(The following article by Jennifer K. Morita was published by the Sacramento Bee on March 30.)
SACRAMENTO — Union Pacific Railroad’s use of remote-control technology to drive locomotives has one labor union trying to garner support for a ban against the hand-held devices in Roseville, the largest railyard west of the Mississippi.
Union Pacific began using remote-controlled locomotives early last year, and the technology has been introduced at about half the carrier’s railyards, including Roseville, according to Mike Furtney, UP’s regional spokesman. “By the end of 2004, we’ll have a complete transition,” Furtney said.
Traditionally, a railroad employee in the yard would use a radio or hand signals to direct engineers driving locomotives.
With remote technology, however, a trained operator on the ground uses a remote control to send instructions to a computer aboard the locomotive. The hand-held device can control a range of functions, from changing the speed of the train to blowing its horn.
The dispute over remote-control technology is similar to one that shut down West Coast shipping ports for 10 days last year, when technology designed to streamline the flow of cargo became a sticking point in negotiations between dockworkers and shippers.
David Wellman, a research sociologist with the Institute for the Study of Social Change at the University of California, Berkeley, said he wasn’t surprised to hear about the railroad industry’s transition to remote-controlled locomotives.
“Railroads have already come a long way down the road toward eliminating human beings, so this would seem to be a logical consequence,” said Wellman. “They’re always looking to cut costs and, of course, labor is a very large cost.”
Wellman said he believes the engineers’ concerns about safety are legitimate.
“I worry when skilled labor is replaced by automation,” Wellman said. “At a certain point, you need the eyes and ears and brains of human beings. Technology can only take you so far.”
But Furtney said remote-controlled locomotives are a safe way to stay competitive and reduce costs.
“I think people are very often quick to see railroads today in the same image as they had a hundred years ago,” Furtney said. “They do not recognize that we wouldn’t be in business if we operated the way we did back then. So like every industry, whether we’re talking about automotive or railroads, everybody has to stay current both in terms of profitability and efficiency.”
Union Pacific has been using the remote-controlled locomotives in Roseville’s railyard for several weeks. Bright green signs warning passers-by that locomotives are remote-controlled and that cabs may be unmanned are posted throughout the yard.
Roseville native Don Coenen, who has worked for Union Pacific for 31 years, said that in the past people have tended to ignore warning signs and crossed railroad tracks where they’re not supposed to.
“I grew up in Roseville and I know how people take shortcuts through the yards,” Coenen said. “We have quite a problem with kids cutting through on their bicycles. That’s really going to be a hazard when there’s nobody on the engines.”
Coenen added that among other cargo, the trains in Roseville’s yard haul hazardous materials.
“The equipment we use is very safe and we do a good job of hauling the material, but as you continually erode safety, pretty soon something is going to happen,” Coenen said.
While Canada has been using remote technology for more than a decade, major U.S. railroads didn’t begin using the devices until 2002.
“Our problem with the whole situation is that we have no experience with this here in the U.S.,” said Tim Smith, California chairman of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.
“They’ll supposedly be able to run the engine, but these are guys who are out of the cab on the ground. They’re doing this without watching the crossings or even being able to see the crossings.”
Several cities, including Detroit, and Shreveport and Baton Rouge in Louisiana, have banned the use of remote technology in railyards. But because railroads are regulated by state and federal agencies, the bans have no legal standing.
The Bakersfield City Council passed a resolution urging the state Public Utilities Commission and Federal Railroad Administration to adopt regulations ensuring that citizens’ safety “will not be jeopardized by the use of remote control locomotives.”
“We realize that time marches on and technology is always going to be a factor,” Smith said. “But if we’re going to implement technology, let’s at least be responsible about it.”
Furtney said the union is using safety as a scare tactic.
“The system is very safe,” Furtney said. “In Canada, where it’s been in use almost 15 years, they’ve demonstrated a significant improvement in safety performance. There’s just no validity to the notion that it’s unsafe.”
The Canadian Pacific Railway reported that between 1998 and 2000, there were one-third fewer accidents at locations using remote-controlled locomotives than at sites using conventional technology, according to the Association of American Railroads.
Some experts say the reason for fewer accidents is that sending information directly to a computer eliminates the possibility of miscommunication with hand signals and radios.
“We are beginning to see the same results on our system, but we don’t have any hard data at this point,” Furtney said. He said he believes the union’s real concern is loss of jobs.
“But the current work force need not have concerns. With the level of retirements going on these days, everyone who wants a job and is currently employed as an engineer can have one. It may mean they have to transfer, but at least they’ll have a job.”
So far, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers’ request for a resolution banning the use of remote technology in Roseville doesn’t appear to have much support.
“We don’t have any regulatory oversight (with regard to the railroads),” said John Sprague, Roseville’s director of economic and community development services. “The Federal Railroad Administration has some safety rules relative to the remote-control use, and as far as the Public Utility Commissions’ opinion, it’s a legitimate technology to be used within the railyards.
“We wanted to assure ourselves that this technology is being monitored by these agencies and that it’s being used appropriately. The best I could determine, that’s the case.”