Winter 2002
Volume 109 - No. 4
Winter 2002
Volume 109 - No. 4
BLE Focus
Unoccupied equipment =
unsafe conditions
Signs like this, warning pedestrians about the use of remote control trains, are becoming a common sight at rail yards throughout the United States.
The arbitration decision rendered January 10
in the remote control dispute does not end the
safety dispute regarding the technology.
Remote control has been controversial since its
inception and will continue to be well into the future.
New technology is often controversial, especially in the railroad industry. But few could have imagined the trouble caused when remote control technology was implemented.
Remote control technology is not new - locomotive engineers have operated remote control locomotives for years in the form of distributive power. In addition, the steel and mining industries have been using remote control locomotives in small, enclosed plant facilities for over 40 years.
History of Remote Control
Remote control operation of heavy equipment has evolved over the past 60 years. Early applications were of a hard-wired variety where the control box was physically attached to equipment such as overhead cranes. The German Air Force experimented with radio control of unmanned aircraft during the siege of London in World War II. This ushered in an era of radio-transmitted control of servos that were attached to control mechanisms of the aircraft, later to be extended to all kinds of robotic machines. Radio-control was first used to move locomotives, described as remote control locomotives (RCL), in the early 1960s. Their use was generally limited to plant railroads such as those found in the mining and steel industries. Technology and miniaturization increased the capability of radio control to the point that, now, a portable control stand (OCU) can be used to transmit data to microprocessors on-board locomotives that link with the standard locomotive controls. This allows the operator to be positioned a significant distance from the on-board locomotive receiver.
Until recently, there were several relatively small manufacturers of this equipment located in Europe and North America. With the promise of growth in the market, there was a rush to consolidate the major players. CANAC, a Canadian National subsidiary, and, U.S. based, Vectran opened a manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania. Cattron, a U.S. manufacturer, and Theimig, from Germany, also opened a U.S. operation. Additional players in the market are Control Chief and giant, GE owned, General Electric Transportation Systems. Since the advent of RCL in the 1960s, some of these companies had actively sought buyers in the international rail market, but there was limited demand.
Knowledge of the technology's safety was also limited. One of the experts in this field is Frank Grimes, the Safety & Health Specialist for the United Steelworkers of America (USWA). Grimes, a 46-year veteran of the steel industry, delivered testimony about the dangers of remote control at the Federal Railroad Administration's Technical Conference on remotes in July of 2000.
His testimony indicated that since 1980, there have been 41 fatalities involving railroads in steel mills. Of the 41 workers killed, 30 were operating employees such as engineers, conductors or switchmen. And, of those 30 fatalities, 13 involved a remote controlled locomotive.
Television cameras look on as BLE members rally in Lincoln, Neb. on October 9, 2002. More than 100 BLE members participated in the rally, representing various BLE divisions, including Division 98 (Lincoln and Omaha, Neb.), Division 621 (Wymore), Division 623 (McCook, Neb.), Division 642 (Creston, Iowa), and Division 107 (St. Joseph, Mo.).
The Letter of Intent
Safety is the center of the dispute between the BLE, the UTU and the carriers, which came to a head in 2001. After presenting a united front with the BLE at the FRA's technical conference regarding remote control, the UTU entered into an an agreement to operate locomotives by remote control with leaders of the nation's major freight railroads on September 26, 2001 - behind the back of the BLE, and began the implementation of "pilot projects" using the new technology in early 2001. UTU publicly announced the letter on October 4, 2001.
This letter of intent, regarding the "expeditious" implementation of remote control technology, was viewed by BLE as a way to circumvent the law and gain jurisdiction over the technology.
Double Work, 46 Minutes of Pay
The basic terms of the agreement reached by the UTU and the carriers were: (1) monetary "protection" for every UTU employee adversely affected for up to six years from the date remote control technology is implemented at the location where he/she works on a one-for-one basis; (2) the payment of a special allowance equivalent to 46 minutes pay per tour of duty for every employee filling a remote control operator position; (3) all ground service employees will be trained so they qualify for these positions; and (4) the positions will be filled by bid or force assignments of UTU-represented workers. In other words, the UTU agreement forces extra work and tremendous responsibilities on fewer employees for minimal pay. For example, the UTU members must maintain their former trainman duties while - at the same time - performing the duties formerly assigned to yard engineers. While the UTU agreement doubles the duties of its members, it only provides for 46 minutes of extra pay.
The BLE protested the agreement as a violation of its collective bargaining agreements and long-standing established practices, and threatened to strike over this issue.
The nation's freight railroads sued the BLE and obtained an injunction from a federal judge, which prohibits the BLE from striking. In addition, the judge also ruled that the question of whether locomotive engineers or trainmen should operate the remote control technology was a "minor dispute" as defined by the Railway Labor Act. As a result, the judge remanded the dispute to arbitration.
BLE members and their families rally against remote control during the annual Southwestern Convention Meeting in Fort Worth, Texas.
BLE Spreads the Word
In order to support its cause and educate members of the general public about the dangers of remote control technology in their communities, the BLE held a series of informational rallies throughout the country in 2002. There were 13 rallies, starting with BLE members employed by CSX Transportation who followed the railroad's "Board of Directors' Special" from New Orleans to Nashville. The rallies continued throughout 2002 at various locations and organized by various BLE groups (general committees, legislative boards, etc..). No matter who organized the events or where they were held, each rally had the same goal - to shine a light on the dangers associated with remote control.
The dangers of this technology are numerous. There have been many accidents involving the use of remote control (see table on Page 9). Many of these accidents were blamed on operator error, which underscored the BLE's concerns over the lack of training for remote control operators (RCOs). Locomotive engineers receive more than six months of of federally-mandated training, while remote control operators receive only about two weeks.
© 2002 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers