The power of remote control: U.S. railroad experience strongly suggests that remote control locomotive technology is safe and efficient

Railway Age, Feb, 2005 by Marybeth Luczak

Would you give up the power of the remote? Probably not, and many railroaders wouldn't either.

"Once you have remote control television, you don't ant to get by without it," says Scott Ambler, director-railroad products and services for Control Chief. "And once people get used to [locomotive remote control], they feel the same way--they become dependent on it."

Remote control technology has been used in industrial and crane applications for decades, and, with Canada leading the way, it has slowly penetrated rail yards and terminals. Now, two years after arbitration awarded the United Transportation Union the right to operate locomotives using remote control, there are an estimated 1,500 systems in use by North American carriers, including 23 U.S. railroads. And the numbers continue to grow. Why? Because the technology is helping to improve safety and efficiency.

According to the Federal Railroad Administration's interim remote control locomotive (RCL) report issued last June at Congress's request, usage in and around rail yards offers "significant" safety benefits. From May 1, 2003, through Nov. 30, 2003, the RCL train accident rate was 13.5% lower than that of conventional switching operations during the same period, and the employee injury rate was 57.1% lower.

FRA analysis also found that human error was the cause of nearly all accidents/injuries involving RCL operations to date, and RCL technology malfunctions resulted in "virtually no" accidents or incidents. The final report is slated for release this May.

"Remote control continues to develop and evolve--and like your home computer, it's getting lighter and smaller and offers even more functionality," says Scott Hinckley, general director-TE&Y training for Union Pacific, a three-year RCL operator with 500-plus systems installed. The railroad expects to implement the technology at all of its terminals by year-end, and most recently ordered 113 systems from Cattron-Theimeg (which purchased CN's Beltpack business late last year). Safety was a driver of the conversion program, according to Tom Connors, UP's general director-field operations. "It's a safer environment when you have a person at the point of movement, in control of that movement," he explains.

"Remote control equipment is very reliable with redundant, failsafe features," maintains Rick Marceau, assistant president of the United Transportation Union and a veteran locomotive engineer. "If a component of the remote control equipment malfunctions, by default, it shuts the locomotive down and applies the brakes."

Kansas City Southern and Belt Railway Company of Chicago are among those that choose RCL for safety reasons.

The benefits to KCS are clear: "enhanced safety, reduced risk of injury, and the economic benefit of smaller crews," says Doniele Kane, director-corporate communications and community affairs at KCS. Since commencing RCL operations in January 2002, the railroad hasn't experienced any safety incidents related to failures of its 50 RCL systems, and continues to handle "record" freight volumes using the technology. "The causes of incidents while using the technology are the same as conventional operations: track, human factor, or mechanical," Kane points out.

For BRC, deployment of RCL technology over the last 19 months has been "almost seamless," according to Timothy E. Coffey, general counsel, secretary, and director-human resources for the railroad, which handles switching and interchange for most of the Class I's. "It was better than we could have anticipated."

At first, BRC didn't see a reduction in switching incidents, which was attributed to increased business levels and employee learning curves, but now the numbers are dipping, Coffey reports, adding that no personal injuries have been attributed to the technology.

Training is key

To achieve these safety results, the railroads, working closely with FRA and labor, have developed special operating rules and training programs for employees using RCL technology.

BRC's 180 employees were trained over a nine-month period, with one week each of field and classroom training. The UTU played a critical role in the training effort. Union representatives served as mentors, answering questions and addressing concerns, Coffey says. "Those who desired more training, and those our trainers determined needed more, received it," he adds. "We wanted to provide as much training as necessary."

UP also teamed up with UTU before beginning its conversion process. It created an oversight committee, including local management and union reps, and worked with locomotive engineers to get their feedback.

"We've found that when remote control is implemented, experienced switchmen have little difficulty adapting," says UTU's Marceau. "But someone who has never worked on a railroad has, in my opinion, difficulty correlating the requirements of remote control rules to the application." The union is working with railroads to address this issue, he says.

Once operators have sufficient experience with the equipment, railroads so far are finding productivity levels similar to those of conventional switching operations. "In a switching terminal, once all technological and process improvements are realized, productivity is only limited by infrastructure," BRC's Coffey explains.