Summer 2003
Volume 110 - No. 2
Summer 2003
Volume 110 - No. 2
Guest Comment
What the remote control salesman failed to mention
By Robert B. Frank, Legislative Representative, BLE Division 839
Wherever I have witnessed the non-staged use of remote controlled switch engines, I have always been struck by their slowness and anemia. Conventional switch engines run virtual circles around remote control switching in my opinion.
Why then, have all industry remote control articles, to date, been so unabashedly biased in its favor? The absence of performance data on remote control forces over-reliance on the pitches of remote control salesmen. When the carriers fall into this syndrome of "keeping up with the Jonses," it leads to a dangerous and unprofessional arrangement.
Rest assured remote control has opposition, and the reasons for this opposition vary. First, are those who oppose remote control on the grounds of traditional union scope. Others oppose remote control for regulatory reasons. Another faction opposes remote control due to liability concerns over public crossings, leading to the enactment of city or county resolutions. Others argue there will be one less vigilant crew member, who formerly monitored operations from his elevated engineer's cab. In the final analysis, economic issues will prevail.
It is understood that economic analysis favors remote control in highly repetitive, short switching moves such as those found in unit-train loading or gravity hump yard operation. In normal switching, however, it should be clear that the economics of remote control operations turn negative, relative to conventional switch engines. To qualify this negative economy, I need to share the Canadian experience with remote control.
I was able to contact both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific remote control crews in Vancouver, B.C., who have been using remote control since 1995.
The remote control crew interviews yielded nearly identical, yet independent results. Both railroads suffer from flattened wheels on their remote control equipped switch engines. The flat wheels can cost more in damage repair to track structure than an engineer's wages. Also, both railroads suffer from overspeed couplings and "shoved out" equipment, which is the result of the operator fatigue. Remote control rules forbid the operation of remote control while riding the side of a freight car. As a result, the operator becomes more quickly fatigued due to the extra weight, extra walking and numerous other operating stresses imposed by remote control.
Further, both railroads experienced frequent remote control malfunctions and repairs by roundhouse personnel, not to mention the wasted time of remote control crews.
The productivity ratio between remote control and conventional switch engines is noteworthy. According to the Vancouver crew members, at least three remote control switch engines are required to equal the productivity of two conventional operations, assuming 100% utilization of crews. Of course, busy switch terminals often cannot absorb the 50% increase in switch engine jobs this three to two ratio dictates. The railroads compensate for the 1/3 remote control productivity loss by having mainline crews switch out their own inbound trains, and by having remote control crews "shotgun' outbound trains, thereby transferring much of their switching burden elsewhere.
As a result of these difficulties, CN has reportedly withdrawn the use of remote control at certain Vancouver operating points due to time and capacity constraints. This becomes even more telling since CANAC, one of the manufacturers of remote control, is a CN subsidiary.
I would welcome a derby challenge of any cherry-picked remote control crew to approach, equal or exceed two-thirds of the productivity with a conventional switch engine.
From a public relations standpoint, railroads are wise in using the noble claim of improved safety to sell everyone on the idea of remote control. The railroads seem to be saying, 'How can you compare the price of job loss with avoidance of a possible accident" However, the remote control injury statistics are not available as railroads have swept their remote control mishaps under the carpet. Even if they were published, the resulting data would be skewed given that there are fewer crew members involved in train movements.
One should ask, in the case of remote control, when all factors are equal, why would railroads want to de-leverage the productive capacity of well-invested classification yards in exchange for marginal, if not negative, remote control economics? Is it because railroads are starved for a high-tech identity?
Rest assured, as long as one locomotive engineer can perform the transport equivalency to several hundred trucks, the railway concept will remain a mainstay for the next thousand years.
How many of other high-tech industries can claim that?
ROBERT FRANK is an injury-free, 26 year, BNSF locomotive engineer and Legislative Representative of BLE Division 839 (Richmond, Calif.). He owns commercial real estate, including the Sonoma TrainTown Railroad. You can read his other letter-articles about remote control at the BLE's California State Legislative Board website: <http://www.calslb.com>.
© 2003 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers