Why Remote Controlled Locomotives Should be Banned

[Anonymous]

Hey guys, If the railroads purchase the next generation of steam locomotives, the railroads wouldn't have this problem. Right now there is a group of mechanical engineers in England developing this new generation of steam engines. Check out www.5ATproject.com

[Anonymous]

I hear they're gonna put artificial Intelligence in the locomotives, and do away with remote operators....hehehe.......no crews at all I guess.....Laterz

[zardoz]

From the AAR website
http://www.aar.org/ViewContent.asp?Content_ID=1850

Data, experience
prove remote control locomotive (RCL) technology
keeps workers, rail yards safer

WASHINGTON, November 28, 2003 — Digital technology is helping railroads throughout the United States change the way trains are operated in freight yards, making them safer in the process. Used in Canada for 10 years, U.S. railroads are now in the first year of implementing the technology in yards across the country.

AAR President and CEO Edward R. Hamberger said that use of the remote control technology should sharply reduce the number of train accidents in rail yards, which is where more than half of all train accidents occur.

Remote control technology allows an operator on the ground to use a handheld device to send digital signals directly to a computer onboard a locomotive. These signals select the locomotive’s speed and direction.

With conventional technology, train service employees in the yard direct locomotive operations either through hand signals or radio communications with the locomotive engineer. “The technology improves safety in yard operations by reducing the possibility of miscommunication,” Hamberger said.

“Experience shows that remote control sharply improves safety,” Hamberger said. It has been credited with sharply reducing the number of yard accidents in Canada. Recent statistics from both of Canada’s major railroads and preliminary data from U.S. railroads show just how much remote control improves yard safety.

Between 1998 and 2000, Canadian Pacific Railway reported that the accident rate in operations where remote control was used was only one third of that in operations using conventional methods. Canadian National Railway reported that between 1997 and 2001, accident rates attributed to human factors were 44 percent lower where remote control was in use than in operations using conventional technology. Preliminary data indicate that, during the first year and a half of implementation, the major U.S. railroads have experienced a 40 to 50 percent decline in accident rates using remote control compared to conventional rail yard operations.

The Federal Railroad Administration studied the technology for nearly a decade, holding a series of public meetings to examine remote control safety. The FRA, which has responsibility for rail safety, issued guidelines for its use in 2001. Before beginning remote control operations, railroads file a certification training program with the FRA. Operating rules are also filed with the FRA.

Major U.S. railroads began using remote control in some yards in 2002, after first reaching agreement with the United Transportation Union (UTU) over implementing the technology. That agreement provides for thorough training of employees who will operate the remote control units.

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) challenged that agreement because it wanted control over those jobs for its members. But earlier this year, an arbitrator upheld the railroads’ right to operate under the agreement between the railroad industry and UTU. The BLE has responded by claiming that remote control operations aren’t safe and getting local governments to pass resolutions opposing remote control operations. However, the BLE has signed agreements giving it control over remote control on at least two regional railroads. On those railroads, it has not challenged the safety of remote control operations and has not sought local government action against remote control.

The safety benefits of remote control have, in fact, led to resolutions endorsing the technology from state legislatures in three states: South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. In addition, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), made up of state legislators from all over the country, has also passed a resolution endorsing its use.
===================================================================
They also have a section on RCL "Facts" and "Myths" on the sidebar menu of the AAR site. Check out the propaganda they are feeding the public.

[greyhounds]

"2001 - Number of Yard Accidents: 501 - 55.92% of all train accidents.
2002 - Number of Yard Accidents: 468 - 56.80% of all train accidents
2003 (available only through September) Number of Yard Accidents: 349 - 58.36% of all train accidents

UP is "right on track" statistically to incur another 116-120 yard incidents by the end of 2003. That would meet or exceed the statistics for 2002 and 2001. And as we all know...these are only "reported" accidents. So by your own statistics the overall percentage of accidents occurring in the train yard is OBVIOUSLY on the rise. How do you explain this? Where is this 40% reduction in yard incidents due to the implementation of Remote Control?"

It's right there. You're looking at it. 501 accidents down to 468. That's a good thing. They made the rest of the railroad safer too. That's also a good thing and why the percentage stayed the same. But the number of yard accidents were reduced.

