Union Pacific Responds to New York Times Article
Statement by Union Pacific regarding the July 11 New York Times
An article that appeared in the July 11 issue of the New York Times reported a number of serious allegations against our company related to grade crossing accidents. These allegations do not reflect the character of the men and women of Union Pacific.
Many of the allegations concern destruction of evidence after accidents. Union Pacific’s policy is clear: We do not destroy information or evidence needed for legal proceedings. A few years ago, the courts began to expand the types of materials they expect us to retain in grade crossing accidents, before litigation is filed. In October 2002, we instituted major changes to our processes to ensure that this wider range of materials is kept. A number of lawsuits were already in litigation, however, resulting in rulings against the company and its prior document-retention policies.
As the article acknowledges, many of its conclusions are based on statements by individuals who are hired to testify against the company in lawsuits. In each instance, there is another side of the story. For example, the article implies that the company cut vegetation after a recent Arkansas accident to make the crossing look better, but we carefully photographed the crossing to document the scene before cutting the vegetation.
During the course of the reporter’s investigation, we learned that some of our reporting and compliance processes were not as thorough as we expect. When we learned of these breakdowns in our processes, we took immediate corrective actions. Union Pacific’s policy is to be 100 percent compliant with all of the many regulations that apply to railroads.
The article stated that notification of fatalities at crossings to the National Response Center was inconsistent. While we report consistently and properly to the Federal Railroad Administration and sta
It’s too bad nobody will see UP’s response. The article blasting them was on the front page of a paper read by millions and their response is on a website read by railfans, and maybe shareholders. [V]
UP, and the other class 1’s should take the offensive with an advertising campaign of some kind to fight the allegations… something more people will see. This article will only increase the number of people suing after an accident, assuming the railroad is at fault, and it will only make it harder for the railroads to win these lawsuits as the public will be biased against them.
After all, despite what the article seems to portray, most accidents ARE the fault of the driver.
I would agree that far fewer will read the Up’s response than read the scathing NYTimes article. I would further guess that at the end of the day the Federal Authorities will end up sanctioning UP many millions in fines for its aggregious behavior, and UP will find it substantially more difficult to defend itself in future cases as the mind set of the Jury/Judges will be that they can’t be trusted!!
The whole thing raises another important question. How has *** Davidson and his senior management team managed to keep their jobs in the face of 3 complete management screw ups of monumental proportions! Firstly the C&NW fiasco,then the infamous meltdown/gridlock of the 90’s, and now Meltdown2, which is being addressed in part by the railroad telling its customer base" please take your business somewhere else-“WE CAN’T HANDLE IT” !!!
And to add insult to injury, Davidson and his henchmen(same guys all 3 incidents) are being paid a FORTUNE in multi-million dollar salaries/bonuses/perks etc.
Where is the UP B.O.D.?? Where are the institutional investors??? Where is the STB???
Most unfortunate is that they have created a super strong argument for re-regulating the railroads-which would be a tragic outcome should it occur!
Ross Rowland
The article tend to make one think that grade crossing accidents are a frequent happening. One statistic that would break that assumption would be the number of “grade crossings”, ie, the number of times a train crosses a crossing, anywhere on the system or in the US. Something along the lines of “Gee, we had 10 million “crossings” last week, 100 accidents and 1 fatality - better odds than driving to the store.”
But, of course, “good” information doesn’t sell papers…
I agree that the NY times article displays that newspaper’s usual willingness to print anything as fact that trial lawyers care to assert in litigation, including some junk science that they retract – years later – in tiny “oops we goofed” type articles
But … at least be prepared for the idea that there might be something accurate here too. The allegations of destruction of evidence are serious ones, because even if the railroad was blameless it prevents the court from hearing all the facts.
All of us railfans see hair raising grade crossing behavior all the time and are prepared to believe that most if not all grade crossing incidents are the driver’s fault (example in today’s Milwaukee paper - someone driving into a STOPPED train at high speed!) but the fact is that this can tempt RR employees into thinking that evidence is not important because the resonsibility of the driver is so clear.
Also the NY Times article mentioned a faulty crossing signal that the RR ignored in spite of a manufacturers recall. I have certainly seen gates and lights malfunction – more often working when no train is near than the other way around, which can tempt drivers into simply not believing what the signals tell them, although I have also seen gates react far too slowly to approaching trains.
Back when I started railfanning in the 1960s, and that was in the era of deferred maintainance, the C&NW had track crews out all the time over the Chicago to Milwaukee passenger line, testing crossings and signals in their assigned district which might have been just a few miles long. Now a high rail truck drives by now and then but I am not sure thinks like crossing gates etc get the regular inspection that they did back then. The reliance on technology is greater. Things can go wrong.
