(The Tri-Valley Herald posted the following article by Inga Miller on its website on May 25.)
MARTINEZ, Calif. — Just like regular trains, they chug along the tracks, lugging box cars and clanging as they go.
In all ways but one, the locomotives running on the newest technology along Bay Area railways are the same as old freight trains. They just don’t have an engineer on board.
Rectangular white signs inform motorists along Benicia’s Industrial Way that “locomotive cabs may be unoccupied” and that the engines are operated by “remote control.”
But that’s no reason for concern, insist rail operators.
“The (controller) always has his locomotive in sight,” said John Bromley, director of public affairs for Union Pacific Railroad. “We’re primarily using the technology in some areas that we don’t expect the public to be — like the switching yards.”
The quagmire of quick turns and tight spaces between tracks can be confusing for a traditional engineer in the cab, Bromley said. Such engineers contact a switch operator by radio for directions, which can lead to a foul-up, he said.
For the past year, Union Pacific Railroad and the four other major carriers have experimented with eliminating the middle man.
New-style operators wear remote-control belts that allow them to operate the locomotive without an engineer — as they walk along the tracks.
So they are in control of the entire operation.
As of the beginning of May, such operators controlled trains in and around 147 rail yards across the country, according to Warren Flatau, a spokesman for the Federal Railroad Administration. The administration issued guidelines requiring rail-road companies to report all accidents where remote control is used. But it has not taken a position on the technology.
“We are monitoring the use of remote-control locomotives very closely,” Flatau said. “Really, the guidelines only cover yard operations. It’s not the type of technology that can be used miles away.”
Since remote-control technology only controls trains up to about 15 mph, Union Pacific generally doesn’t use it to send cars to customers more than three or four miles from the switch yards, Bromley said. Even at those distances, the belt operator rides inside.
Remote control has detractors. The fact that a belt operator doesn’t have an overhead view of the tracks “puts the public at great risk,” said Timothy Smith, board chairman of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, a union for competing engineers active against the practice, which Smith describes as “extremely different” from the job performed by the traditional engineers who make up its membership.
“Obviously, the engineer sits at the controls of the locomotive, and he or she will react to any kind of movement or with any kind of emergency action that might need to occur,” Smith said.
“That could be somebody stepping out in front of you on the tracks, a car stuck out in the middle of the tracks or a truck filled with chlorine, for example. At least the engineer could mitigate the impact by providing immediate reactions to the emergency.”
Painting a grim picture of what could occur on a Contra Costa County rail line if a munitions container were to overturn unnoticed, Smith gained support of County Supervisors on May 6 for stricter regulations. The county sent a letter to the railroad administration asking for more oversight.
“We believe it’s a serious matter,” Flatau said, noting the administration met with labor and industry representatives about two weeks ago to “reinforce the guidelines.” The administration also increased the definition of accidents that have to be reported as of May 1.
At this point, no accidents have been attributed to the technology. The railroad administration is investigating a fatal accident in Syracuse, N.Y., where remote control was used, Flatau said.
“Our safety record shows that they are actually safer than our locomotives operated by engineers, which we are very pleased about because we anticipated that,” Bromley said, calling criticism “a union issue.”
The Brotherhood lost a bid to represent all but a few belt operators in a dispute with the rival United Transportation Union. That bargaining group hasn’t taken a stance on remote-control locomotives.
“We make no claim,” said James Brunkenhoefer, spokes-man for the United Transportation Union said. “If the railroads are going to implement remote control, since we have the jurisdiction, we try to deal with it.”
Beginning about 25 years ago, European train operators began experimenting with running trains using remote-control belts, Brunkenhoefer said.
The technology crossed the Atlantic to Canada about a decade ago. And the major railroad companies began picking it up here a few years ago. Union Pacific, which began its program last year, plans to bring it to all of its major switch yards by the end of 2004.
As for the signs alerting motorists to remote-control operations at some crossings, Brom-ley said they are not supposed to cause worry. He said he would call them simply “advisories.”
“It’s just an information issue to let them know that we are using the technology,” he said. “The signs are more for political purposes to alert people. There seems to be more concern, I think, than there should be.”