TOLEDO, Ohio — Remote-control train switching, the subject of a bitter dispute involving two labor unions and the railroad industry, has arrived at a major Toledo-area rail yard, the Toledo Blade reports.
CSX Transportation Corp. began training employees at Stanley Yard in Lake Township last week to operate locomotives by remote control, and two technology-equipped locomotives — identifiable by yellow beacons on their cab roofs — have been assigned to the terminal. On Tuesday, remote-control switching began for real, one eight-hour shift per day.
Depending on whose side is being told, remote control is either a dramatic safety tool or the railroads’ latest means to thin their payrolls. Instead of having employees on the ground tell an engineer what to do while switching train cars, the employees will control the locomotive themselves using remote control devices, which eliminates the possibility of miscommunication, said Bob Sullivan, a CSX spokesman.
“Remote control is proving, and will prove, to be a major tool in further improving the safety of our operations,” Mr. Sullivan said.
“It’s a job killer,” said Bill Barber, a local chairman for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, which is battling with the rival United Transportation Union over whose members will operate the devices should their use become permanent in the United States.
CSX concedes that the “efficiency” benefit of remote control will be reduced employment in the rail yards, but maintains that the railroad has an overall shortage of engineers and plenty of jobs will be available for those affected by the new technology. CSX expects to hire 1,125 trainmen this year and train 500 engineers to fill its needs.
Stanley Yard is the 19th terminal on CSX’s system to see remote-control use, Mr. Sullivan said. By the end of this year, CSX intends to begin such operations at between 30 and 40 more facilities, possibly including nearby Walbridge Yard and the CSX yards at the Port of Toledo coal and iron ore docks.
The remote-control engine’s first assignment at Stanley is the same job, known on the railroad as Y116, that was involved in the May 15, 2001, train runaway there. In that incident, an engineer mistakenly applied a throttle instead of a brake before stepping down to change the position of a track switch, and was unable to climb back aboard. The train went on a 66-mile, unmanned trip to Kenton, Ohio, before other railroad employees were able to stop it.
Several industry observers have said that had remote control been in use on the job that day, the runaway never would have occurred, since once the locomotive left the controlling device’s radio range — less than a mile — it would have stopped. But the technology’s rapid spread after the Federal Railroad Administration issued “guidelines” for its use last year has aroused other safety fears and sparked a war between the unions representing train conductors and engineers over who will run the trains if remote control takes root.
Officially, remote-control is still experimental on CSX and other United States railroads that have begun using it for yard-switching assignments across the country — including Norfolk Southern at its yard in Bellevue, Ohio. It won’t become a permanent railroad feature here until its use is negotiated by the major railroads and unions.
CSX has posted signs near Stanley’s entrances warning of the presence of unmanned, remotely controlled equipment. Places where the engines are to be used include tracks that cross a public road, Walbridge Road, at the yard’s north end.
Remote-control engines crossing a public road constitutes “a real safety issue,” Mr. Barber said. Police Chief Danny LaDuke of Lake Township said he thought so too, but was assured by CSX that all remote-control movements will be watched.
Mr. Sullivan said remotes are safely crossing public streets at other CSX terminals, but yesterday could not name examples. Remote control has been used in Canadian rail yards for years, and the Canadian railroads have reported substantially fewer accidents at those facilities compared with traditional operations.
The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers maintains the technology is not proven safe and cites several recent accidents as evidence, including a collision and resulting two-car derailment two months ago on CSX in Montgomery, Ala. CSX said it is still investigating that incident, but the remote control devices were found to be working properly. The UTU has agreed with the railroads that recent accidents are attributable to human error; the engineers’ union responded that in that case, training must be inadequate.