year Book for 1916 detailing staff accident statistics for 1914.

 

[SED Freightman]

Extract from the Railway Year Book for 1919 detailing staff accident statistics for 1917, unfortunately there are no details giving the numbers of staff employed in each grade.

 

[eldomtom2]

Useful information, though unfortunately they seem to be dealing with different subsets of the workforce to each other.

[The Stationmaster]

On 10/04/2020 at 20:35, SED Freightman said:

Thinking about it, you are of course correct regarding the figures for Drivers and Firemen, I had overlooked the dangers of oiling up and climbing on and off tenders etc. along with all the other shed based hazards.

 

There is no further information in the book beyond the two tables, so I guess the cause of staff being placed on light duties or pensioned off would be contained within the figures for injuries.

 

I have a few older editions of the Railway Year Book and will have a look to see if they also contain similar stats, if so I will post copies here once they have been scanned.

I do wonder to what extent 'injured' is a complete reflection of all injuries.   The reporting of injuries depended on various things some of which changed over the years depending in some instances on legislative requirements.  For instance in my time of have to complete accident report injuries were only reported if they involved an absence from duty of three days or longer and therefore would not include necessarily include the development of longer conditions arising from an injury which could lead to an early death.   Similarly a severe injury which led to death after, say, a couple of weeks would be recorded as an injury.

[iands]

Rummaging through my bookcase, I came across a booklet I'd forgotten about titled "Prevention of Accidents to Staff Engaged in Railway Operations." It has some staged photos in it to demonstrate some of the everyday dangers, the wrong way of doing things and the right way to do things. Although not dated, judging by a couple of locos in some of the photos, I've narrowed the date of publication down to between 1924 and 1926, and is jointly produced by the Great Western, London and North Eastern, London Midland and Scottish, and Southern Railway companies. Although it doesn't provide any real statistics, the opening paragraph in the introduction reads:

"Every year between 200 and 300 railwaymen are KILLED, and in addition SEVERAL THOUSANDS meet with accidents which lay them aside for days, weeks, months, or for always." (Their words in capitals).

I'm not sure if these figures are  only a reflection of accidents since Grouping (1923), or includes accidents for a few years in the run up to Grouping as well (e.g. since the end of WW1 in 1918). Either way, the figures suggest an average of between 50 and 75 deaths per year per company. As the booklet is aimed at staff working on the lineside, in sidings and depots etc., I'm assuming the figures exclude deaths to footplate staff and guards that may have been killed as the result of collisions, derailments, etc.

It would be interesting to compare these death rates with subsequent 10 year statistics (say 1936, 1946, 1956, etc.) to see if the rate remained fairly constant, rose even higher, or even declined, to judge whether this type of publication/training had an significant effect. I realise there will be other factors involved that would have an impact in accident rates that may well distort the figures, so a direct comparison may not be possible (e.g. comparing apples with oranges), but I guess that may well be the intention of the original post.