Western Railroad Discussion > RCL explained!

Finally! A newspaper article that clearly and accurately (!) explains why Remote Control is good, and all those engineers are nothing but no-good, egotistical, piss-ant leaks in the payroll.

I especially liked the part about the "quagmire".

Anyway, it's from the Oakland (Calif.) Tribune, for May 25, 2003.

Enjoy!


http://www.oaklandtribune.com/cda/article/print/0,1674,82%257E1865%257E1414984,00.html

Oakland Tribune


Full-size engines pull trains by remote
Carriers experimenting with eliminating engineers
By Inga Miller
STAFF WRITER


Sunday, May 25, 2003 - MARTINEZ -- Just like regular trains, they chug along the tracks, lugging box cars and clanging as they go.

In all ways but one, the locomotives running on the newest technology along Bay Area railways are the same as old freight trains. They just don't have an engineer on board.

Rectangular white signs inform motorists along Benicia's Industrial Way that "locomotive cabs may be unoccupied" and that the engines are operated by "remote control."

But no reason for concern, insist rail operators.

"The (controller) always has his locomotive in sight," said John Bromley, director of public affairs for Union Pacific Railroad. "We're primarily using the technology (where) we don't expect the public to be -- like the switching yards."

The quagmire of quick turns and tight spaces between tracks can be confusing for a traditional engineer in the cab, Bromley said.

Such engineers contact a switch operator by radio for directions, which can lead to error, he said.

For the past year, Union Pacific Railroad and the four other major carriers have experimented with eliminating the middle man.

New-styled operators wear remote-control belts that allow them to operate the locomotive without an engineer -- as they walk along the tracks.

As of May, such operators controlled trains in and around 147 rail yards across the country, according to Warren Flatau, a spokesman for the Federal Railroad Administration.

The administration issued guidelines requiring railroad companies to report all accidents where remote control is used.

"We are monitoring the use of remote-control locomotives very closely," Flatau said. "Really the guidelines only cover yard operations."


Since remote-control technology only controls trains up to about 15 mph, Union Pacific generally doesn't use it to send cars to customers more than three or four miles from the switch yards, Bromley said. Even at those distances, the belt operator rides inside.

Remote control has detractors. The fact that a belt operator doesn't have an overhead view of the tracks "puts the public at great risk," said Timothy Smith, board chairman of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, a union for competing engineers who oppose the practice.


which Smith describes as "extremely different" from the job performed by the traditional engineers that make up its membership.

"Obviously, the engineer sits at the controls of the locomotive and he or she will react to any kind of movement or with any kind of emergency action that might need to occur," Smith said.

"That could be somebody stepping out in front of you on the tracks, a car stuck out in the middle of the tracks or a truck filled with chlorine, for example. At least the engineer could mitigate the impact by providing immediate reactions to the emergency."

Painting a grim picture of what could occur on a Contra Costa County rail line if a munitions container were to overturn unnoticed, Smith gained support of County Supervisors May 6 for stricter regulations. The county sent a letter to the railroad administration asking for more oversight.

"We believe it's a serious matter," Flatau said, noting the administration met with labor and industry representatives about two weeks ago to "reinforce the guidelines." The administration also increased the definition of accidents that have to be reported as of May 1.

At this point, no accidents are attributed to the technology. The railroad administration is investigating a fatal accident in Syracuse, New York, where remote control was used, Flatau said.

"Our safety record shows that they are actually safer than our locomotives operated by engineers, which we are very pleased about because we anticipated that," Bromley said, calling criticism "a union issue."

The Brotherhood lost a bid to represent all but a few belt operators in a dispute with the rival United Transportation Union. That bargaining group hasn't taken a stance on remote-control locomotives.

"We make no claim," said James Brunkenhoefer, spokesman for the United Transportation Union said. "If the railroads are going to implement remote control, since we have the jurisdiction, we try to deal with it."

Beginning about 25 years ago, European train operators began experimenting with running trains using remote-control belts, Brunkenhoefer said.

The technology crossed the Atlantic to Canada about a decade ago. And the major railroad companies began picking it up here a few years ago. Union Pacific, which began its program last year, plans to bring it to all its major switch yards by the end of 2004.

As for the signs alerting motorists to remote-control operations at some crossings, Bromley said they are not supposed to cause worry. He said he would call them simply "advisories."

"It's just an information issue to let them know that we are using the technology," he said. "The signs are more for political purposes to alert people. There seems to be more concern, I think, than there should be."

I'm sure my dad, who was a Santa Fe fireman/engineer for 50 years would turn over in his grave with this one.

