(The following article by David Danelski was posted on the Press-Enterprise website on May 26. Tim Smith is the BLET’s California State Legislative Board Chairman.)
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Some workers in Union Pacific’s sprawling switching yard in Colton and Rialto fear safety could be sacrificed next month when the railroad starts using unmanned, remote-control locomotives to sort train cars.
A Federal Railroad Administration study released last month reported a 25 percent higher accident rate in the rail yards that use remote-control locomotives. Despite that finding, agency officials concluded that unmanned locomotives are just as safe as conventional switching methods.
Railroad representatives say using remote-control locomotives is safer and more efficient. It will allow them to transfer engineers from yard duties to long trips.
The remote system eliminates miscommunications between train operators and yard workers, automatically stops trains if communications are interrupted and controls train speeds so that operators can focus more closely on train movement, according to a paper by Association of American Railroads, an industry group that includes Union Pacific.
“We wanted to make use of a safe and proven technology, and it is,” said Mark Davis, a Union Pacific spokesman, when contacted by telephone in Omaha, Neb.
Hazardous Chemicals
The Colton-Rialto switching yard is one of the busiest in California. It handles 1,500 cars a day, including tank cars loaded with hazardous chemicals.
Richard Villines, of Rialto, has worked at the yard for seven years, and he is one of the employees who object to the new system.
Engineers in locomotives stay in radio contact with switch workers on the ground and are in the best position to react to problems and avert disaster, Villines said in a community meeting in Colton earlier this week.
“They (locomotive engineers) are another set of eyes and ears,” he said. “I had no choice but to go to the community because of these safety concerns.”
The meeting was organized by a Glen Avon-based environmental group.
Train cars could break away and crash into other cars or derail, he and co-workers said. Villines said he recently boarded a breakaway train section and prevented an accident by applying manual brakes.
If a tank car carrying hazardous chemicals crashed, a poisonous cloud could spread onto Interstate 10 and into the surrounding community, including a junior high school, he said.
Gary Mayfield, of Running Springs, one of Villines’ co-workers, has 28 years of railroad experience. He said Union Pacific has never had evacuation drills for its employees or the community.
Federal Study
Villines and Mayfield both said the federal study, which was requested by Congress, gives them cause for worry.
In the 13-month study released in April, the Federal Railroad Administration found that the accident rate in the nation’s rail yards that use remote-control locomotives was 25 percent higher than that of yards that use manned locomotives.
Federal Railroad Administration officials, however, said Union Pacific and other larger railroads have roughly the same accident rates using remote controls as railroads using manned engines do. In addition, the officials said, the study results were skewed by an eastern railroad, Northfolk Southern Corp., that had an exemplary safety record using mostly conventional switching methods.
The railroad agency concluded that remote-control locomotives are no more dangerous than conventional switching methods, said spokesman Warren Flatau. “They are roughly equivalent, all things being equal.”
But Tim Smith, California chairman for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, said the Federal Railroad Administration and railroad companies are trying to downplay the study results.
“They are pretty good at spinning things,” Smith said by telephone.
He said the actual accident rate could be higher than 25 percent, because members of the engineers union know that some accidents don’t get reported.
The railroad agency’s conclusion represented a substantial change in its position on the remote-control technology.
In 2004, the agency, a division of U.S. Department of Transportation, essentially endorsed the technology, saying it had brought “significant safety benefits.” The statement was based on seven months of accident data.
After examining 13 months of more recent accident information, collected through December of 2004, the agency’s conclusion was more neutral, saying remote controls were just as safe as convention switching.
During the 13-month study period, switching operations using remote controls and conventional methods each had two fatalities, the report said.
Employee Training
Flatau, the agency spokesman, said the railroad agency is seeking assurance through audits that employees are properly trained to use the remote-control technology.
Unmanned locomotives should not be used on trips outside of rail yards, he said.
The Federal Railroad Administration will propose regulations later this year to reduce human error in both remote-control and conventional switching methods, Flatau said.
Davis, the Union Pacific spokesman, said the railroad began using remote controls in other switching yards in 2002. Colton will be the last of the company’s yards in California to have the system, he said.
Safety will improve over time, he said. “We will not use a technology that degrades safety.”