The way civil engineering is practiced has a distinct relationship to the ultimate and enduring safety of structures. It is for this reason that the Committee on Professional Practice of the Society is involved in this concern. During the hearings, if the Senate committee is interested, Mr. Gray will describe the mechanism of professional engineering practice, and how the involvement of especially wellqualified engineers in all phases of bridge conception, design, operation and maintenance is essential to enduring bridge safety. Another part of the concern of the American Society of Civil Engineers involves the physical aspects of the structure, how it is designed, what controls are imposed upon operation of the structure, what inspection is provided, and what maintenance is assured throughout the life of the structure. These aspects have had continuing study, over many years, in numerous committees of the Society, principally those in the Structural Division, involved with bridges and with structural safety. If the Senate committee is interested, Mr. Fox is prepared to describe the factors deemed to be of significance, so far as the physical relationship of materials in the structure is involved. Perhaps, in such a preliminary statement, it is not appropriate to draw a conclusion. However, it does seem clearly evident to the professional engineers involved that there is need to assure consistent systems involving well-qualified professional people at each stage in the life of a structure which serves the public, from the very early stage in which the concept of the best structure to serve a need is developed, through the stages of design, operation and maintenance, to the very final phase when a structure is replaced, changed in its function, or demolished. It does seem that sound administration of any public agency would assure such a system. Quite obviously this has not always been the case, in all instances. The CHAIRMAN. Our final witness, Mr. Goodfellow. Mr. GOODFELLOW. Good morning. The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, sir. STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. GOODFELLOW, PRESIDENT, THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS Mr. GOODFELLOW. My name is Thomas Goodfellow, and I am president of the Association of American Railroads. I am here today at the invitation of your committee because you believed that the practices of the railroad industry in the inspection and maintenance of its own bridges might be helpful to your inquiry into the safety of highway bridges. I am pleased to present this information and hope that it will be helpful to you. Our association, usually called the AAR, is a voluntary, nonprofit, unincorporated association that includes in its membership the major, or class-I railroads of the United States, plus numerous smaller U.S. roads and the major roads of Canada and Mexico. Our members operate about 94 percent of the railroad mileage in the United States. The AAR encourages close cooperation among member roads. AAR committees are made up of outstanding railroadmen from all areas of the country. Constantly they review issues of common concern to the industry and recommend action that should be taken by members as technologies change. Several such committees have been established under the AAR's engineering division, which also has separate existence as the American Railway Engineering Association. It is not a new organization; its 67th annual meeting is being held in Chicago this week. It establishes (and periodically reviews) standards for the inspection, maintenance, and rating of railroad bridges. These standards are published in the "Manual of Recommended Practice for Railway Engineering." Pertinent extracts from this manual are attached to my statement. I believe they speak for themselves and I will not attempt to discuss them in detail. There have been railroad bridges for as long as there have been railroads and railroadmen have always been concerned with their proper construction and maintenance. Today we have about 192,000 bridges with a total length of about 4,500 miles. Railroads employ engineers whose primary duty it is to ensure that bridges are properly maintained and inspected so that they will be capable of carrying the traffic that must be run over them. In performing this duty, the engineer is guided by the recommendations contained in the manual. The basic recommendation is that each railroad bridge shall receive a careful inspection at least once a year. This is not a once-over-lightly inspection; it is thorough and detailed, as can be seen in the relevant pages of the manual attached to my statement. On a large railroad, the bridge engineer may have hundreds of subordinates, including engineers, inspectors, and maintenance men. The AAR, of course, has no authority to compel its members to follow these or any other recommendations. The fact is, however, our members do follow them. In January of this year I appointed a special railroad bridge committee of leading railroad engineering executives to cooperate with the White House Task Force on Bridge Safety. This committee undertook to survey the practices of nearly 500 railroads to determine the extent of their adherence to the manual recommendations. In the preliminary report of this committee, dated March 5, it was shown that all class-I railroads in this country-operating 94 percent of the mileage-provide just what the manual recommends: A major inspection of each bridge by qualified personnel at least once a year. Returns from