June 2, 2022 

 

Dedication: 

The FAMES Committee dedicates its effortsto all roadway workers who have lost theirlivesin the

performance of duty and to the families, loved ones, and coworkers they have left behind. 

Fatal Accidents Involving

Roadway

Workers-In-Charge

and 

Lone Workers 

Mission Statement:

The Mission of the Fatality Analysis of Maintenance-of-way Employees and Signalmen (FAMES)

Committee is to analyze all fatalities and selected related incidents in order to make

recommendations to reduce the risk of future occurrences and eliminate fatalities to roadway 

workers.
1

Fatal Accidents Involving Roadway Workers-In-Charge and Lone Workers

Over a 25-year period, 24 fatally injured roadway workers were RWICs or Lone Workers 

responsible for establishing on-track safety. During this period, RWIC’s and Lone Workers 

represented 26% of the 89 fatalities analyzed. In 17 of the 24 fatalities, the RWIC was providing ontrack safety for a roadway work group, the remaining 7 fatalities were Lone Workers. 

One of the statistics from the data reviewed by the FAMES Committee was the high incidence of 

fatalities that occurred to Roadway Workers-In-Charge (RWIC) and Lone Workers.

For this report, RWICs are persons responsible for providing on-track safety for members of a 

work group. Lone workers are persons responsible for providing on-track safetyfor themselves 

while working alone. Both RWICs and Lone Workers must have a higher level of training and 

qualifications to determine and provide on-track safety; yet as a group, statistics 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

RWIC and Lone Worker Fatalities Compared to Other Worker 

Designations 
2

indicate that RWICs and Lone Workers are at higher risk of fatality than any other roadway worker 

designation. In the study, 24 fatally injured roadway workers were RWICs or Lone Workers

responsible for establishing on-track safety. This represents 26% of the 89 fatalities. In 17 of the 

24 fatalities, the RWIC was responsible for providing on-track safety for a roadway work group. In 

the remaining 7 fatalities, the Lone Worker was responsible for determining and establishing their 

own on- track safety. 

These fatalities occurred across multiple forms of On-Track Safety (OTS); however, 11 of these

24 fatalities occurred without any OTS established at the strike location. 

 

In 7 of the 24 fatalities, an RWIC was performing the duties of Watchman/Lookout at the time 

he was struck and fatally injured. Existing regulations and operating rules are quite clear that the

Watchman/Lookout must be properly equipped and perform this critical duty to the exclusion of

all other tasks. As with any other Watchman/Lookout assignment, a foreman or supervisor who

assigns themself this duty must understand that no task other than Watchman/Lookout duty is to

be performed.

21 of the 24 RWIC fatalities occurred on signalized controlled track. In 21 of the 24 cases, an

adjacent track was present. Nine of the fatalities occurred on an adjacent track where no OTS 

was established. Train strikes were involved in 19 cases; and the 5 other cases involved strikes

with on-track equipment. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

No On-Track Safety Established Watchmen/ Lookout (Train Approach - Warning)

Type of Protection Established
3

In 17 of the 24 cases, at least one Roadway Maintenance Machine (RMM) was present. In 6 cases, 

there was evidence that the on-track safety briefing was not held or was missing critical 

information. 

Analysis indicates that the 24 fatally injured workers were familiar with the tasks being performed

and may have been focused on work processes such as detailed inspection, measurement, checking 

track alignment, troubleshooting, or observing machine operation. Noise and reduced visibility 

due to the presence of RMM(s) (e.g., tampers, regulators) or other on-track equipment near the 

worksite may have interfered with the detection of approaching trains and equipment in some 

cases. 

Under each form of protection provided in the RWP Rule (e.g., Individual Train Detection,

Watchman/Lookout, Working Limits, Inaccessible Track) there are specific procedures in place to 

protect the work location and maintain the required level of safety. Although each form of

protection varies in how on-track safety is established, without exception on-track safety is

required to be established prior to fouling the track to perform work, even for short periods of time.

Recommendations:

• Experience is no substitute for compliance with on-track safety procedures. 

• Neither RWICs nor members of a roadway work group (two or more workers engaged

in a common task) may use Individual Train Detection as a form of on-track safety on

any track. 

• If the work requires oversight and supervision from an RWIC, the RWIC must not be

assigned or assume the duties of Watchman/Lookout. 

• Where an Exclusive Track Occupancy authority exists only for the track being worked

on, roadway workers cannot foul an adjacent track without establishing on-track safety.
4

• On-track safety briefings should emphasize the risks associated with RMM movements 

and address items such as noise, machine spacing, obstructed visibility, and proper 

communications whenever roadway workers are working near RMM(s).

• Every roadway worker must make sure that on-track safety is established and

understood prior to fouling a track.

• Every roadway worker has a duty to warn other roadway workers and employees fouling

an unprotected track to move to the clear.

• Lone Workers may use Individual Train Detection only to perform routine inspection

and minor correction work outside the limits of a manual interlocking, a controlled

point, or a remote-controlled hump yard facility. Lone workers are reminded to use a

higher level of on-track safety whenever Individual Train Detection is deemed

insufficient.

• Activities which require an RWIC to multi-task can introduce a higher level of 

distraction. Those activities which may distract the RWIC from his on-track safety

responsibilities should be mitigated. Consideration should be given to delegating

responsibilities.

The FAMES Committee consists of safety representatives from a cross section of rail labor, railroad management,

and federal regulators. FAMES is a continuous improvement process that relies on the candid sharing of available

data and the views of its participants. To enable the process, FAMES explicitly refrains from making any findings

regarding whether any past or present practice or protocol satisfies any legal duty or standard of care.

The views, opinions, and recommendations contained in this report are those of the FAMES Committee and do not

necessarily represent the views, opinions, or recommendations of any specific railroad, labor organization, or

governmental agency.