You can't fight progress. You can't stop progress. The railroads are not earning their cost of capital. They've got a terminal illness. They're going to expire at this rate. They can't charge more for their services so they've got to become ever more efficient. They can't pay a person to do a job that a computer can do.

That's reality.

KS

[Anonymous]

Remotes are not going to go away.Good luck to the unoins
that are going to try.It's never going to happen.This is one of
the times where you have to accept change,learn the job and
move on.One man crews are not to far away.One thing I learned
in my 30 years with the RR you have to accept change.

[Anonymous]

Engineerkat, those deaths happened before the RCO. I do not remember when I related that bit of history. I was probably trying to illustrate that when someone is in the bowl of a large classification yard they need all of there attention on what is moving around them and operating the box detracts from that attention. The roadmaster was killed because the yardmaster did not block the unit where he was working. Both switchman got hit on hot tracks by cars set in motion by the hump.

Go to therailforum http://www.therailforum.com/yabbse/index.php and contact me or give me an e-mail address. I am pfrench there.

The information I have is to large to post here.

[Anonymous]

I just found this website and wanted more info from "french68" about the deaths of the roadmaster and switchmen at his terminal. Were the jobs involved RCL jobs? I'm an engineer out of San Antonio and we're trying to get enough data together about the dangers of RCL's and to get a resolution passed here by the city to force the FRA to do something. The same type resolution that has been passed in almost 50 cities and counties across the U.S..
I'm sure the word has been passed about the tragic death of a switchman here in San Antonio. Jody was a good conductor and switchman. Because of a manpower shortage here,Jody was forced to work by himself on an RCL job and several hours later he was dead. The U.P. has put safety aside and the bottom line is money.
Any info that you could post will be greatly appreciated.

[wabash1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewn

if for no other reason the loss of jobs.

What jobs? only thing you lost was a man on the engine. instead of 3 men you have 2. all thru freight most locals and a majority of yard jobs are 2 men jobs anyways. so to put the man that was in the engine on the ground didnt cost a job. ( just a low senority guy) the engineer goes to the ground and a new hire goes to the street. the job still works just differant person doing it. The last i heard was the utu was trying to get the remote to pay union dues.

[andyhjn]

if for no other reason the loss of jobs.

[wabash1]

I can tell you that the general manager told us at one of the meetings we had with him that when they went to canada to look at the remotes they watch a girl on a hump yard pull 75 cars up to the top and then switched out the train by herself in 30 min. then he said if they can do it we can do it. they only thing that they have sofar that we have not installed is pods that transmit a signal of how vlose to the top or to the switch they are. and this will be a issue we will take care of soon. this was their bases for claiming remotes were better. the only hole in this was she was working in the hump yard. flat switching is totally differant. and i believe in a small industry where you are the only thing working its ok or at a hump yard its fine. to grab 10 cars at a time from a cut of 70 and go switch them out is not only slow but dangerous. you can make anything look great in the right setting. dont believe it. go look at glamour shot photos .

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tank


According to the San Antonio Express-News dated Tuesday, December 9, 2003, Metro Section: "Feds call remote-control trains safe"
This article gives only a few details about the death of Jody Herstine.
It mentions that he was a married father of two, that he had been a switchman for five years, and that he was operating TWO remote-controlled locomotives when one of them ran him over, resulting in his death, and that he was alone at the time. After that, there's plenty of data concerning the "safety" of R/C switchers, and some "facts" from Canadian National (CN). Apparently the Canadians have had zero fatalities using R/C locos, but since this accident happened on the Union Pacific, who probably do things differently from CN...

So, when are the US railroads and unions going to make a trip to Canada to find out how come they have used R/C for 10 years without significant loss (or so it would appear)? Meanwhile, we're killing people and having other accidents left and right. To me, that would be an indication that we are doing something wrong with how we are using R/C.

Any new technology comes with a learning curve. If we applied the same logic to early locomotives as we're applying here there wouldn't be a railroad industry in the first place. Instead, they learned from their mistakes and improved the product. In this case the product is the combination of the R/C and its operator.

From what I've read here so far, it looks like the railroads are attempting to do the same thing with R/C as they do with manned locos. Maybe it's time to review that and make adjustments. That trip to Canada would probably be very fruitful, if they apply what they learn.