class-II roads and switching and terminal companies are not yet complete, but it appears that they do the same. Moreover, the committee's survey showed that at least half the class-I roads in this country perform additional bridge inspections when necessary-extending from two to six times a year. Periodic inspection and related maintenance, however, are not the only attention given to railroad bridges. Bridges must also be rated; that is, their capacity must be determined by engineering means. It is obvious that a bridge that is entirely safe for a given volume of traffic at a given speed and weight may not be able to handle increased volume, speed, or weight. To this end, our manual contains detailed instructions for bridge rating. Such rating is done periodically, not at regular intervals, but as dictated by the results of inspections or changes of traffic patterns. Our survey has disclosed that all class-I railroads in the United States follow the recommended rating procedures. Railroads have the use of one additional safeguard. It is an annual publication, used by all railroads in routing traffic, that shows the maximum weights and dimensions that can be moved over the various lines of each railroad in the country. Since the railroads, unlike the public highways, have control of their own traffic, heavy traffic can thus be prevented from moving over bridges that could not be used safely. Our safety record proves the effectiveness of the procedures I have outlined. The official ICC accident statistics for the years 1961 to 1966, inclusive, indicate that there were no casualties anywhere in the United States by reason of any defect or deficiency in any railroad bridge, trestle, or culvert. Senator SPONG. Thank you very much, Mr. Goodfellow. The attachment to your statement will be received by the committee. How many trained inspectors do you have? Mr. GOODFELLOW. We have never had any survey. I know that on the railroad that I worked on for many years, which is one of the major systems in the country, we probably had several hundred. I am sure that is true of all of them. It would run into the thousands but I could not give you a figure. Senator SPONG. Is there any training program for these inspectors? Mr. GOODFELLOW. Oh, yes. We train them and we hire young engineers and work them in the bridge design offices and train them there. Of course, the men at the head of those are professional engineers. Then out on the railroad, our inspectors that do not require college education are also trained to inspect bridges and watch for anything that might happen that should be called to the maintenance people's attention. Senator SPONG. Thank you very much. We are very pleased to have you with us here again. Mr. GOODFELLOW. Thank you. Senator SPONG. This concludes the hearings for the committee. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee adjourned.) (Subsequent to the hearings the following comments from Mr. Masters were received for the record;) Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH, MODJESKI & MASTERS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Roads, U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR RANDOLPH: At the time I testified before your Committee last month I was furnished a copy of An Informational Guide for Inspection of Highway Bridges prepared by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Public Roads, in cooperation with the AASHO Committee on Bridges and Structures. It was requested then that I review the proposed detail methods for inspection of bridges and comment on same. While I have been extremely pressed for time recently, I have reviewed the ten-page document and find the proposals, with probably one exception, are reasonable and in proper order. I would take exception to the intervals of inspection for some structures possibly being permitted to extend to five-year periods. Many things, such as original design capacity, age, traffic volume, and abuse of load limitations affect the frequency that should be recommended for the inspection of many structures. Few major bridges should be inspected less frequently than annually. The program envisioned by the Bureau might imply in the words used that some of these major structures could go five years before "in depth" inspections and the two-year inspection suggested might tend to become extremely cursory. Also, it does not seem reasonable that a survey of the major structures and of many minor structures is necessary with each "in depth" inspection, for many experienced bridge inspectors can determine from routine visual examination, provided he has the knowledge of previous inspections, whether or not supporting elements of the structure have moved, for this movement will be reflected in changes in relative positions of parts of the supported structure. The survey information, of course, would be nice to have but would be an unwarranted expense. The program also implies that almost anyone with training in civil engineering and structural design experience, using the proposed guide, could make a satisfactory inspection. However, it should be pointed out that there is a certain amount of "art" involved in evaluating the findings of structural inspections and this can only be passed on by inexperienced people with otherwise proper qualifications being trained by those who have experience in this special field. I hope these comments will be of value to you and your Committee. We are pleased to be asked for our thoughts in these matters. Sincerely yours FRANK M. MASTERS, SR. |