(The following editorial appeared in the June 3 issue of the Hermiston Herald.)
HERMISTON, Ore. –- Since community safety in Umatilla County is a key factor in the debate over remote control locomotives, the area’s governments should be getting up to speed on the issue.
The introduction of remote control locomotives has pitted one of the country’s powerful unions, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, against one of the oldest industries, the railroad. In Hermiston, Hinke is in the thick of the debate. Remote may also be a factor in the recent movement to combine two heavyweight unions, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the Teamsters. The BLE’s advisory board will meet in Cleveland on July 9-10 to review and vote on finalized documents relating to the proposed merger with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
The Hermiston area’s communities should be concerned about remote-controlled locomotives moving freight such as anhydrous ammonia through Hinkle switchyard, and railroad officials should have to make their case to the community, not merely the Federal Railroad Administration, that they are not putting Umatilla County citizens and UPRR employees at greater risk.
Prior to last year, three-person crews, including locomotive engineers, ran the locomotives that mixed and matched the railroad cars before sending them on their various ways.
Those engineers and their crews -– some of whom had 20 or even 3- years experience –- disconnected cars from incoming trains, sorted the cars, and composed new trains heading for diverse destinations.
About a year ago the railroad implemented the new RCO system which put switchyard engineers, who belonged to the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, back out on the road. To run the remote controls they hired remote control operators, who belong to the United Transportation Union.
The jury is still out on the safety of the new systems, but the safety record we have seen at Hinkle since RCO was implemented has been less than impressive. Here is what we know so far:
* A dozen or so incidents, accidents, and derailments have occurred at Hinkle in less than a year.
* The first time in memory that a locomotive was ever seen lying on its side at Hinkle.
* An accident resulting in the amputation of an employee’s arm.
* Cars have been toppled, engines run off the ends of tracks, minor crashes have become more commonplace. The company has blamed it on the newness of the system, but incidents, if anything, have escalated as the months rolled by.
It is hard to ay how much volatile, hazardous material passes through Hinkle in a year. It is probably not likely to happen, but a single car of something like anhydrous ammonia, if ruptured, could potentially contaminate a nearby community causing deaths or injuries.
The railroad cites Canada’s RCO system as proof that RCO is safer than traditional operations, but engineers say that Canada’s RCO system is a far different approach than the one being implemented here.
The Federal Railroad Administration, while not blocking the use of remote control, has not enthusiastically endorsed it, either. Other communities, large and small are expressing concerns. At last count, some nine other communities have passed ordinances or resolutions, some of them placing restrictions on the use of RCO.
Questions which they railroad should voluntarily answer in public include the following:
(1) In what way are hazardous materials handled differently than the cars that have been involved in the incidents which have been reported in recent months?
(2) What Hinkle incidents have been reported to FRA during the past two to five years, and what smaller incidents have occurred that were not required for reporting?
(3) What is the worst-case credible event for which he railroad has prepared involving activities at Hinkle.
(4) What preparations has the community and the railroad made to address the unlikely event.
Union Pacific is one of the area’s earliest and largest employers. The railroad represents several hundred jobs with higher than average annual salaries.
Having said that, when the activities at Hinkle pose a potential risk to the surrounding communities, they should have the right to examine that risk in detail and to set limits or make requirements if necessary.