I also haven't seen numbers comparing R/C incidents with manned loco incidents in comparable circumstances... At least with DWI accidents, the stats usually refer to what percentage of highway deaths involve alcohol. How many R/C incidents occur per [some measure, like loco hours] vs manned locos? Now we would have a point of discussion.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Several issues are involved in the Remote Control issue.
Is safety an issue? Yes, it is, but it is an issue in virtually everything we do.
Will banning remote control solve any problems? Not necessarily, despite what is implied in other postings; derailments, accidents and fatalities have occurred and will continue to occur even with an engineer in the cab.

To many outsiders, the issue tends to look more like a jurisdictional dispute between the UTU and BLE since the UTU signed off on remote control but BLE didn't. It also resembles the diesel fireman issue in that the safety issue is being raised again.

Unfortunately, unions rarely look good to the public when work rules issues are involved since it appears that they are more interested in preserving jobs for members than actually addressing the issues. To the public, unions are often synonymous with what are perceived as ridiculous work rules restrictions, and in a variety of businesses other than railroading. It may not be right, but it is the perception.

Both the UTU and BLE need to seriously address the issue of RC safety jointly by something more realistic than an outright ban.

[Anonymous]

According to the San Antonio Express-News dated Tuesday, December 9, 2003, Metro Section: "Feds call remote-control trains safe"
This article gives only a few details about the death of Jody Herstine.
It mentions that he was a married father of two, that he had been a switchman for five years, and that he was operating TWO remote-controlled locomotives when one of them ran him over, resulting in his death, and that he was alone at the time. After that, there's plenty of data concerning the "safety" of R/C switchers, and some "facts" from Canadian National (CN). Apparently the Canadians have had zero fatalities using R/C locos, but since this accident happened on the Union Pacific, who probably do things differently from CN...

[WDGF]

I'll preface this by pointing out that I know virtually nothing about this subject...

What are the chances of some meddling idiot or worse, someone with malicious intent hacking into these remote systems? Or, is this risk about the same as that to the rest of the system?

My thinking is also that the operator on-board is getting a great deal more useable feedback for what the machine's doing than one in a tower somewhere. It seems to me that for this system to work properly there needs to be a vast amount of information about every aspect of the yard, including what every car is doing, to be collected and presented so that the operator can understand it at a glance. From what I'm reading, it doesn't seem that the programming for these systems has that level of complexity.

I don't know enough to be pro or con, it's just some of my random thoughts.

[dekemd]

Many RC ARE caused by human error. The reason why there is human error is that humans can only do so many things at one time. A switchman using RCO is checking his switch lists, throwing switches, pulling release levers, watching the movement, AND trying to run the RC unit, all while hanging off the side of a car. It's no different than someone talking on the cell phone while driving and causing an accident. You can only divide your attention so much before you start overlooking things. Some cities and states think this is such a danger that they have bans on driving while talking on a cell phone. Seems to me that not being able to fully concentrate on using a 200 ton locomotive is a whole lot more dangerous.

The only way to safely use RCO is to slow way down so you have more time to make sure everything is set right. This would ruin efficiency and productivity, which are the reasons the railroad gave for going to RCO.

RCO would be good for industrial sites where you have a locomotive and a few cars and little traffic, but in a crowded rail yard with several tracks and hundreds of cars, I think RCO is a liability.

Derrick

[Anonymous]

bigedd, your are incorrect. It is the remotes! The procedures that are followed when remotes are used cause switches to be run through.

There ere times when movements are unprotected in the name of productivity. There are times when one switchman waits at a joint and the 2nd switchman pulls over the switch, lines the switch, then sends the movement to the 1st switchman. Who protected the movement as they pulled over the switch?

There are times when the operators do not pitch and catch because it is inconvenient. This happens especially when tracks are coupled. One operator sits on the engine and the 2nd goes back to couple the track. Movements are made back and forth without communication between the switchmen.

There are times that things the Remote Control Locomotive does cause an accident even though that was the way it was designed to operate. When shoving a large cut of cars if radio contact is lost the RCL dumps the air. That is what it is suppose to do. Unfortunately the RCL has no way of knowing if it even has cars let alone the sophistication to handle stopping a large cut of cars properly. The result might be as little as a broken knuckle or drawbar. But it has happened that the switchman on the end has been injured by the slack action.

