FRA ISSUES REMOTE CONTROL SAFETY REPORT
Remote control locomotive operations (RCL) are as safe or safer than conventional operations, reports the Federal Railroad Administration in response to a congressional directive to investigate their safety. Both accident and injury rates have declined where RCL has been implemented, the FRA said. The United Transportation Union was behind the Senate Commerce Committee directive that FRA perform an intensive and detailed study of RCL safety. The FRA report is based upon data and other input gathered by its own safety inspectors, individual railroads, the UTU and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen. The FRA report, termed "preliminary" because a final report will be issued within another 12 months, assessed the impact of RCL on safety, including a comparison of the rate of accidents, injuries and fatalities involving RCL with similar operations involving manned locomotives. Additionally, the report assessed the safety impacts of RCL at highway-rail grade crossings, on hazardous materials transportation and in urban areas, and considered any unique operating characteristics presented by RCL. "Preliminary data indicate the safety record of RCL operations over the past seven months (May 1, 2003, through November 30, 2003) has been quite positive," the FRA said. "RCL train accident rates were found to be 13.5 percent lower than the train accident rates for conventional switching operations over the same period, while employee injury rates were found to be an impressive 57.1 percent lower for RCL operations than for conventional switching operations," the FRA said. The FRA said its goal has been to "identify a set of best practices to guide the rail industry when implementing" what it termed the "emerging" RCL technology. The FRA said it has sought to restrict RCL operations to yard switching-type operations at slow speed yards, although the agency's guidelines permit "some limited main track movements to move a few cars a short distance to gain access to an industrial park or shipper." The agency said it had dispatched regional safety inspectors to investigate all known locations where RCL operations occur on main tracks. Most of the RCL main-track movements were found to be short movements with limited numbers of cars, and the operators were appropriately trained," the FRA said. The agency said it would continue to monitor and evaluate the RCL main track operations, especially those that stretch the limits of the technology. The FRA addressed several specific issues related to RCL operations. The agency agreed with the UTU that while the initial crop of remote control operators were veteran employees familiar with rail safety and operating rules, new and inexperienced hires not familiar with working around moving freight cars in busy classification yards should not be confronted with learning railroad operations while simultaneously learning to be remote control operators. The FRA recommended each remote control locomotive have a "distinct and unambiguous audible or visual warning device that indicates to nearby personnel that the locomotive is under active remote control and subject to movement." The FRA said it frowns on the practice of remote control operators riding on the side of freight cars when using RCL technology and urges railroads to ban the practice. Only CSX has done so. Other railroads, as well as the United Transportation Union, believe there are occasions where it is more safe for the operator to ride on the side of freight cars when using RCL technology - especially where yard footing is not secure. As a result, the FRA has not imposed a unilateral ban. The FRA addressed point protection for train movement. "The leading cause of train accidents in conventional switching operations involves the failure of train crews to provide point protection for the train movement," the FRA said. Point protection is the practice of having a member of the train crew in position to see the track ahead of the train movement to ensure that the track is clear and that switches are properly lined each time the train changes direction. "Failure to provide point protection has also been a causal factor in many RCL train accidents," the FRA said. "Establishing point protection for RCL operations raises challenges since there is no engineer on the locomotive to provide the point protection on that end of the train movement. While one solution would be to require a remote control operator to protect the point each time there is an RCL train movement, this practice would greatly reduce the speed and efficiency of RCL operations," the FRA said. "To meet this challenge, railroads have adopted a Canadian practice of establishing remote control zones," the FRA said, but noted that procedures differ across individual railroads and that some "appear to be excessively complicated." As a result, the FRA will conduct audits "to ensure train crew compliance with point protection rules and remote control zones and issue recommendations at a later date. The FRA stressed that when RCL operations cross public highway-rail grade crossings, train crews must provide proper protection at the crossing per existing operating rules. One railroad has experimented with remote camera systems whereby the remote control operator remains on the switching lead and observes the crossing from a video monitor. The FRA has halted this practice pending further study. A final report on RCL safety will be issued by the FRA within 12 months and include a new safety-data assessment along with additional recommendations that could include proposed new regulations, the FRA said. [United Transportation Union, 5-14-04]
BLET STATEMENT ON PRELIMINARY FRA REMOTE CONTROL AUDIT
On March 7 - nearly two months before the Federal Railroad Administration issued its preliminary report on remote control trains - the AFL-CIO's Transportation Trades Department adopted a resolution calling for an end to the practice of operating trains by remote control. As part of the resolution, the TTD predicted that the FRA's upcoming report would be positive and upbeat because of its dependence on railroad companies to report their own accident data. Sure enough, on May 13, the FRA issued its glowing report about remote control safety in the United States. It is well known that self-reporting of accident/incident data by railroads has been problematic. And in the case of the FRA's "Preliminary Findings and Initial Accident/Injury Statistics," all data is based on self-reporting by railroads. The problems with the FRA report, according to the TTD, are as follows:
The FRA report did affirm many of the continued concerns the BLET has expressed over the past two years. For example:
As long as railroad companies continue to operate remote control trains in an unregulated environment, and as employees continue to be injured and accidents continue to happen because of this safety oversight, the BLET will continue in its efforts to closely monitor the situation and press for enforceable federal safety regulations. [Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen, 5-14-04]
_ _ _ _ _
UNIONS BATTLE IT OUT OVER ISSUE OF REMOTE CONTROL
FROM UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION:
UTU LEADING WAY ON REMOTE CONTROL SAFETY
By James Brunkenhoefer, UTU National Legislative Director
Neither this union nor any other wanted remote control (RCL). It couldn't be stopped, as no other new technology was ever stopped by a union -- not diesel-electric locomotives, not hand-held radios and not the end-of-train device.
Rather than stand in the street protesting, which is like spitting in the wind, your UTU has been working with Congress and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to ensure RCL is examined scientifically to ensure its safety.
The other organization only protests. It has accomplished absolutely nothing except convince fewer than 50 of the more than 40,000 communities nationwide to enact a symbolic ban against remote control. Those actions are symbolic because local communities, by law, may not interfere in the regulation of railroad safety where the FRA has and uses that authority.
In fact, where the other organization has the agreement to operate remote control, it makes no attempt to limit its use. On the Montana Rail Link and, more recently, on the Tex-Mex Railway, the other organization signed an agreement for its members to operate remote control. The goal of the other organization is to take every remote control job away from UTU members.
While the other organization targets UTU jobs, it is the UTU that is doing something constructive about remote-control safety. Most recently, the UTU convinced the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Commerce Committee to order a complete review by the FRA of every aspect of remote control safety. That audit is currently underway only because of UTU actions.
Look closely at what the other organization is really doing. The other organization says the only way to make RCL safe is to pay dues to that organization. Yet while they protest RCL is not safe, they sign agreements that conductors and engineers paying dues to them can safely operate RCL. Through their twisted logic, they say UTU members are unsafe when operating RCL, but when conductors and engineers pay dues to their organization, there is no problem operating RCL.
Where the other organization doesn't hold the RCL contract, it petitions local government to enact bans against RCL -- or it demands congressmen write letters of protest to railroads challenging RCL safety. Railroad management reacts by hiding in the weeds to watch your every move for any and every mistake you make. Charge letters are sent, you become involved in an investigation, and it's "on the street" for a while. All the protests from the other organization are entirely about how YOU operate RCL because you belong to the UTU and not the BLE.
Because you belong to the UTU, you are being targeted. They want you and your family to suffer and continue to suffer until you join their organization. Their goal is representation rights for conductors on YOUR railroad. Then they will proclaim RCL is safe for all conductors.
Since the other organization rejected UTU's offer to join us at the bargaining table and rejected our guarantee of protection for engineers, they failed on their own to get a separate RCL agreement, failed to get FRA to ban RCL, failed to overturn FRA at the court house, failed to gain a right to strike over RCL, and failed at arbitration. All that was left was to push for investigations into YOUR work performance and make you and your families suffer.
In spite of their efforts, they have failed to make a single safety improvement. Their only achievement is the number of UTU members liberated from their jobs or who have joined the BLE.
We never demanded an investigation on any property where the BLE operates RCL. We don't want their members or families to suffer. Our hope is that someday the other organization will recognize the harm it is causing by attacking you and your family in the name of gaining new members.
So long as they sign agreements to operate the same technology with their members, they are saying the only problem with RCL is YOU because YOU are unsafe - because YOU belong to the UTU.
It is time for the other organization to stop the rhetoric and join the UTU in constructive efforts at ensuring the safety of remote control through adequate training, careful implementation and continuous joint monitoring.
[United Transportation Union, 12-11-03]
FROM BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS:
OPINION: DEATH BY FRIENDLY FIRE
By Raymond Holmes, BLE Vice-President & U.S. National Legislative Representative
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The latest attack by the UTU leadership against the BLE's efforts to bring safe remote control operations to our industry is filled with the usual baloney about what a great job the UTU is doing in looking out for the safety of its members.
The article, if you missed it, is classic UTU leadership hogwash. They say they are going to change the world by convincing "the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Commerce Committee to order a complete review by the FRA of every aspect of remote control safety." The UTU drivels on that this audit is currently underway only because of their actions. Interesting. Later in that same diatribe, they ramble on about a push (inferred to be by the BLE) for investigations into the work performance of (we assume) the operators of remote control. What do they think the audit is going to do?
The remarks come on the heels of another fatality to a railroad brother. Is the San Antonio death by Union Pacific remote control yet another example of how the UTU is working closely with the railroad industry to implement safe remote control operations? How can an organization allow a Class 1 railroad to force a person to conduct switching operations -- locomotive and all, in a major terminal -- alone?
The safety oversight for which the UTU leadership is so proud is seriously flawed. Their ability to oversee safe implementation of this technology when the railroads hold all the cards is wishful thinking. The tragic death of a railroad worker under the circumstances where he was alone in a dangerous yard operation should help all of us see the gravity of the situation.
The BLE stands by its comment on this issue presented in testimony at the Informal Safety Inquiry on One-Person Crews and Remote Control Locomotive Operations in Appleton, Wisc., on December 4-5, 1996. The comment:
"The potential for an accident increases significantly with just one person. Trains and tracks have two sides, two ends and the possibility of movement in more than one direction. Railroad operating rules, rights-of-way, equipment and the system generally have recognized the need for two or more persons to cope with this reality. We submit that it is asinine for railroad managers to seek such operations. It shows a callous disregard for employee and public safety. That we are required to make this argument is indicative of how far off target some in this industry have come to show a greater profit. In consideration of these remarks, we ask FRA to deny any use of one person remote control locomotive operations."
BLE is amazed that we have come to the place where a labor organization defends remote control operations and unsafe operating practices in public forums with their management allies. What we said in the foregoing about railroad managers is doubled when it comes to union leaders.
They are so far off target they aren't even in the right war zone.
[Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 12-12-03]