(The following article by Lois Caliri was posted on the Roanoke Times
website on September 19.)
ROANOKE, Va. — Remote-control trains are not just for kids anymore. Actual railroad workers are using small radio-control boxes to send trains forward or backward up to a mile-and-a-half in rail yards. The trains are unmanned. Engineers are not on board.
One union does not see this as child’s play.
The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen says the technology has contributed to deaths, lost limbs and a number of lawsuits.
The union has sent its safety task force to help investigate a fatal remote control train accident that occurred Sept. 2 in Clovis, N.M. The accident happened in a Burlington Northern Santa Fe switching yard.
Human error – not remote control – has caused nearly all of the 181 accidents that have occurred across the country, said the Federal Railroad Administration.
Norfolk Southern hails robot trains as a high-tech way to enhance safety, increase efficiency and save money. To that end, unmanned locomotives eventually may move through Norfolk Southern’s Schaefer’s Crossing rail yard.
Right now in Roanoke the conductor standing in the rail yard can see where the train is and where it is in relation to everything else in the yard. That conductor gives commands, via radio, to the engineer operating the train. The engineer backs the train into a set of cars he wants to couple.
“This works well as long as there’s perfect communication between the two,” said Robin Chapman, spokesman for NS. “But if there’s a verbal miscue or if the engineer doesn’t get the right signal he can damage equipment if he doesn’t brake soon enough.”
The BLET said the technology can work in “hump” yards, such as Schaefer’s Crossing, where trains are put together, taken apart and sent to designated tracks. The union said the trains move slowly enough to make the remote control technology more acceptable, though it said an engineer on board enhances safety.
Remote control removes much of the potential for human error and verbal miscues, putting the control of the locomotive in the hands of the operator who can see the whole picture, Chapman said.
Still, human error resulted in a recent NS derailment.
An NS train that was operated by remote control derailed in Alton, Ill., on July 27. It partially slipped off the tracks at a rail yard and spilled diesel fuel from its tank.
NS said human error – an employee failed to properly align a switch – caused the derailment.
The technology is up and running in more than 100 switching yards across the country. A microprocessor in the locomotive receives radio signals from the portable control unit that’s worn by the remote-control operator, directing the locomotive’s movement.
Some engineers in Roanoke dubbed the technology “pitch and catch.” One remote-control operator pushes a button and sends a train down the track; the other remote-control operator catches the train on the other end.
The BLET union cites a number of problems with using the technology; namely the lack of federal oversight and the limited training given to remote-control operators. They receive 80 hours of training in two weeks on the devices, and are inadequately trained to operate rail cars, the union said.
“Remote-control operators are not held to the same standards as licensed locomotive engineers,” said Michael Roop, an engineer in Roanoke. It takes an entire year to become a licensed engineer.
Locomotive engineers, unlike remote-control operators, are trained to operate the trains on the mainlines.
That’s an entirely different scenario from what goes on in the rail yards, said Chapman. Road rules and high speed do not factor into rail yard operations. Typically, a train travels no more than 15 miles an hour in a yard and operates within controlled circumstances.
Remotely operated locomotives became more popular with large railroad companies after the Canadian National Railway Co. developed its own technology and began using it in its Canadian switching yards in the mid-1990s.
The railroads say the rail workers are actually safer with the new technology. They cite Canada’s 10 years of experience which has proven that remote control is safer than the old method of an engineer running the locomotive in response to hand signals from a trainman on the ground.
The FRA studied remote-control accidents across the country from May 1 to Nov. 30, 2003. The agency, which governs railroads, blamed human error for the majority of 181 accidents.
NS had five, or 2.8 percent, of those accidents. The FRA gave the following reasons for the NS accidents:
Oakwood, Mich.; May 1, 2003: human error; track switch improperly lined
Jasper, Fla.; May 15, 2003: ineffective braking
Childs, S.C.; June 24, 2003: human error; failure to comply with restricted speed
Birmingham, Ala.; Aug. 9, 2003: yard skate slid
Birmingham, Ala.; Sept. 25, 2003: employee improperly lined a switch
The FRA has issued safety guidelines for the use of remote-control technology, which it maintains are sufficient.
NS’s low rate of accidents reflect that the railroad is following the rules, Chapman said.
Minimal guidelines are the best way to guide the rail industry when implementing the technology, the FRA said, “because it provides flexibility to both manufacturers who are frequently upgrading RCL [remote-control technology] equipment designs and to railroads who continue to refine their RCL operations.”
But that doesn’t do much for some local and federal officials.
“Voluntary regulations, if they’re good, should be in writing,” said Mike Altizer, a Roanoke County supervisor who pushed to get a resolution passed last year, requesting the FRA to establish mandatory regulations for the operation of remote-control locomotives. Roanoke County is one of 19 counties that have enacted resolutions. About 40 cities followed suit.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Ernest “Fritz” Hollings, D-S.C., of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, have questioned the lack of federal regulations and asked the FRA to conduct a study on the safety of remote-control operations. The FRA completed its review last year at the request of the senators.
It concluded that train accident rates involving remote-control technology have been 13.5 percent lower than conventional switching operations, and employee injury rates are 57.1 percent lower than rates for conventional operations.
In 2000, the BLET petitioned the FRA to establish rules for remote-control operations.
“There should be no use of remote-control locomotives without FRA regulations establishing the safest requirements possible, which the BLE believes should govern equipment specifications, inspection, repair, training and operating practices in the use of such devices,” BLET International President Edward Dubroski wrote.
The BLET said its initiative stemmed from an aggressive campaign by the manufacturers of remote-control locomotive equipment, who were enticing U.S. rail carriers to buy into the technology.
“If we can get the federal government and the public on our side, maybe we can get something done,” said Rodney Murphy, legislative representative for BLET, Division 301, in Roanoke. Murphy plans to petition Roanoke Council to pass a resolution asking for federal regulations.