(The San Bernardino Sun posted the following article by Andrew Silva on its website on July 1.)
COLTON, Calif. — Remote-control locomotives without engineers aboard will be rolling in Union Pacific Railroad’s Colton switching yard by next year.
Training for the operators will begin in February or March, said John Bromley, spokesman for Union Pacific.
The union representing railroad engineers opposes the remote-control locomotives for safety reasons.
Roughly 30 communities throughout the nation have passed resolutions questioning the safety of remote-control operations, though those actions are not enforceable.
Others suggest the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers is opposed because a different union got the jobs operating the locomotives.
The United Transportation Union operates remote-control locomotives.
The local chairman of the engineers union dismissed the contention that it’s an inter-union fight over jobs.
“It’s about safety,’ said Bill Hannah, general manager of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers for this region. “We’re still going to be working. We’re just concerned these employees only get two weeks training.’
The issue comes up as Southern California has recently experienced a bad rail crash.
On June 20, a string of 31 cars escaped from a Union Pacific switching yard in Montclair and reached 86 mph before crashing in the city of Commerce, destroying two homes and injuring 13 people.
“We saw this city of Commerce crash as what could happen,’ Hannah said.
Union Pacific does not yet use remote-control locomotives in this part of California and remote control was not a factor in the crash, officials said.
The system is already in use locally at another major railroad’s facilities.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, which operates a multimodal yard in San Bernardino, where shipping containers are moved from train to truck, has been using remote-control engines since April, said Lena Kent, BNSF spokeswoman.
The units are also used at the BNSF switching yard in Barstow, she said.
The remote-control units, which allow an operator to stand outside the locomotive and direct it around the yard to move rail cars, will not be used on the main, full-speed rail lines.
Industry officials argue that the technique is actually safer, because the operator is outside the locomotive and has a better view of what’s happening in the yard.
“We have not had an accident that was caused by failure of the technology,’ Bromley of Union Pacific said. “We think it’s not only safe; it’s safer.’
The two weeks of training is plenty, he said, because the devices are easy to operate.
“People who will be operating these are experienced railroaders,’ he said. “It eliminates the chance for miscommunication between the switchman and the engineer.’
The industry reports that yard accidents are down by roughly a third where remote control is used. The system has been in use in Canada for more than a decade with a good safety record, Bromley said.
The Federal Railroad Administration in 2001 issued voluntary guidelines for remote-control operations and is carefully watching its use, said Warren Flatau, spokesman for the administration in Washington, D.C.
Of the 60 incidents reported nationwide involving remote control, most appear to have been human error, he said. A fatal accident in Syracuse, N.Y., in February and an injury crash in Oregon are being carefully scrutinized, but no conclusions have been reached, he said.
Rialto also lies along the Union Pacific switching yard.
Rialto Mayor Grace Vargas wasn’t familiar with the plan for remote-control operations, but the idea made her nervous.
“I don’t think I like it,” she said.