(The following report by Rosanna Ruiz appeared on the Houston Chronicle website on May 14. Terry Briggs is Chairman of the BLET’s Texas State Legislative Board.)
HOUSTON — An 11-car train derailment involving the use of a remote-controlled locomotive early Friday has revived safety concerns regarding the use of such technology in Houston.
The cause of the derailment, which occurred at a west Houston Union Pacific rail yard, remains under investigation. A Union Pacific spokesman said the remote control technology already has been ruled out as the culprit but did not elaborate.
There were no injuries or environmental damage caused by the derailment.
“This is even more reason to oppose remote-controlled locomotives,” said City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado, whose district includes Houston’s East End and other areas where railroads are prominent fixtures.
The City Council and Harris County Commissioners Court passed nonbinding resolutions in 2004 opposing the use of remote-controlled locomotives on public streets, highways and bridges.
“As this resolution was considered, Commissioner (Sylvia) Garcia’s first concern was if remote-controlled railcars are allowed, the most stringent federal, state and local laws should be applied and be strictly enforced,” said Mark Seegers, a spokesman for Garcia.
Remote-controlled locomotives use a radio transmitter and receiver system to control the train. Railroads use the technology within rail yards, but some do travel over city intersections near industrial plants, according to the Federal Railroad Administration.
In 1994, the FRA began investigating the use of remote controls and the accidents, injuries and safety concerns that arose from their use.
An interim report, issued by the agency in May 2004, states that nearly all of the accidents or incidents involving the use of remote-controlled locomotives have been caused by human error. A final report is due out later this month.
In a separate analysis, FRA researchers found that from May 2003 through November 2003, the accident rate for remote-controlled trains was 13.5 percent lower than conventional switching operations during the same period, the report states.
The FRA issued guidelines on the use of the technology in 2001. The major railroad companies, including Union Pacific, have adopted them, the report states.
Terry Briggs, chairman of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers legislative department, said the guidelines are voluntary and without teeth.
Unlike the remote control operators, human engineers can detect when a train’s wheels slip and hit railroad ties, Briggs said. The engineer can take corrective action to avoid a derailment, but a remote-controlled system can only detect a decrease in speed when such a slip occurs, he said.
“The remote-controlled locomotive system will go to maximum throttle to make up for the loss in speed, and that’s what makes the accident much worse,” Briggs said.
Mark Davis, a Union Pacific spokesman, said there was no indication the remote control system was at fault in Friday’s derailment. The 11-car derailment occurred about 2:20 a.m. at Union Pacific’s Inglewood yard at Liberty Road near North Wayside, Davis said. He said the operators were moving 37 rail cars when 11 fell off the track.
The derailed cars included six empty cars, three hauling liquefied petroleum gas and two carrying butadiene, a chemical used in rubber manufacturing.
There were no leaks and the rail yard was cleared up by 5 a.m., Davis said.