(The following column by BLE Member Herb Yambra appeared in the Houston Chronicle on September 21.)
Watch out, Houston! That train loaded with dangerous chemical 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, Settegast, 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 like the rest of us watching operating 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 at least one a month.
The cause of these accidents? The removal of the most qualified and skilled locomotive engineers from the locomotives 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 near 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-control 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 too well aware, but I’ll take my chances on the guy I think will really care!