I was in Topeka KS this week and driving through an older neighborhood in north Topeka, and crossed a track that used to be a part of a Rock Island line, that is now an industrial spur running from the UP yards to the Goodyear tire plant several miles north. There at the crossing was one of these signs about RCL. That means the UP switcher runs from the yard to Goodyear with cars and an operator "somewhere". It crosses several industrial serving streets and through residental neighborhoods with lots of kids running around.

Sure seems like a scary prospect to me.

Oh well.

Bob

I'm afraid this is an usually imaginative reporter. I didn't use the word quagmire nor did I tell her engineers got confused. I did tell her accidents were more likely in switching areas where there are multi-tracks and multiple moves being made.

She was under the clear impression after being contacted by the BLE, however, like many other reporters I've talked to, that the locomotive is being controlled from a tower or from a distant office, completely out of the sight of the operator. Of course the sample train is always loaded with nuclear waste.
JB

If the move crosses a public crossing, the operator is on the locomotive or the point of the cut. In some cases where there is a crossing on a pull-back, there is camera protection.
JB

John,
How do explain Hinkel in Oregon? They have been the ditch so many times I have lost count. Now an operator has lost part of his body.

Nudge

I posted explanations Saturday for the most recent two accidents at Hinkle. I've tried to stay out of this on Trainorders, but I'm not going to hide either. On Union Pacific we have not had a single accident due to the failure of the technology. I know most of the readers on this board don't want to hear "human error", so I won't belabor it. But it is a fact that our systemwide accident rate has dropped by 30 percent in terminals where we have introduced portable control. We have been reporting every PCL incident to the FRA, not just the reportables.

We also have seen an increase in productivity. Not surprisingly, for the first 30 days after being started, productivity drops, then in the next 30 days or less, improves and surpasses the traditional level.
JB

"Has the engine in sight at all times." Bull Crap. In Davis Yard (Roseville) one of the trim trains moves back 'n forth by the crew office (by back of Post Office) with no crew in sight. As anyone who knows Roseville, people cross the tracks at this spot all time. Lot less now with the remodeled yard and faster trains, but people are still crossing and NO crewmen has the engine in sight. And don't give me any crap about them being trespassers. The point is people cross like they've been doing for decades. Oh, yeah! They're trespassers. They should be mowed down. That article read like someone from the White House wrote it sugar coating the problems with RCL. (Enough of my venting)

chrisb wrote:
> "Has the engine in sight at all times." Bull Crap. In Davis
> Yard (Roseville) one of the trim trains moves back 'n forth by
> the crew office (by back of Post Office) with no crew in sight.
> As anyone who knows Roseville, people cross the tracks at this
> spot all time. Lot less now with the remodeled yard and faster
> trains, but people are still crossing and NO crewmen has the
> engine in sight. And don't give me any crap about them being
> trespassers. The point is people cross like they've been doing
> for decades. Oh, yeah! They're trespassers. They should be
> mowed down. That article read like someone from the White
> House wrote it sugar coating the problems with RCL.

That sounds like a security issue to me. Unauthorized persons are not supposed to be inside the yard. Period. That's a breach of homeland security. Trespassers or terrorists or both? Code Orange in effect!

As for getting hit by a train, I'd imagine trespassers stand a pretty good chance of injury or death walking across tracks at Jerry Davis yard whether hit by a engineer-controlled locomotive, a remote controlled engine or a freight car rolling down the hump. It is not the place to be. (Do these same people walk across Interstate 80 and, if so, do you share as much concern for that?)

Yeah and you have some trainmen that can't switch themselves out of a wet paper bag, and the RR expects them to run a remote control engine on top of that, what kinda of drugs are they taking?


> The quagmire of quick turns and tight spaces between tracks
> can be confusing for a traditional engineer in the cab, Bromley
> said.
>
> Such engineers contact a switch operator by radio for
> directions, which can lead to error, he said.
>

UPRRPR wrote:

> I'm afraid this is an usually imaginative reporter.

Where's Grace when ya need her!?! (JEB knows who I'm talking about.)

> ...nor did I tell her engineers got confused.

Dang! That's the excuse I was gonna use next time I was asked why we didn't get the 5 - 7 - 9 cars spotted.

Grace? You bet. You're closer to my life than I thought! Anyway, nice fencing with today. You are a gentleman and a scholar.
JB

I should have said "fencing with you today". Anyway, no disrespect to engineers. This is a tough subject for all of us.
JB

First of all, I have deliberately stayed out of this RCL stuff but I find myself unable to keep my 2-cents to myself any longer. And what I really love are some of the statistics that get thrown around on this, although I can't verify which are accurate and which are "created" in an attempt to prove a point.

