SAN ANTONIO — Railroad engineers gathered Wednesday to warn the public about hazards they say will result from converting to remote-control switching operations, scheduled to begin locally next year, according to the San Antonio Express-News.
Union Pacific officials, however, say the changes will improve safety.
Members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers said they fear plans by Union Pacific to install remote-control rail operations at terminals nationwide by late 2004 will put lives in jeopardy.
The systems will use unstaffed trains in rail yards, and often will put ground crew members too far away to watch for kids or others crossing the tracks, or potential car-to-car collisions, they said.
Some of the 60 protesters who stood for two hours outside Sunset Station also raised concerns that the new systems could be manipulated by computer hackers and others with ill intent.
“We love Union Pacific, and we love our jobs,” said Russell Elley, the union’s local chairman. “But this is not the time to take a shortcut approach, especially after 9-11.”
A railroad terminal near KellyUSA is scheduled for conversion to remote-control systems in February, union members said. A lawsuit filed by the union to stop Union Pacific from installing the systems is pending.
Other major U.S. railroads, including Burlington Northern Santa Fe, are converting to remote systems on a rapid timeline, they said.
Ground crew members with 80 hours of training in two weeks will operate remote systems up to a mile away from unstaffed trains, without trained engineers or brakemen on board, said Gil Gore, general chairman of the union’s southern region.
“It’s like taking pilots off airplanes and giving the stewardesses a box” to operate aircraft from the ground, Gore said.
Remote systems now are in place at Union Pacific terminals in Kansas City; Minneapolis; Des Moines, Iowa; and Pine Bluff, Ark., and were recently added in Fort Worth, the only Texas city with the new technology, Union Pacific spokesman John Bromley said.
Use of remote-control systems by Canadian railroads for 10 years has proved safer than manually run systems, because remote systems prevent miscommunications between personnel, and have safeguards to prevent tampering, he said.
“We’ve experienced improvements in safety,” Bromley said. “There have been accidents, but it’s wrong to attribute them to remote systems. What they don’t talk about are accidents caused by operator error of some sort. The numbers of accidents at yards with remote systems are minor in comparison.”
Officials in Baton Rouge, La., and other cities have approved resolutions opposing the remote-control systems, but federal law allows the changes, Bromley said.
The union lately has claimed that Union Pacific has worked engineers to exhaustion, and put profits ahead of safety, by failing to hire and train more engineers. Union Pacific officials have said conversion to remote systems will help address manpower shortages.