Mr. TUGGLE. I don't recall. We went to the Bureau of Public Roads first.

Mr. TAYLOR. We couldn't hire an expert. We had tentative approval of two or three retired bridge engineers but someone got to the engineers and they turned the job down. One was scheduled to show up and he then was reported sick. No money was spent. We were never able to employ the consultant. It was in connection with the accident investigation made by the Commission, and the Commission pointed out the condition of the bridge and recommended very strongly to the railroad that they hire competent engineers to make the bridge safe.

Mr. JONAS. Did they do that?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. We did everything but hire a consultant.

Mr. OSTERTAG. I want to ask a question: Is this a matter that the whole Commission determines or who decides when and how you get into these special developments?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Technically I suppose the head of the Agency would determine who was hired and at what rate and so forth? Actually, in practice, that is up to the management staff.

Mr. THOMAS. That is General Taylor; is it not?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is Director Taylor behind me.

TRAIN WRECK AT BOWIE

Mr. JONAS. I read the other day about a train wreck, a Pennsylvania Railroad wreck at the racetrack. It seems there was an argument as to the cause of the wreck between the management and the engineer. The engineer said the brakes were defective. Have you had a hearing on that?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. We have had a hearing and I am not sure the hearings have been completed, but Commissioner Walrath, of Florida, conducted the hearing, along with Hearing Examiner Vinskey. Mr. JONAS. They are not here?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. No.

Mr. JONAS. Do you know whether it disclosed that the brakes were defective or not?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I do not know what their findings will be.

Mr. JONAS. How often would you inspect those brakes?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. It is on a check basis.

Mr. TAYLOR. It is on a spot-check basis.

Mr. JONAS. You would not necessarily have checked the brakes on this particular train?

Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. It would be a coincidence, I would say.

Mr. JONAS. You make a spot check?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. A sampling.

Mr. JONAS. Do you have any records or statistics that would show whether the incidence of accidents is higher in the cases you do not check than in the cases you do check? In other words, can you establish that your inspection service is worth anything?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. In this way, we do discover defects and they are corrected, and certainly defective conditions produce accidents. I

do not think we would have any statistical breakdown as between units that are checked and units not checked as related to the incidence of accidents.

RATE OF ACCIDENTS AND CASUALTIES

Mr. JONAS. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a good idea to put the table on page 139 in the record, because that deals with the rate of accidents and casualties.

Mr. THOMAS. That is a good table. We will put it in the record. (The table referred to follows:)

Past experience has shown that when car loadings and revenues on the Nation's railroads decline, the ultimate results are cutbacks in maintenance and repairs of equipment. When this happens, deterioration of equipment accelerates. The district inspectors must be vigilant that maintenance reductions will not result in unsafe conditions or violate the Commission's rules.

The following table illustrates the results of strict enforcement of the locomotive inspection law and rules. With the average age of the diesel locomotives increasing, making proper maintenance increasingly difficult, the district inspectors will have a greater burden of vigilance to detect and have corrected dangerous conditions which could, if left uncorrected, result in serious injury to employees or travelers.

Mr. Jonas. Incidentally, the table shows that the accident rate is going down sharply, from 457 in 1946 to 49 in 1960; and casualties from 505 in 1946 down to 71 in 1960.

Do you think that is produced by better inspection, or does the great reduction in the number of cars in service account for this reduction in accidents?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think it is due largely to improved inspections. It would not be due, I do not think, to reduction in number of cars because although there is a reduction, it is not a great reduction. There are still 1,700,000 cars.

Mr. JONAS. May I refer you to page 134.

Mr. THOMAS. That is a good table.

OWNERSHIP OF RAILROAD CARS

Mr. JONAS. Yes. I think we need page 133, too, because that shows the total ownerships of cars by type. Put both tables in the record. (The tables referred to follow :)

67511-61-pt. 1—11

PAY ACT INCREASES

Mr. JONAS. One other question I have raised with Mr. Schmid, and I have given him a few minutes to figure out an answer. Tell us why you could not absorb some of this pay increase. You are in company with a dozen or so regulatory agencies, but some of the other agencies of the Government absorbed all of the pay increase. The average governmentwide was 26 percent.

Mr. SCHMID. When we were asked to review our fiscal situation by the Bureau of the Budget we found that we were fully recruited and our projected fiscal plan was such that we did not feel we could absorb the pay increase. Out of 90 new jobs requested last year, we only got 19 or 20 of them. We have talked a good deal today about the increased workload on us.

Mr. JONAS. In other words, you made an effort and could not find a way to absorb it?

Mr. SCHMID. The only way we could do it was by increasing our backlog, and we could not see doing that, and the Bureau of the Budget agreed with us.

Mr. JONAS. What about your lapsed jobs?

Mr. SCHMID. Our lapsed jobs are about what we figured on.

Mr. JONAS. What is your annual turnover rate?

Mr. SCHMID. We figure on around 15 percent, and it has been close to that.

Mr. OSTERTAG. You had a total of 2,428 jobs and your average number of employees was 2,395?

Mr. SCHMID. Yes; that is right.

Mr. OSTERTAG. Then there is a spread of 33 between what you actually had and the number you had money for?

Mr. SCHMID. That is correct. That is your lapse figure. You always have a lapse figure. That is roughly the budget figure.

AUTOMOBILE PURCHASES

Mr. THOMAS. Generally what shape are you in with reference to replacements and new purchases on all types of cars?

Mr. TAYLOR. New purchases are running behind the retirements. Retirements the last couple of years have run in excess of new cars. Our bad-order cars have been increasing.

Mr. THOMAS. Does page 134 give us the round figures on them?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes. The number of new cars ordered for 1957 was 56,446, and for 1960, 43,388. That is on page 134 of the justification.

Mr. THOMAS. That table is in the record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Cars retired are also shown.

Mr. OSTERTAG. On the question of the accident rate, would not new safety appliances have something to do with the reduction in the number of accidents?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes; we think so, improved technology and scientific advances.

Mr. THOMAS. Anything else, gentlemen?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, in connection with the matter we were talking about this morning-and I think Mr. Jonas had several