First, I respect John Bromley (hope I spelled it right) for taking the time to be on this list and give his (UP's) spin on things. He takes a lot of heat at times and I appreciate the fact he must own numerous pairs of asbestos underwear to hang in here the way he does. But I now have to open my big mouth on this issue now also.

Look at the wording that has been put forth in John's post earlier on this subject as quoted here: "On Union Pacific we have not had a single accident due to the failure of the technology."

Read between the lines. He did NOT say it was 100% safe, which it isn't. The technology may be almost safe but it has its own potential problems, such as the RCL locomotive that "got away" on the Puget Sound & Pacific earlier this year and ran for 7 miles before hitting a truck. As I read his statement, UNION PACIFIC has not yet had an accident CAUSED by the TECHNOLOGY of the RCL, or at least not yet attributed to it. But like all things mechanical, nothing is fool proof and I guarantee you that there will be a fool somewhere that will find a way to screw things up and cause an accident. Does it really matter though if it's the technology that cost a person his life or another person? From what I have seen posted here and at other locations, and I admittedly cannot verify these numbers, there have been 44 accidents (I do not know if they have all been on UP though) in the relatively short time RCL's have been in service with 9 of those at Hinkle alone. Does that sound "safe" to anybody? Maybe the technology hasn't failed (yet) but it will and then what?

The other statistic I love is another statement John made, as follows: "But it is a fact that our systemwide accident rate has dropped by 30 percent in terminals where we have introduced portable control."

All right, I'm glad the accident rate is down but what are you comparing it to? The only thing that it can be compared to are "manned" locomotive operations, or more correctly "traditional" switch engine jobs. Now you have stated that UP has "... not had a single accident due to the failure of the technology." This means that all 44 accidents (again, I do not know if they have all been on UP though), including the 9 at Hinkle, are all "employee" caused in what is a relatively short period of time. Fine, so how many accidents have occured with "conventional" jobs during this same period in the same yards? If we're going to get a meaningful comparison then we have to compare apple to apples and include ALL accidents making sure that "employee" caused accidents using both kinds of technology are included in this calculation. Now if there has indeed been a 30% reduction in accidents with the RCL technology at Hinkle, then I would assume there have been approximately 13 accidents during a comparable period at Hinkle with conventional jobs (13 less 30% is 9 - I think)?

Now I do not make any statements or insinuatons about John as he is simply forwarding what he is given by his superiors I'm sure but with all due respect there is a very good analogy here: "Figures don't lie but liars figure". Do you think the railroads are going to admit they may have created a nighmare with this RCL crap?

And speaking of the technology, which has supposedly never had a failure on the UP, I wonder how well this technolgy worked with the employee who was knocked down and dragged by an RCO movement at Hinkle recently? He lost his arm, had multiple crushing injuries to his person (chest/lungs, pelvis), which sounds to me like he was dragged a ways (UP management still hasn't gotten a statement from him as of Saturday from what we were told). Now if the RCO movement is supposed to go into emergency as soon as the box is tipped to more than a 15 degrees from a vertical angle, why did this movement go so far as to drag this person the way it did as far as it supposedly did? Was there a "technology failure" here?

One thing that I have read elsewhere is that the Canadian railroads, which of course started this on common carrier railroads and have much different reporting requirements for accidents, are backing away from the technology. And to my understanding it was never used as extensively in Canada as it is being tried in the US. Do you suppose they know something we don't?

We could go on much further if we wanted to. I won't even address the simple fact that the locomotve is always within view as it isn't. With RCL's there are always going to be "blind" pulls and shoves simply because you now have only 2 people on the job instead of somebody on the engine. With blind moves is the very high risk of collisions, derailments, and other accidents. However, because these accidents will involve various "human failures", they will continue to be reported as not being a problem with the technology even though the technology and operating conditions by the railroads are what facilitated the accidents to begin with.

I also question this increase in productivity the railroads claim though as I would need some qualifications on it. Does this mean the same job is switching more cars for the JOB after RCL than before or does it mean that the same job is switching more cars PER PERSON on the job after RCL? In other words, if a job with a conventional crew with 3 people is switching 300 cars a night (for demonstration purposes only here) before RCL giving them a productivity of 100 cars per person, and then after RCL they still switch 300 cars but with just 2 people, is this where the increase is coming from? After all, you can state they increased productivity from 100 cars per man to 150 cars per man for the same job. In reality there has been no increase in actual output for the job itself. So when I hear about this increase in productivity, I take it with a huge grain of salt and question how they're showing this increase.