[wabash1]

yes this is true it is operator error but if there was a engineer on the point, this would never happen. instead they have a guy who is several cars away from the point and never checks a switch or sees if anything is comming just runs the engine to clear the rear so he can shove. not being in place to see things means that some kind of damage will happen. and usually does.

[Anonymous]

Every one says they cover up the accidents of the Remotes.
Running through a switch is not the remotes fault.Again it
looks like operator error.This is all about job loss and change.
No one likes change.Change is going to happen and there is
nothing that we can do to stop it.

[wabash1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Is this about safety or is this about BLE jobs? Be honest with yourself.

Being honest how can you say it is ble jobs? The truth of the matter is i dont care if i lose a job in the seat the young guys who think they have the remotes will be gone. bumped as i have senority on them. and still belong to the ble. I was a utu member for 3 months and will never be a utu member in my life if i can help it. its not jobs its safety I can tell you never read half of what a engineer or a real switchman has wrote here as its been said before you can feel what a train is doing control a coupling not on a remote. I will say this I know of 3 instances where remotes have run through switches and shoved back causing several 100k damage. and no disapline was given to the remote crews. why they wanted it covered up to make the remote look good. in short if i ever get through a switch i will fight a discrimination suit that will be in all news papers.

Why so much concern for the remotes? is it that the average joe off the street thinks he might get a railroads job now? running a remote thinking he is a engineer? the lic you get to run a remote means you stand on the ground or hang on the side of the cars and run your cut of cars to the spot they are to be at. in no way are they considered a engineer. and never will be. let all the jobs go to remote. all road jobs and yard jobs it will be the utu worst night mare come true in that it will be a one man crew engineer only , and they will all belong to the ble. loss of jobs not for the ble only utu.

[techguy57]

I'm not the biggest fan of RC locos but to a point I can see their potential benefits. My only concern would be whether the gains outweigh the losses, specifically the loss of human life. In that respect, I will always be skeptical because while the loss of a machine may cost a large amount of money, the loss of a life can not be measured by ANY amount of money.

To respond to nkp587's statement, "human error" is the cause of a lot of things. It is the cause of automobile accidents, shootings, airplane crashes, wars, etc. because more often than not the error is an error in judgement. If someone was killed in a car accident by a drunken driver, wouldn't that be "human error" on the part of the drunken driver for getting behind the wheel in the first place. Following that logic, one could argue that it is "human error" that the locomotive isn't advanced enough to detect the presence of a human being in the way and that someone despite knowing this let it operate. I understand your point but "human error" is going to happen no matter what so long as there are humans to make mistakes. Even if the whole system were to be automated and completely fenced off, there would still be the chance that a program writer missed a bug in the system. What would you suggest to combat the element of human error?

Anyway, I digress. My point is this: Accidents do happen, but by operating RC locos are railroads encouraging more accidents or preventing them? I'm not sure there is a clear cut answer, it probably varies from railroad to railroad. But in my opinion if having a crew on board would make the difference in saving one life, that would be enough for me, costs be damned. If the long term shows RC locos have a better record preserving human life then let them run, but personally I know I'd feel safer knowing I had someone else watching my back. Maybe its a Utopian vision, but I can dream.

[Anonymous]

It is about honestly. The RCO issue has never been approached by the carriers in an honest manner.

While were at it, what is your motivation?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Is this about safety or is this about BLE jobs? Be honest with yourself.

[Anonymous]

You also have to remember the carriers decide the cause of the accident and they are not unbiased.

Just because the equipment didn't fail doesn't mean that it wasn't caused by the procedures necessary to run the RCO. For example, if there is a signal loss the RCL sets all of the brakes including the train brakes. In some cases that is not the proper thing to do. If someone is shoving 100 cars with air in the head 15 or 20, that last thing you want to do is dump the air. It would be like riding on the end of a bull whip. Many of the accidents happen because there is no one watching the end of a movement when they hit something, quite often they hit with the locomotive. Neither of these examples were equipment failure. But the were caused by the different manner in which the job is preformed because it is an RCO.

Since I have been working on the railroad two switchman and one roadmaster have died in my terminal. The roadmaster was hit by a car rolling off the hump while he was on a track the yardmaster did not block. Both switchman were killed in the bowl on hot tracks by cars set in motion by the hump. They weren't paying close enough attention to their surroundings. Operating the box distracts from the attention paid to the surroundings.

