 |
Will remote control come out of the yard?
(The following story by Douglas John Bowen appeared on the Railway Age website on March 14.)
All eyes are on the prize—remote control locomotive (RCL) operations on main line track. Almost everyone acknowledges it’s possible, even feasible. Most will allow that, in some form or fashion, it’s inevitable.
But few will venture just when—and fewer still plan to expedite the matter proactively if various players interviewed by Railway Age are any indication.
Class I’s have signaled to the Federal Railroad Administration that they might be ready for RCL outside the yard in seven to 10 years. “The Class I’s are interested, and they’re thinking about it, but the FRA likely won’t do anything” until these railroads present a specific plan, one industry executive says. Asked if short lines or regionals might lead the way instead, the executive acknowledges that the smaller railroads are “flirting” with the concept, but for now “in the yard is where it’s at.”
For its part, the FRA, often accused of being overly conservative on other issues, appears ready to proceed with RCL’s expansion—once other players find their own comfort zone. FRA has stressed the safety aspects, per its mandate, but also seems to be actively seeking to ascertain just when Class I’s, and their suppliers, will be ready to meet those aspects. Ironically, it’s the Class I’s who may be holding back any aggressive effort to advance RCL, even more than FRA.
“The railroads may want something more broad-reaching than the proposed FRA standard,” involving but limited to definitions and safety analysis, one observer says. FRA representatives met early last month in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., with representatives of the Association of American Railroads, Class I officials, some short line railroad participants, and industry suppliers to explore RCL regulations. The meeting “discussed RCL in general to codify and federalize” the standard, an effort begun at least one year ago, one participant says.
It’s not only safety in actual fact, but also the perception of safety, that has made FRA’s efforts more complex. An FRA spokesman says the industry itself is striving to define how “remote” the control might be. RCL “does not need to be miles and miles away,” an FRA spokesman says. “It’s quite likely any [future] operator of RCL over main line track will be close by, perhaps still even in the locomotive,” the way some passenger rail services, such as San Francisco’s BART and Washington’s WMATA, position operators. The distinction is important, and not only to the FRA. “The fear of ‘remote’ technology by the general public needs to be addressed, whether the perception is fair or not,” the spokesman says. Sometimes the distinction is quite real: “Addressing the issue of, for instance, air brakes over the road is different from doing so in yards using RCL,” the spokesman allows.
FRA and other observers place Union Pacific and BNSF Railway as the two candidates most likely to commit to RCL outside the yard. UP, in particular, has gone “back and forth” with FRA extensively over criteria required for train handling and engineer qualifications. “We’ve insisted the crews be trained and qualified,” FRA says. Both UP and BNSF declined to comment. Such preparations may have cut into anticipated return on investment gains, one industry supplier says. “ROI for RCL operations may not have been as great as anticipated,” the supplier adds.
Complicating the matter still further is the issue of labor’s acceptance, though labor itself is divided. The United Transportation Union has accepted RCL’s use in rail yards, where its membership predominates. Acceptance by the rival Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, more prevalent among workers on main line operations, is seen as a problem still to be resolved. Still, “No labor union has ever stopped or even retarded new technology,” says UTU spokesman Frank Wilner. “A progressive union will serve its membership best by assuring the safety of the new tech before it’s implemented, and the full training of its members to protect their jobs and income.”
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
© 1997-2009 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
|