BTW, how many people realize that in many locations where RCL is used that there has actually been no decrease in the number of people on some of the jobs? There are many locations where all they did was eliminate the engineer, who is fully qualified to operate the locomotive, and replaced him with a "utility man" who does little else but ride the engine protecting reverse moves. They still pay the same number of people on some of these jobs but eliminated the engineer so they can show how they got rid of a job and justify the RCL use.

There are certainly areas and operations in which RCL might be a good fit. However, to simply claim it as being safe everywhere the way it's being made out to be is very shortsighted. I personally think the railroads are trading the health and safety of their employees in return for higher pay for their executives and returns for their stockholders.

Wow, I didn't mean to get this long winded; sorry about that. Time for me to get off my soapbox and let somebody else have a chance. Have a great night.

railbaron wrote:


> First, I respect John Bromley (hope I spelled it right) for
> taking the time to be on this list and give his (UP's) spin on
> things. He takes a lot of heat at times and I appreciate the
> fact he must own numerous pairs of asbestos underwear to hang
> in here the way he does.

I, too, have nothing but the utmost respect for John. He has a difficult job, and I wouldn't trade being a piss-ant engineer for his PR job for anything. It may come as a shock to some, but John and I frequently correspond by e-mail; it just looks like we're firing salvos back and forth here on TO.com.

<snip>

> Maybe the technology hasn't failed
> (yet) but it will and then what?

Last year at San Jose, an outside-yard RCO crew was using engine 812. The had been sent to switch an industry that was located some distance from the yard, and the track was slightly uphill. Upon arriving at the industry switch, they stopped and both RCOs got off to line the switch, then walked ahead to open the gate, then walked further to where the cars were. The RCO gave the locomotive a "come ahead" command, and both RCOs heard the engine rev up. After about a minute, they realized that the 812 was rolling backward down the hill. They sent it a "stop" command, which it did. They again sent a "come ahead" command, and could see the exhaust come out the stacks, but the unit continued to roll away down the hill. They again stopped it and called the yardmaster, who in turn called the CANAC help line. CANAC's response was that what was happening to the 812 was impossible. As it turns out, the incident was caused because the 812 had stopped loading. Each time the RCO would issue a "come ahead" command, the brakes would release, but since the unit wouldn't load, it simply rolled away down the hill. So, do we consider this a failure of the RC technology? Of course not! Was there a collision, a derailment, or an injury? Nope. But is serves as an example of what can happen when there's not a live person in the cab to monitor the locomotive.

<snip>

> The other statistic I love is another statement John made, as
> follows: "But it is a fact that our systemwide accident rate
> has dropped by 30 percent in terminals where we have introduced
> portable control."

Well, lessee. I suppose it depends on what we consider an "accident". At Ozol, where most yard jobs were converted to RC nearly a year ago, there's been a dramatic increase in incidents such as run-thru switches, running over derails, and a collision and derailment that was caused by an over-speed coupling when the joint didn't make and the cars rolled into the side of another cut.
At Warm Springs last month, UP bought NUMNI a new hydralic automobile ramp (reported to be in the $20,00 range) following a 6 M.P.H. joint. There's are numerous other examples I'm aware of.

Traditionally, there's been a claim made that there are fewer reportable injuries with RC than with "conventional" crews. Let's use the Oakland yard as an example. There have been no reportable injuries in Oakland for well over a year. Most yard jobs were converted to RC last fall. So we can look at the statistics and truthfully say something like, "Reportable injuries decreased in Oakland by 100% after RC was initiated". But it really has nothing to do with RC. Rather, it's because the employees work safely.

<snip>

> And speaking of the technology, which has supposedly never
> had a failure on the UP, I wonder how well this technolgy
> worked with the employee who was knocked down and dragged by an
> RCO movement at Hinkle recently? He lost his arm, had multiple
> crushing injuries to his person (chest/lungs, pelvis), which
> sounds to me like he was dragged a ways (UP management still
> hasn't gotten a statement from him as of Saturday from what we
> were told).

The severity of the man's injuries has me baffled, if he merely, as stated, tripped after stepping outside the shanty. If that's the case, the "tilt" feature should've activated BEFORE he made contact with the cars. It's been said his beltpack vest was snagged by something on a car, and he was dragged. The "tilt" feature nothwithstanding, the vests are designed to break away in a situation like this. So, what happened?