The whole mechanical failure statistic is a red herring meant to take away the focus from the real dangers of the RCO. They want to say the RCO is save because the equipment did not fail, nothing is further from the truth.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by pfrench68
[

The full 30 page report gives details of some of the accidents.

BNSF INCIDENTS INVOLVING
REMOTE CONTROL LOCOMOTIVES
Updated- June 16, 2003
Summary of Cause Factors
Incidents- 181
Human Factor- 117- 64%
Miscellaneous - 28- 16%
Track- 23- 13%
Equipment- 7- 4%
Signal- 6- 3%

If you check your information, you'll see that 64% were "human error". I will accept that the 4% "equipment" might include the RCO equipment. I do not have documentation, but a gut feeling tells me that well over 50% of accidents with engineers involed are also attributible to "human error". Show me where the equipment caused the accident.

Trainphil

[Anonymous]

To be fair we should count all of the RCO accidents that were covered up. I know what the BNSF procedure is after an accident. I know a 20 car pileup happened in the yard that fouled the main and was estimated by the company to cost about $300,000. That was a low figure because instead of the two cars that were estimated to be scrapped, all of the cars involved were scrapped. The RCO crew was sent home at the end of the shift without being interviewed about the accident and without taking a post-accident drug test, this is not normal BNSF post accident procedure..

Even with the uncounted accidents, the yard accidents as a percentage of all railroad accidents has been on the increase since 2001.

In 2001 there were no RCOs on the class one railroads. Starting in 2002 RCOs were phased over the course of the year to have 128 RCO jobs on the BNSF by the end of December 2002. The RCO jobs has continued to increase through 2003. I would have to believe that this would be representative of the other class one railroads.

This is a letter to Mr. Rutter of the FRA from RRESQ. The statistics quoted from the letter are from the FRA web site and derived from the accident reports the carriers DO send to the FRA.


Dear Mr. Rutter:

The arrogance of both the FRA and the Union Pacific Railroad to ignore the public outcry for stiffer regulation on remote controlled locomotives and the death of a young man on December 12 who was forced to work an RCO job exhausted and alone...will not go unchecked. Both UP and the FRA continue to spout statistics about a 40% reduction in Yard accidents with the implementation of Remote Controlled Locomotives. However the FRA website seems to contradict those statements and reports a different set of statistics.

2001 - Number of Yard Accidents: 501 - 55.92% of all train accidents.
2002 - Number of Yard Accidents: 468 - 56.80% of all train accidents
2003 (available only through September) Number of Yard Accidents: 349 - 58.36% of all train accidents

UP is "right on track" statistically to incur another 116-120 yard incidents by the end of 2003. That would meet or exceed the statistics for 2002 and 2001. And as we all know...these are only "reported" accidents. So by your own statistics the overall percentage of accidents occurring in the train yard is OBVIOUSLY on the rise. How do you explain this? Where is this 40% reduction in yard incidents due to the implementation of Remote Control? The death of Jody Herstine was completely unnecessary and for the FRA to publicly assert that a single man operation involving this magnitude of equipment is safe....is nothing less than irresponsible. We expect alot more of your leadership Mr. Rutter, and we are expecting it quickly.

We look forward to your immediate response.

Citizens Demanding Safer Regulation of America's Railroads!!!!





Thank you for your continued support,

RRESQ

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

To be totally fair, we should also gather statistics concerning the number of accidents involved when a licensed engineer is in the cab.

[Anonymous]

I read about a nice accident in Canada. It happened in a hump yard. The RCO shoving the hill derailed some cars. He kept trying to get them restarted and succeeded in piling them on the track that went back to the second hump-lead. Along comes the other RCL hump job and runs into the pile of cars laying on their side in front of it. Guess who the ones in control were?

[starwardude]

pfrench68, you gave me enough proof, but bigedd has a point. RC locos aren't suited for mainline action, but are a better option for places like steel mills,or small industries,where there could be harm done to people

[wabash1]

I can tell you this when you tallk to a conductor most will tell you that they would rather have a exsperanced engineer at the controls while holding onto and switching out 3-4k tons when you say stop the engineer stops on a remote it will be many cars later it will stop. as ed if he is switching and has 75 cars does he want air on them cars and switch back and forth or a engineer who can kick them and stop on a dime.