Dave Nelson
Somewhat to my surprise, the whole bl___y thing has actually made me sympathetic to Uncle Pete…
One problem is that our dear old friends the general public, who make up the pool (puddle? oh well) from whom juries are selected, can’t distinguish one railroad from another, and the dismaying fallout from this will affect all railroad companies in the US. And as Dave M noted, the only folks who will ever see the rebuttal will be us and a few (a very few) shareholders who take the time to read such things.
For better or worse, I have stated in many previous posts, my observation that beyond a reasonable amount of doubt, UP is seriously mismanaged and this is a painful realization
for here in UP we have a Class One road with a history intertwined and greatly responsible for the westward expansion of our country while also maintaining the last major steam program and has also somehow managed to retain its original name. I think the winged shield emblem is one of the great railroading logos of all time. Sentimentality aside, UP needs to change course in bringing its operations management to the fore and regain its corporate balance instead of the financial folks and the board whom are exclusively driving a management philosophy focused on the value of its stock. Short term versus long term gain. And so it goes.
I hope I have not been bashing UP. I don’t particularly like their current management style (wallyworld has some good thoughts there) but the men and women who actually do the work are some of the best going. Railroads, however, more than almost any other business going, have to be managed in a real, future-oriented (like many years) way, and the current crop of managers (UP isn’t the only victim) tend to be interested much more in the financial results for the next quarter. Makes it real tough to be a railroader.
Countersuits sound like a nice way to go, but… they’re hideously expensive and very uncertain as to outcome.
(1) UP took the high road with their response. Tree and 88gta are correct that few will see it and that Joe Public will start accepting conjecture as fact…
(2) Any investigation into DOT crossing records will show that many state DOT’s who manage the old Federal DOT inventory have seriously mishandled the database they were charged with keeping. (I can think of 5 western states that have seriously blundered with the thing since they took over in 1990… a lot of data is placed in the wrong crossing’s inventory and many have not been updated (Says is a grade crossing when now is an overpass…to document accident rates at the crossings, you do things with a grain of salt…NYTimes forgot to mention local law enforcement’s reporting of accidents at crossings is required as well and this is a bigger failure than anything they tried to report…)
The next thing we know, UP will be sueing the New York Times for libel. However, that case may have more merit than their case against the model manufacturers. UP’s reputation may truely be damaged by this article, and if the facts are determined to be false or misleading, the Times could be in trouble. An apology or retraction is not enough if they deliberately twisted the story.
I don’t think there’s anyway UP could win a libel suit against the times. The person being sued only has to prove the claims it made are true. All the claims the Times made are true, it just put it’s own spin on them or led the reader to a conclusion that might not have been there. Or left out info that could have made Up look good.
UP might sue just to try to save face, so it doesn’t look like they’re accepting the charges. And the Times might even come to some sort of settlement rather than letting it drag out in court. But I doubt it. UP won’t sue because it doesn’t want these stories rehashed again, and even if they did, the Times would let it go to court so they COULD be rehashed again. Nothing better than a greiving victim to win your case. And UP would look the big, bad business blaming the victim.
Good points Dave, UP is basicly in a tough spot here. Stuck with a bad story, and little recourse.
Is somebody deliberately out to make them look bad, and if so, why? Is there a whistle blower on the inside, some disgruntled employee pointing the Times toward the story. Is there something bigger here, something about the management that someone wants the world to see? Isn’t UP having a problem with a union? Could someone have called in a tip? It makes me wonder. UP has been in the news way too much lately.
We as railfans read their response to the article, but the general public will just swallow what the Times feeds them, and never hear the other side. What else could go wrong?
I doubt it’s someone with a grudge against UP. This is a multi-part article and we’ll likely see the same charges against the other class 1’s in future editions. Did anyone see the other article that appeared on the same day that busted solely on CSX. The whole article was on CSX and it’s faikures, just like the UP one.
I’d bet the other Class 1’s are kinda worried right now…
“As a result, grade crossing accidents on Union Pacific declined 84 percent, from 3,049 to 498, between 1976 and 2003. The annual number of fatalities from rail-highway incidents on Union Pacific for the same period decreased 74 percent from 261 to 68. This improvement occurred while highway traffic increased 80 percent”
someone should point out to this guy that he has just conceeded that the railroad’s actions can save lives, while implying that previous inaction cost lives.
… and he wonders why people get the wrong impression.
cbt141
I, like many other railfans, have seen some close calls.Once, on the Santa Fe, I was near a grade crossing watching trains. The gates were already down, and there was a police car waiting in line on the far side with other traffic.One idiot on the near side didn’ t want to wait,so went around the line of cars and around the gates.It was close but he made it.After the train went by, I saw this driver on the side of the road,nailed by the cop.He really deserved that ticket! I’m sure his comment was[censored]
The Union Pacific will survive! But how does this admitted does of miss deeds have the audosity to sue the Model Railroad Indusdry for the use of their picture. That paints a lousy picture for public relations.