(The following story by Jennifer M. Fitzenberger was published in the January 20 online issue of The Fresno Bee.)
FRESNO, Calif. — Perched in a parking lot, Paul Contreras sounds a horn and starts a Union Pacific train down the tracks.
Contreras, a switch foreman, pulls a lever on a control panel hanging from his neck, stopping the 130-ton locomotive.
He motions toward the cab where an engineer used to sit.
“There’s nobody up there,” Contreras says from the shadow of the towering train. “Right now, I have sole control over it.”
The locomotive is one of six in Fresno run by remote control. Most travel inside the Union Pacific rail yard, but one runs on a line that cuts through downtown and south Fresno, crossing about 10 public roads.
The technology has sparked bitter debate between railroads and an engineer union over its safety and efficiency.
Railroad officials say remote control cuts costs because fewer workers are needed. A job that used to take three people — an engineer and two helpers — now is done with two by remote control.
They also laud its safety. As proof, they cite several years of safe and efficient use on trains in Canada.
Engineers call the device dangerous, especially when used outside rail yards. Remote users, not in the cab, can’t see in front of the train as well, increasing risk of injury or death for the public, they say.
“If you’re moving the train from a spot other than from the engineer’s seat, you can’t see what’s in front of you,” says Richard Brand, president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers for Central California. “It’s an absolute danger to the public at large.”
Engineers also say remote control slows productivity and eliminates jobs.
The Federal Railroad Administration allows the device but acknowledges it could cause serious injury. In February 2001, it issued a safety advisory to guide the rail industry on its use of remote control.
Several cities, including Baton Rouge, La., and Detroit, have banned remote-control trains within city limits. It’s unclear whether such ordinances are enforceable, because railroads are federally regulated.
Brand and others will take their concerns to the Fresno City Council on Jan. 28. They also plan to meet with Assembly Member Nicole Parra, D-Hanford.
“If people knew about it, I think they would be outraged that the railroad would compromise public safety at the cost of saving a buck,” Brand says. The railroad “has a duty to the public to operate as safely as possible. They’re not doing that, and it’s wrong.”
City Council President Tom Boyajian wants to learn more about the technology and its safety record. Before late last week, Boyajian had no idea it was being used in Fresno.
Union Pacific began installing remote control on its locomotives in early 2002, starting with trains in the Midwest. Remote-control trains now run in the Bay Area and Sacramento. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad doesn’t plan to rig its Fresno trains with remote control this year, but it’s possible in the future. BNSF has the technology on trains in Stockton and Barstow.
Union Pacific uses the Beltpack remote control by Canac, a Quebec-based company. The unit, slung around the operator’s neck, communicates with an on-board computer to move the train. If the signal is cut, the train stops.
The operator rides on the train — on the front steps or elsewhere — while it’s moving from business to business. Once stopped, the operator steps off the train and drives it by remote control from the ground.
The train moves forward, backward and stops with a lever on the control panel. The operator can blow the horn by flipping a silver knob that resembles a light switch. A second worker keeps an eye on the front of the train while it’s moving.
Keith Young, a BNSF engineer who lives in Clovis, was in awe the first time he saw a remote-control train in action: “The future is here now. It was a sobering thing to watch.”
Remote-control locomotives mostly switch and attach cars, including those filled with hazardous materials. “There’s no limitation with cars we can move,” Union Pacific railroad spokesman Mike Furtney says.
Canac boasts of a solid safety record on the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways. With the Beltpack, accident rates, in some cases, dropped by 56%, according to its Web site. No accidents have resulted from a malfunctioning remote, the site states.
Union Pacific expects similar results, Furtney says.
The technology is safe because it lessens human error, and operators are extra careful using the remote control, Furtney says. “We wouldn’t put something into operation that is unsafe.”
Engineers blame remote control for several accidents and injuries, including some in California.
A remote-control operator was injured Sept. 24 in Milpitas when a tree branch swept him from a train car. A California Northern Railroad employee’s leg was crushed Sept. 17 in Napa Valley while he attached cars to an engine using remote control.
“We’re just waiting for tragedy to happen here,” Brand says.
Remote control has affected the livelihood of engineers.
Union Pacific has cut seven or eight engineer jobs in Fresno. The engineers were offered in-company transfers. “We believe everyone who is working at the railroad today can have a job as long as they’re up for a possible move,” Furtney says. The railroads will save money through attrition when workers retire.
Fresno engineer Ryan Schroeder could transfer to Bakersfield or San Luis Obispo, but doing so would uproot his young family. Schroeder, 31, has a wife and a 1-year-old son.
Schroeder, with Union Pacific since 1998, was upset to learn his position would be cut. “Oh shoot, now what am I going to do? This is a good career,” he says.
The United Transportation Union later accepted, allowing its members — switchmen, trainmen and conductors — to use the devices. Previously, workers in those jobs didn’t drive trains.
The average switchman, trainman or conductor earns about $130 a day, Brand says. Engineers make about $165 a day working in a rail yard.
Engineers’ training takes a year or more: They take tests. They work in simulators. They practice driving down treacherous track.
Beltpack operators learn to drive the train in two weeks — 40 hours in the classroom and 40 hours in the field.
“There is a science as well as an art to stop where you need to stop,” says engineer Young, with BNSF about eight years.
Remote-control training for 21 of about 100 Union Pacific employees in Fresno ended Jan. 10.
Contreras, the switch foreman, says he feels bad for colleagues such as Schroeder: “I don’t like the fact the engineer is losing his job.”
Schroeder says remote-control trains move slower — about 15 mph on the main line compared to 40 mph with an engineer. This makes them less productive, he says.
It takes longer to do a job with remote control, Contreras says. A job that once took 3 minutes now takes about 15 minutes.
Furtney says remote control will make the railroad more efficient. According to Canac, the Canadian National Railroad saved about $20 million a year “from productivity gains alone” with remote control.
Workers now are adjusting to the remote control, Furtney says.
“In any kind of new technology, there is a learning curve,” he says. “We’re not doing this for the next 10 days. We’re doing this for the next 100 years.”