Appleton, Wisconsin: hearings, politics, and remote control

Railway Age, March, 1997 by Gus Welty

Even now, more than three months after it ended, there's something disturbing about the Federal Railroad Administration's Appleton informal safety inquiry. That was the inquiry in upstate Wisconsin as a result of the United Transportation Union's demands for FRA emergency orders to prevent Wisconsin Central from expanding its use of engineer-only operations and to bar all railroads from using remote devices to control locomotives (RA, Feb., p. 9).

FILA heard from a variety of interested parties, in such number that they produced a transcript that ran well over 400 pages. WC was well-represented and presented a comprehensive case regarding present and proposed operations and the steps the carrier has taken to ensure the safety of both one-person crews and remote control. WC's position got backup from several smaller carriers with engineer-only and remote-control operations, including comments from the engineers involved. Support also came from the Association of American Railroads, the American Short Line Railroad Association, and Regional Railroads of America.

FILA heard from virtually all of the suppliers of radio remote control equipment, companies based in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. Each manufacturer emphasized the safety features built into the equipment. Each pointed to a clean safety record with regard to accidents related to the equipment or its operation.

FILA heard from a number of local politicians and, frankly, aside from getting an opportunity to grab a microphone and perhaps make a few friends in rail labor, it was hard to figure why they were there. To say the least, they didn't seem to have much grasp of the issues.

And of course, FRA heard from rail labor. Now granted, this was an informal safety inquiry, perhaps lacking some of the more formal trappings of a formal hearing or a rulemaking. But what showed up in the transcript is a degree of sarcasm that you just don't expect to find even in an informal inquiry and even when labor is going all out to make a case against management. You also don't expect labor to try to make its case through shrill rhetoric alone and without backup proof, but that's what the transcript indicates labor was trying to do.

Consider that Canadian National has had more experience with remote control than any other North American railroad. CN's presentation covered the history, the facts and figures, and its plans to expand use of remote-control operations. CN's supplier of its Beltpack equipment, Canac International, was there to describe all the fail-safe features that are built in. CN had the numbers regarding safety: No accidents attributable to its extensive use of Beltpack.

But then the UTU's Canadian National legislative representafive got the microphone and tried to demolish CN's record. I'm reading the transcript, and I'm saying "Whoa." Here's an operation that went through a multi-year test and evaluation program under the watchful eyes of Transport Canada and the Canadian Transportation Safety Board, agencies that then gave CN permission to expand usc of remote-control. Arc CN, Transport Canada, and the safety board all being accused of collusion in cooking the books? Suffice it to say that there is no record of proof in the transcript. As WC President and CEO Ed Burkhardt put it,

"Overall, a lot of opinion was introduced but no hard data questioning the safety of these operations."

And, while UTU was adamant in opposing any use of remote-control devices, it is more than just interesting that UTU-represented employees are operating Beltpack equipment on CN and that UTU and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers are competing to see who will operate remote-control equipment on WC's sister railroad, Algoma Central.

The BLE, it might be noted, took a less adamant position related just to engineer-only operations, opposing such operations but proposing rules to allow them on a restricted basis if FRA allowed engineer-only to move ahead. The BLE indicated that it would not fight the introduction of new technology, with proper safeguards attached, just for the sake of opposing it.

From my reading of the transcript and of some of the written submissions made a part of the record, it would seem to be a considerable stretch for FRA to block either engineer-only or remote-control operations on grounds that they represent a safety hazard to employees or others. Remote systems have been and are being enhanced to improve operating efficiency and safety. The transcript certainly showed no evidence that the operations are unsafe, and railroads stressed the training given to employees before they are allowed to operate these systems.

FRA's professional staff has a voluminous record to show for two days in Appleton, plus other filings made before the record was closed. The Safety Compliance Agreement subsequently entered into by FRA and WCTC (p. 20) did not address the question of a national ban. Certainly, there's nothing in the record I'm familiar with to back up labor's position.