1370 Ontario St. - Mezzanine, Cleveland, Ohio 44113 • (216) 241-2630 / Fax: (216) 241-6516

Membership
News and Issues
Departments
Secretary-
Treasurers
Information
Communications
FELA
Events
Links
User Info

Rail-yard switch stirs up worries

(The following article by David Danelski was posted on the Press-Enterprise website on May 26. Tim Smith is the BLET’s California State Legislative Board Chairman.)

RIVERSIDE, Calif. -- Some workers in Union Pacific's sprawling switching yard in Colton and Rialto fear safety could be sacrificed next month when the railroad starts using unmanned, remote-control locomotives to sort train cars.

A Federal Railroad Administration study released last month reported a 25 percent higher accident rate in the rail yards that use remote-control locomotives. Despite that finding, agency officials concluded that unmanned locomotives are just as safe as conventional switching methods.

Railroad representatives say using remote-control locomotives is safer and more efficient. It will allow them to transfer engineers from yard duties to long trips.

The remote system eliminates miscommunications between train operators and yard workers, automatically stops trains if communications are interrupted and controls train speeds so that operators can focus more closely on train movement, according to a paper by Association of American Railroads, an industry group that includes Union Pacific.

"We wanted to make use of a safe and proven technology, and it is," said Mark Davis, a Union Pacific spokesman, when contacted by telephone in Omaha, Neb.

Hazardous Chemicals

The Colton-Rialto switching yard is one of the busiest in California. It handles 1,500 cars a day, including tank cars loaded with hazardous chemicals.

Richard Villines, of Rialto, has worked at the yard for seven years, and he is one of the employees who object to the new system.

Engineers in locomotives stay in radio contact with switch workers on the ground and are in the best position to react to problems and avert disaster, Villines said in a community meeting in Colton earlier this week.

"They (locomotive engineers) are another set of eyes and ears," he said. "I had no choice but to go to the community because of these safety concerns."

The meeting was organized by a Glen Avon-based environmental group.

Train cars could break away and crash into other cars or derail, he and co-workers said. Villines said he recently boarded a breakaway train section and prevented an accident by applying manual brakes.

If a tank car carrying hazardous chemicals crashed, a poisonous cloud could spread onto Interstate 10 and into the surrounding community, including a junior high school, he said.

Gary Mayfield, of Running Springs, one of Villines' co-workers, has 28 years of railroad experience. He said Union Pacific has never had evacuation drills for its employees or the community.

Federal Study

Villines and Mayfield both said the federal study, which was requested by Congress, gives them cause for worry.

In the 13-month study released in April, the Federal Railroad Administration found that the accident rate in the nation's rail yards that use remote-control locomotives was 25 percent higher than that of yards that use manned locomotives.

Federal Railroad Administration officials, however, said Union Pacific and other larger railroads have roughly the same accident rates using remote controls as railroads using manned engines do. In addition, the officials said, the study results were skewed by an eastern railroad, Northfolk Southern Corp., that had an exemplary safety record using mostly conventional switching methods.

The railroad agency concluded that remote-control locomotives are no more dangerous than conventional switching methods, said spokesman Warren Flatau. "They are roughly equivalent, all things being equal."

But Tim Smith, California chairman for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, said the Federal Railroad Administration and railroad companies are trying to downplay the study results.

"They are pretty good at spinning things," Smith said by telephone.

He said the actual accident rate could be higher than 25 percent, because members of the engineers union know that some accidents don't get reported.

The railroad agency's conclusion represented a substantial change in its position on the remote-control technology.

In 2004, the agency, a division of U.S. Department of Transportation, essentially endorsed the technology, saying it had brought "significant safety benefits." The statement was based on seven months of accident data.

After examining 13 months of more recent accident information, collected through December of 2004, the agency's conclusion was more neutral, saying remote controls were just as safe as convention switching.

During the 13-month study period, switching operations using remote controls and conventional methods each had two fatalities, the report said.

Employee Training
Flatau, the agency spokesman, said the railroad agency is seeking assurance through audits that employees are properly trained to use the remote-control technology.

Unmanned locomotives should not be used on trips outside of rail yards, he said.

The Federal Railroad Administration will propose regulations later this year to reduce human error in both remote-control and conventional switching methods, Flatau said.
Davis, the Union Pacific spokesman, said the railroad began using remote controls in other switching yards in 2002. Colton will be the last of the company's yards in California to have the system, he said.

Safety will improve over time, he said. "We will not use a technology that degrades safety."

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

© 1997-2009 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

 


Safety Task Force Hotline
800-306-5414

DAILY HEADLINES
November 20, 2009

AAR: U.S. rail freight volume down during Veterans Day holiday week
CN train crew now resting comfortably at home after hitting a rock/mud slide
TWU set to vote on SEPTA contract
Rail shippers, carriers see 2010 recovery
FRA study shows freight rail fuel efficiency up more than 20% since 1999
Buffett's Berkshire secures $8 billion loan for BNSF deal
Amtrak adding trains on Cascades route for Thanksgiving holiday
Montana sues BNSF over grain hauls
Opinion: New locomotives are green machines
Grand Central Terminal for Atlanta?
Report: 70 percent of Metra bridges need upgrades
Florida lawmakers confident about the passage of SunRail
CSX introduces ultra-low emission locomotives in Indiana
NS plan to run trains through park angers W.Va. officials
Amtrak extends fare promotion on Northeast Regional service
Rail grinding stirs some confusion
SEPTA moves ahead on extending R3 rail line
New York MTA sets final spending plan for 2010
UP derailment investigation continues in Ill.
Driver mistakes BNSF railroad tracks for road
Operation Lifesaver films distracted driving public service announcements
Midwest Association of Rail Shippers to host January meeting
Wisconsin land owner injured in ground collapse sues CSX
Union Pacific, San Antonio River Authority agree on new drift removal practices
CSX gives city $22,125 to plant trees along tracks
No Railroad Retirement benefit increase in 2010; Most retiree earnings limits remain at 2009 levels
Railroad Retirement annuities and pensions from work not covered by Social Security or Railroad Retirement
RRB: Medicare Part B Premiums for 2010
Final RRB Informational Conference of 2009 is Dec. 11

More Headlines


Enter your e-mail address to receive BLET news updates.

Subscribe  Unsubscribe