LINCOLN, Neb. — A remote-controlled locomotive may be many kids’ dream, but the use of them in Nebraska rail yards is causing a rift between grown-ups: the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and management at Burlington Northern Santa Fe, according to the Lincoln Journal Star.
The federal government began allowing the use of remote controlled locomotives in 2000, but they’ve seen action in Southeast Nebraska only since Sept. 29.
The union will conduct a rally today at Iron Horse Park, Seventh and Q Streets, to “warn Lincoln residents of the danger of remote-controlled train operations,” according to literature announcing the rally.
BNSF spokesman Steve Forsberg said the technology has worked safely for more than a decade in Canada. He said in trials since February at other BNSF yards, the system has not been at fault in any accidents.
Government agencies support use of the technology, with safety recommendations attached.
For the union, the technology in and of itself is a problem, said legislative board chairman Randy Meek. He said it is being implemented here without much attention to safety.
Meek said the railroad should keep yard work, such as disassembling trains whose cars have different destinations, should be left in the hands of federally certified engineers, not train crew members represented by the United Transportation Union.
While Forsberg said there have been no engineers laid off, Meek said the railroad has its eye mostly on the bottom line, and sees remote-controlled locomotives as a way to increase productivity.
“No question there will be job losses,” he said. “At what point does productivity become dangerous?”
The union cites a September accident in which a California Northern employee using a remote-controlled locomotive lost a leg in a switching mishap. It also points to a resolution passed last month by the City Council of Baton Rouge, La., that banned remote-controlled locomotives, citing public safety concerns.
The engineers international union sought a court injunction in Denver in May preventing Union Pacific from operating remote-controlled locomotives. Meek said the union will go to other bodies for similar relief.
However, federal officials say the accident and others, including a 2000 derailment in Blair that closed down a Union Pacific track, were caused by operating rules violations.
Warren Flatau, a spokesman for the Federal Railroad Administration, says there have been no incidents directly attributed to remote-controlled locomotives. But Meek said their history “certainly doesn’t indicate that they’re safer” than human-controlled trains.
Forsberg said the opposite is true, because remote-controlled locomotives have built-in safety features that warn operators of imminent locomotive movement, and a mechanism that shuts the engine down if it gets farther than a mile away the operator. Also, he said, the ground-level perspective is advantageous, as operators on the ground may be able to spot obstructions that an engineer can’t see from inside the cab.
BNSF has placed signs noting that remote-controlled locomotives are in use at its Haymarket rail yard, easing the risk of injury to the general public, Forsberg said.
That is acceptable to the state Public Service Commission, executive director Andy Pollock said, but the agency, which has regulatory authority over locomotive safety, would prefer to have audio signals and/or flashing lights added.
Pollock, one of several commission representatives who attended a demonstration last week of the technology in operation, said he’s pleased with BNSF’s safety efforts.
“It seemed to be generally well- thought out and tested,” he said. “They’re obviously not just winging this.”