Fall/Winter 2003
Volume 110 - No. 3 & 4
Fall/Winter 2003
Volume 110 - No. 3 & 4
Communications
Beware remote control operations
(Editor's note: BLE Division 194 President and Legislative Representative Herb Yambra wrote the following guest column for the Houston Chronicle. It was published on September 21, 2003.)
Watch out Houston! That train loaded with dangerous chemicals that is coming down the tracks may not have an engineer at the controls. If Union Pacific gets its way, the railroad right of way could be filled with remote controlled locomotives, with no engineer on board and handling hazardous cargoes at its switching facilities. Removing the engineer might save the railroad some money, but it won't save lives.
I've been a locomotive engineer since 1984, and in my division alone I represent 94 engineers who are responsible for the safe movement and operation of trains in this area. But this is not an employment issue at all. It is a safety issue, and one which should have the full attention of all residents of Southeast Texas.
Rail facilities in Houston are busy and crowded. Switching performed at Union Pacific's Englewood, Settlegast, Strang and Lloyd yards support international commerce as well as local interests. When all goes well, the multimillion-dollar operation is fluid with trains moving on schedule. When a glitch occurs, traffic on the crucial east-west Sunset route, connecting Gulf Coast terminals with West Coast ports, or on the northern route connecting Houston terminals to Chicago and on to Canada, or on the east route connecting Houston terminals to New Orleans and on to the East Coast, and also the southern route, which connects Houston terminals to Laredo and on to Mexico, comes to a screeching halt.
Guidelines and standards are in place to operate trains in and out of the Houston terminals safely and efficiently. Should Union Pacific switch its locomotives to remote control, all bets are off. Engineers would be on the railroad sidings, watching the operation of giant trains like a model-train layout in your child's room.
Remote-controlled train technology is the brainchild of a Canadian technology firm, CANAC, that declares U.S. railroads can save up to $250 million annually using their product. In a marketing campaign costing CANAC $5 million in the United States alone, the safety and production capability of the system has some rail administrators giddy with visions of reduced operating costs - visions of improved standing on Wall Street and at bonus time. On paper, CANAC's sales pitch is impressive. However, on U.S. railroads, where the volume of traffic is far greater than the isolated lumber mills in Canada, where the system was initially used, and the results are galaxies away from what CANAC and their proponents advertise.
The safety record and productivity of remotely controlled locomotives employed on U.S. railroads has been abysmal. There have been more than 50 accidents since December 2000. This averages to at least one a month.
The cause of these accidents? The removal of the most qualified and skilled locomotive engineers from the locomotive controls. These cases illustrate that a poorly trained remote operator is no substitute for a federally licensed locomotive engineer, especially when the remote engineer loses control of the movement or is unaware the train is on a collision course with another train.
In the Houston area, with trains carrying dangerous cargo, such accidents could result in chemical releases or fires that not only shut down rail operations for extended periods, but force city and county emergency services to evacuate large numbers of citizens from neighborhoods and businesses from rail yards. A cursory glance of Houston's geography reveals why: A major rail accident near downtown would leave emergency services overwhelmed, placing thousands of people in jeopardy. The potential for such tragedy exists daily.
Thus far, we have been lucky to have the skill of locomotive engineers operating the trains in, out and around the Houston area with incidents reduced to virtually none.
Recognizing this reality, other municipal authorities, like the city of Baton Rouge, La., have passed legally nonbinding resolutions banning the use of remote controlled locomotives over concerns about public safety. These resolutions call for the city to be notified before a railroad implements a remote controlled facility.
Beware: That Union Pacific remote controlled train coming down that track is dangerous despite what the technology salesman and rail managers say. Union Pacific is quietly preparing to introduce such operations in our town. If we don't stop at this railroad crossing, we are going to find ourselves on a collision course with dangerous chemical spills. City councils and county governments in our area should act now to get a handle on possible runaway remote controlled locomotive operations. They should insist that Union Pacific fully disclose its planned remote controlled operations, consider public input and use extreme caution in expanding these operations onto our railways.
Remote control is handy when it's used for your TV; it handles channel surfing with a quick efficiency. But on a train I need a real connection; I have to feel the engineer is close to sheer perfection.
Humans have their failings, as we're all to well aware, but I'll take my chances on the guy I think will really care!
Journal a welcome reminder
Dear Editor,
I consider this a great privilege to write and tell you how I have enjoyed the Locomotive Engineers Journal. It is a very nice journal.
I lost my husband in 1988. He had to retire in 1982 due to a heart condition, but he had a good life with the railroad. He hired out in December 1941 in Amarillo, Texas for the Rock Island Railroad. He was promoted to locomotive engineer in 1943. He was a member of the BLE from 1943 until he passed away.
May I say again, thank you so much for the Locomotive Engineers Journal. I do enjoy it.
Wisc. legislators express concern over remotes
(BLE Editor's Note: On November 19, four members of the U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin contacted FRA Administrator Allan Rutter to express safety concerns over remote control operations. The letter was sent at the urging of the BLE's Wisconsin State Legislative Board, including James Kinsman, Paul Enenbach and Jim White.)
Dear Administrator Rutter:
We are contacting you to express our concern about the safety risks associated with remote control locomotives and ask that your agency consider promulgating regulations governing their use.
Railroad companies have historically operated their trains using only highly qualified engineers, who are subject to rigorous training, testing, and certification requirements. However, in recent years, we understand there has been a rise in the number of companies that have shifted to using remote control locomotives as a cost-cutting measure.
Numerous industry experts assert that this technology is inherently unsafe and increases the risk of injury to people and property from accidents. Moreover, comments have been shared with us regarding the inadequate training levels of employees who are asked to operate remote controls.
Another safety consideration is that Class One railroads frequently transport hazardous material, including radioactive and biohazardous waste. Such material passes through local communities near homes, schools, hospitals, and places of work. An accidental derailment or collision caused by remote-control technology could have a devastating impact if these containers were penetrated and an uncontrolled release occurred. Similarly, these unmanned trains might serve as an open invitation to terrorists seeking to turn them into vehicles of destruction.
As you know, the use of remote control locomotives is essentially unregulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). In February 2001, your agency issued guidelines regarding their use, but consistently failed to adopt many of the suggested actions.
Consequently, we ask the FRA to seriously consider promulgating enforceable regulations governing the use of remote control locomotives. Additionally, we request that you forward any documentation collected or prepared by your office pertaining to accidents involving these locomotives. Please include information on the number of fatalities or serious injuries that have occurred, property damage costs, and related materials.
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
Send letters to:
Editor, Locomotive Engineers Journal
1370 Ontario St., Mezz.
Cleveland, OH 44113
Letters may be edited for content and space considerations.
© 2003 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers