Final Report Advisory Council on Rail Safety Working Group on Locomotive Voice and Video Recorders

Working Group Considerations

From: Transport Canada

In conducting its examination of LVRs and inward (crew) facing videoFootnote 10, the Working Group members examined the following issues:

  • Uses/Safety Benefits
  • Legal/Privacy Issues
  • Accident/Investigation Statistics
  • Cost/Benefit Analysis
  • Other modes
  • Practices in other countries
  • Technological issues
  • Voluntary/Regulatory Approaches
  • Other possible actions

Uses/Safety Benefits

Very early in its deliberations the Working Group contemplated the possible uses and benefits of installing locomotive voice recorders (and video recorders).

The Working Group concluded that under the current scenario and (with TSB only access to the information) there was minimal, if any, safety benefit. Members also agreed that this provided an after-the-fact investigative tool rather than a proactive or preventative safety instrument.

The Working Group members also had to contend with opposing opinions and interpretations with respect to the scope and applicability of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation Safety Board Act (CTAISB Act).

The Working Group members agreed that the lack of clarity with respect to the applicability and scope of the CTAISB Act is problematic and probably open to legal challenge.

While solving the issue of CTAISB scope and applicability was beyond the mandate of the Working Group, members unanimously agreed that this issue needed to be resolved as it would affect any option that the Working Group recommended.

Accident/Investigation Statistics

While the impetus for the Working Group was the recent VIA Burlington accident which received much attention, the Working Group took into account the following accident and investigation statistics.

Since 1991, there have been over 600 rail investigationsFootnote 11 conducted by the TSB. As of October 2012, in only five of these investigations did the TSB make reference to LVRs, which represents approximately less than one per cent of all investigationsFootnote 12.

Of the five investigations noted, three involved VIA Rail passenger trains.

To note, an additional accident is still under investigation by the TSB – this is i the Burlington accident, which prompted the establishment of the Working Group where the TSB has indicated that LVRs would have been helpful for their ongoing investigation.

Given this information, the Working Group members agreed that the number of accidents and rate of investigation do not support the need for this LVR and video technology if used solely for post-incident investigation.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

Given industry's concerns with respect to costs and their ability to use recordings, and that industry supports the installation of voice and video recorders only if railway companies had access to the information for compliance monitoring, the Working Group requested that industry provide a cost/benefit analysis.

CN and CP conducted a cost/benefit analysis on installing inward facing cameras and voice recorders considering the following three scenarios:

  • TSB investigative use only
  • Railway use for post accident/incident
  • Railway compliance monitoring and investigation

As industry estimated the cost of installation to be $10,000 per locomotiveFootnote 13, equipping the entire CN/CP fleet of high horsepower locomotives would cost approximately $22 Million. Maintenance costs per year were estimated to be $250 - $500 per year per locomotiveFootnote 14.

Benefits were assumed to be associated with a reduction in violations and ultimately in accidents or incidents involving freight road power in which crew inattention may have played a role.

Based on historical data for the past five yearsFootnote 15, an average of 146 such occurrences have taken place each yearFootnote 16. The cost of such occurrences (damage and injury) was estimated to be approx $6M per yearFootnote 17. Analysis also showed that TSB had investigated only seven of these occurrences over five years, which represents an average of 1.4 per year=1% of occurrencesFootnote 18.

The analysis estimated that the following benefits could be obtained for each of the three scenarios.

  1. Limited to TSB investigation with no ability for railways to use for compliance monitoring or discipline purposes. Would be used in only 1.4 occurrences per year.

    Footnote 19Estimated effectiveness = 3%.

    Benefit would be $180K per year. Payback in 122 years.

  2. Used by railway but only for post accident/incident. Would be used in 146 occurrences per year.

    Estimated effectiveness = 15%.

    Benefit would be $900K per year. Payback in 24.5 years.

  3. Used by railway as part of safety and compliance monitoring. Would be used on daily basis.

    Estimated effectiveness = 33%.

    Benefit would be $2M per year. Payback in 11 years.

Therefore, for CN and CP, only the latter scenario (use by railways as part of safety and compliance monitoring) could justify the cost of installations.

VIA has estimated that the cost to implement voice recording on its fleet is approximately $300,000Footnote 20. VIA noted that this cost could change depending on the success of prototype testing and whether additional design adjustments are required.Footnote 21

It should also be noted that, at this time, current available suppliers of the technology can't guarantee crash hardiness (survivability) of voice recorders, which could defeat the purpose of any use. Estimates indicate the costs would increase approximately 20%.Footnote 22

Other modes

In examining the practices of other Transport Canada modes, it was noted that Civil Aviation and Marine Safety initially developed their respective voice recorder regulations to meet international obligations (i.e. under the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and International Maritime Organization (IMO). For the rail mode there is no overarching international organization that prescribes or recommends obligations and practices. That said, TC Rail Safety and the FRA continue to work together to harmonize rail safety regulatory requirements on a North American basis whenever possible.

It was also noted that the respective operating environments for these modes is very different to rail. In rail, there are numerous stretches of time when there is no requirement to speak in the locomotive cab. For the most part, the communications in the locomotive consists of calling signals and confirming slow orders. For locomotives on main corridors (such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver) communications would represent approximately 50% of the trip/travel time). For branch lines and shortlines (such as those operating in the prairies or transporting grain) communications would represent approximately 5% of the trip/travel time.

The Working Group also noted:

  • At this time, there is no requirement for on board video (crew facing) in Civil Aviation or Marine Safety,
  • In Civil Aviation, following a flight with no incidents recordings are "scrubbed",
  • Voice recordings in Civil Aviation and Marine Safety come under the CTAISB Act and therefore the information is privileged. However, as already noted, a recent court ruling has set the legal precedent that information collected during an investigation is not protected once the investigation is complete.
  • In Civil Aviation and Marine Safety, voice recordings are not used for compliance monitoring or disciplinary action as this would be a breach of the CTAISB Act (Section 28(7))

Practices in other countries

Europe

Voice/internal video recording systems in drivers cab are not known in Europe. Known surveillance systems include: radio communication recording, recording of the technical subsystems in the locomotives (such as traction, brakes, vigilance device, speed, use of horn), recording of the functioning of the automatic train protection system and external video recording of track side signals.

The concept of voice/video recording in locomotives is not being considered by European countries.

New Zealand and Australia

In New Zealand and Australia there is neither in-cab voice recording systems or in-cab video systems to monitor driver behaviour. There is currently voice recording of train radio system conversations and these are held in the train control centres and not on the locomotive. There are also data log systems that monitor all driver control related activity and speed, these are kept for a period of 7 days. Additionally on the new trains there is video monitoring for level crossing, trespasser, signal logging and other out of cab issues.

Access of the data log (event recorder) in the locomotive and the train control tape information (RTC recordings) must be done with a union representative present and can be done for random observation or for an actual incident.

The concept of voice/video recording in locomotives is not being considered in either New Zealand or Australia.

United States

On February 23, 2010, the National Transportation Safety Board made a new recommendationFootnote 23 to the FRA to require the installation of voice and inward facing cameras in locomotive cabs. They also recommended that the FRA require that rail companies regularly review and use in-cab audit and image recordings (with appropriate limitations on public release), in conjunction with other performance data, to verify that train crew actions are in accordance with rules and procedures that are essential to safety.

The FRA responded that it was not willing to make voice/video recording devices a regulatory requirement.....the use of voice and image recording for railroad disciplinary purposes would erode morale and offer manifold opportunities for selective enforcement and possible retaliation against employees for reasons having nothing to do with safety. Building a positive safety culture on the Nation's railroads will require that we avoid that kind of corrosive influence.Footnote 24

While it was noted that the NTSB in the U.S was recommending that railways install voice recorders to monitor employee compliance and the FRA was not moving in this direction, unions representatives of the Working Group noted that this would be going beyond the scope and intent of the TSB recommendations.

As already noted, TC Rail Safety and the FRA continue to work together to harmonize rail safety regulatory requirements on a North American basis whenever possible.

Technological issues

Industry representatives noted that the current available supplier(s) of the technology cannot at this time guarantee crash hardiness (survivability) of voice recorders. Estimates indicate the cost would increase approximately 20% and suppliers would require an 18-month lead time for development.

Report a problem with this page

Date modified: