Remote
Control
The Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers and Trainmen says the technology has contributed to deaths,
lost limbs and a number of lawsuits. The
union has sent its safety task force to help investigate a fatal remote
control train accident that occurred Sept. 2 in
"This works well as long as there's perfect communication between the two," said Robin Chapman, spokesman for NS. "But if there's a verbal miscue or if the engineer doesn't get the right signal he can damage equipment if he doesn't brake soon enough." The BLET said the technology can work in "hump" yards, such as Schaefer's Crossing, where trains are put together, taken apart and sent to designated tracks. The union said the trains move slowly enough to make the remote control technology more acceptable, though it said an engineer on board enhances safety. Remote control removes much of the potential for human error and verbal miscues, putting the control of the locomotive in the hands of the operator who can see the whole picture, Chapman said.
Still, human error resulted
in a recent NS derailment. An NS train
that was operated by remote control derailed in
The technology is up and running in
more than 100 switching yards across the country. A microprocessor in the locomotive receives radio
signals from the portable control unit that's worn by the remote control
operator, directing the locomotive's movement.
Some engineers in
The BLET union cites a number of
problems with using the technology; namely the lack of federal oversight
and the limited training given to remote-control operators. They receive 80 hours of training in two weeks
on the devices, and are inadequately trained to operate rail cars, the union
said. "Remote-control operators are
not held to the same standards as licensed locomotive engineers,"
said Michael Roop, an engineer in
Locomotive engineers, unlike remote-control operators, are trained to operate the trains on the mainlines. That's an entirely different scenario from what goes on in the rail yards, said Chapman. Road rules and high speed do not factor into rail yard operations. Typically, a train travels no more than 15 miles an hour in a yard and operates within controlled circumstances.
Remotely operated locomotives
became more popular with large railroad companies after the Canadian National
Railway Co. developed its own technology and began using it in its Canadian
switching yards in the mid-1990s. The
railroads say the rail workers are actually safer with the new technology.
They cite
The FRA studied remote-control
accidents across the country from May 1 to
NS had five, or 2.8 percent, of those accidents. The FRA gave the following reasons for the NS accidents:
Jasper,
Childs, S.C.;
The FRA has issued safety guidelines for the use of remote-control technology, which it maintains are sufficient. NS's low rate of accidents reflect that the railroad is following the rules, Chapman said.
Minimal guidelines are the best way
to guide the rail industry when implementing the technology, the FRA said,
"because it provides flexibility to both manufacturers who are frequently
upgrading RCL [remote-control technology] equipment designs and to
railroads who continue to refine their RCL operations." But that doesn't do much for some local
and federal officials. "Voluntary
regulations, if they're good, should be in writing," said Mike Altizer,
a
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, have questioned the lack of federal regulations and asked the FRA to conduct a study on the safety of remote-control operations. The FRA completed its review last year at the request of the senators.
It concluded that train accident rates involving remote-control technology have been 13.5 percent lower than conventional switching operations, and employee injury rates are 57.1 percent lower than rates for conventional operations.
In 2000, the BLET petitioned the FRA to establish rules for remote control operations. "There should be no use of remote-control locomotives without FRA regulations establishing the safest requirements possible, which the BLE believes should govern equipment specifications, inspection, repair, training and operating practices in the use of such devices," BLET International President Edward Dubroski wrote.
The BLET said its
initiative stemmed from an aggressive campaign by the manufacturers of
remote-control locomotive equipment, who were enticing
Posted: