(The following article by Suzanne C. Russell was published in the Home News Tribune on March 6.)
WOODBRIDGE, N.J. — With rail freight cars filled with chemicals and hazardous materials passing through Woodbridge on a regular basis, there’s always the potential for an accidental derailment, collision or spill.
Woodbridge officials are concerned that potential might increase by allowing the use of locomotives operated by remote control. And the thought of computer hackers or terrorists interfering with the computerized system heightens officials’ concerns.
The Township Council at Tuesday’s meeting unanimously approved a resolution that asks the Federal Railroad Administration to ban the use of remote-controlled trains in Woodbridge until safety concerns are met. Township officials also are seeking support from U.S. Sens. Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg, both D-N.J.
The New Jersey League of Municipalities, meanwhile, is not aware of any other New Jersey community that has passed a similar resolution, according to Deborah Kole, staff attorney.
“I don’t see any reason to run remote-control locomotives,” said Councilman Vincent Martino, who sponsored the measure. “The state of New Jersey is one of the most-populated states. It’s too congested. There are many grade crossings,”
Martino added, “This is a way of sending a message to the elected officials on a national level. Hopefully, we’ll get federal legislation to limit the use of remote-control engines in populated areas.”
But for now, none are being used in Woodbridge, according to rail officials.
Conrail uses portable remote-computer technology in Detroit rail yards, not in Woodbridge or anywhere else in the Northeast, according to James “Bim’ McGeehan, Conrail spokesman, adding that in the future Conrail may use the remote-control technology in other areas.
CSX Corp. also doesn’t use remote-control devices in Woodbridge, according to Bob Sullivan, CSX spokesman, adding that the company began implementing remote-control locomotives last year in Cleveland and Toledo, Ohio, Charleston, W.Va., and Baltimore.
“The reason we use it is it’s a significant enhancement in safety of operations in freight yards. It’s not used over the road or on long hauls,” said Sullivan, adding that experience in Canada found a significant reduction in incidents in the freight yard. “It eliminates the possibility of miscommunication. When it’s used, it’s used to improve safety. ”
Amtrak doesn’t used remote-control locomotives at all, according to Dan Stessel, Amtrak spokesman in Washington, D.C. And neither does NJ Transit, according to Ken Miller, NJ Transit spokesman.
McGeehan said remote-control locomotives are activated by a trained employee on the ground nearby and used only for yard operations, not over-the-road freight traffic. He said all the evidence of the technology shows it’s a safer, more reliable way to operate trains.
“It gives the rail industry more flexibility,” he said.
The Rev. Albert Kovacs of the Hungarian Reformed Church in Woodbridge — who told Martino about the remote-control engines and recalled previous explosions and fires in the area — said a hazard could happen at any time.
“The danger is so great to so many people. An ounce of prevention (with a manned locomotive) is worth a pound of cure,” said Kovacs, adding that the Port Reading rail line is less than a mile from his church. “The town has to protect its own skin.”
Banning remote-control locomotives doesn’t necessarily safeguard a community. McGeehan said the possibility of terrorism exists even with an engineer in the cab.
Although Woodbridge faces no immediate issue with the use of remote-control locomotives in the township, Martino’s resolution would need the backing of the federal government to have any real impact.
“Only the federal government can regulate rail policy,” McGeehan said.
Martino said that’s why he’s seeking support from Corzine and Lautenberg.
The Martino resolution asks the Federal Railroad Administration to ban remote-control trains from transporting chemicals and hazardous materials, or traveling on tracks near facilities that house hazardous materials, operating over a public or private highway rail crossing.
The measure also calls for installing devices to stop a runaway remote-control locomotive.