(Newsday.com posted the following Associated Press article by William Kates on February 21.)
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — The union representing railroad engineers is asking federal regulators to investigate the use of remote controls to move locomotives in rail yards, linking the device to the recent death of a CSX employee.
The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers had threatened to strike CSX Transportation yards across New York if the company did not suspend use of the devices.
However, the international leadership declined to authorize a strike so BLE officials in New York instead said they are asking the Federal Railroad Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board to review their use.
“If we have to, we will take this to court and sue CSX to stop them from using the devices,” John Collins, the union’s state chairman, said Friday.
“These devices are inherently unsafe and hazardous … and CSX is doing nothing about it,” Collins said.
John W. Sneddon, a 36-year-old trainman from Sackets Harbor, was killed Sunday when he was struck by a boxcar in the CSX rail yard just outside Syracuse. His partner, a conductor, was operating a locomotive using a remote control as the pair were making up trains.
CSX, however, has defended the use of remote controls, which a spokesman said was not a factor in Sneddon’s death. Studies show the devices are actually reducing the number of rail yard accidents, said CSX spokesman Robert Sullivan.
Warren Flatau, spokesman for the FRA, which is investigating Sneddon’s death, said the federal agency has not taken a position on remote control technology but is monitoring their use closely.
“This was an extraordinary tragedy. And although they were using the device, there is no conclusive evidence that it was a contributing factor to the accident,” Flatau said.
There was no immediate comment from the NTSB.
Collins said the union sent two letters this week to CSX asking the Jacksonville, Fla.-based freight carrier to stop using the devices. He said there have been 66 injuries or incidents in the United States involving the remote controls.
Collins’ letters said inexperienced railroad employees were being forced to use the devices in adverse conditions without adequate training.
CSX has ignored those requests, said Thomas E. Roberts, the union’s general chairman, who wrote a separate letter to the company.
Roberts said he has taken numerous calls from concerned. According to the BLE web site, seven communities have adopted resolutions recommending moratoriums or bans until there is improved safety of remote control trains, including Boston, Cleveland and Detroit.
“Currently there is a total lack of confidence in RCO technology and method of operation,” he wrote.
The BLE represents primarily engineers, but some conductors and trainmen are members. Sneddon was a member of the United Transportation Union, which represents primarily trainmen and conductors.
Richard McVeen, general chairman of the union in Syracuse, said his union has accepted the use of the remote controls. McVeen said that no rules were violated in Sunday’s accident.
Sullivan said the remote controls were first introduced to the yard in August. About 70 CSX yards across the country are equipped with them. CSX operates in 23 states and two Canadian provinces.
The devices have been used in Canada for nearly a decade without any significant problems, Flatau said.
The control box, which is attached to a harness worn by the user, communicates with the locomotive by radio signals. It is used exclusively for rail yard switching operations, Flatau said.
The FRA issued guidance on the use of the devices in February 2001 but has not yet formulated any rules governing their use, Flatau said.
Sullivan said operators get 80 hours of classroom and on-the-job training in the use of the equipment and must pass a test before they can use it.
Studies conducted by CSX show the devices have reduced rail yard accidents by nearly 50 percent during their first year of use, he said.
“We have maintained from the start that the reason for using this technology is that it contributes to safety,” Sullivan said.
“We would never subject our employees to technologies or methods of operation that we thought was unsafe,” he said.