<snip>

> I also question this increase in productivity the railroads
> claim though as I would need some qualifications on it.

I think the carriers tend to confuse "productivity" with "production". The famous Ozol Meltdown is directly related to RC, Oakland frequently has late departures because of RC, and I'm told that Roseville's production has been down since the hump and trim jobs were converted.

<snip>

> BTW, how many people realize that in many locations where RCL
> is used that there has actually been no decrease in the number
> of people on some of the jobs?

At many locations, UP is so short of RC-qualified employees that they have to deadhead them in from other locations (at additional cost - sometimes at double pay) or bring in "borrow out"s from other Service Units (and pay their lodging).

<snip>

> I personally think the railroads are trading the
> health and safety of their employees in return for higher pay
> for their executives and returns for their stockholders.

My belief is that it's simply a union-busting tactic. For years the carriers have stated (through the AAR) that they want to negotiate with only one operating-craft union. Being able to eliminate the engineer on yard jobs and road switchers is merely a first step to that goal. The UTU has been pushing for a single, new craft called "Train & Engine Service Employee", and I reckon Brother Buron will be happy to sign an agreement to that effect when the carriers serve their Section 6 Notice for one-person crews on through freights.

Yep, they had the locomotive in sight at least 44 times in the last year.

Camera protection?

So there is no reason to protect the shove?
Until of course there is an accident...then it's human error ....again.

railbaron wrote:

> The technology may be almost safe but it has its own potential problems,
> such as the RCL locomotive that "got away" on the Puget Sound & Pacific ...

I haven't seen a final report on that incident, but simply blaming the "technology" covers too much ground. The system they were using at the time was one of the original systems, designed before the current systems being used by the Class Ones, and was due to be replaced by one of the newer designs. Further, the railroad reported the incident to the FRA under the notorious "employee failure" category, rather than equipment failure.

> ... like all things mechanical, nothing is fool proof and I
> guarantee you that there will be a fool somewhere that will
> find a way to screw things up and cause an accident.

There will likely be accidents that will be unique to RCL, but the same can be said of cab signaling, which is considered a safety improvement. The overall measure of success needs to be if the accident rate or injury rate is less, even if the accidents are from a different cause.

> ... there have been 44 accidents ... in the relatively short time RCL's
> have been in service with 9 of those at Hinkle alone. Does that
> sound "safe" to anybody?

I really can't say one way or the other, since RCL operation is under a microscope at the moment, and every incident that involves a locomotive set up for radio control is broadcast around, even though in a number of cases it was clear that radio control had absolutely nothing to do with the cause of the incident.

Looking at the FRA incident data for the year 2,000, 492 yard derailments and collisions were reported to the FRA by the UP with human error as the cause. (Assuming I did the enquiry correctly.) From those numbers, it is apparent that the operation was not entirely problem-free prior to the implementation of RCO. The question is whether those numbers in total go up or down.

Further, there were 582 injuries reported in yards on the UP. Will that number go up or down? With fewer employees in yards, it is very likely to go down.

> Maybe the technology hasn't failed
> (yet) but it will and then what?

You could use the same argument to suggest that airplanes never should have been allowed, since that technology has certainly failed on occasion, with disasterous results. It's called progress.

> One thing that I have read elsewhere is that the Canadian
> railroads, which of course started this on common carrier
> railroads and have much different reporting requirements for
> accidents, are backing away from the technology.

That's only wishful thinking on the part of the BLE. I have been assured by contacts on the Canadian railroads that they are still fully committed to RCO. (There accident reporting is also similar to the FRA's, since they have been trying to harmonize such things under the NAFTA agreement.)

> And to my understanding it was never used as extensively in Canada as it
> is being tried in the US. Do you suppose they know something we
> don't?

It has been used quite extensively, with testing in almost all assignments. I suspect the reason that the BLE thought they were losing interest in RCO is that they pulled it out of some yards when they decided it wasn't appropriate in some applications. They just moved the equipment to another yard, so there were no reductions in the number of assignments.

> I also question this increase in productivity the railroads
> claim though as I would need some qualifications on it. Does
> this mean the same job is switching more cars for the JOB after
> RCL than before or does it mean that the same job is switching
> more cars PER PERSON on the job after RCL?

That one's obvious. RCL is slower at swiching than a manned locomotive. The productivity measure is based on cars switched per employee.

Where an assignment doesn't fill up a full shift, the extra time doesn't cost locomotive productivity, since it would otherwise be standing once the work was completed. On the other hand, where the assignment has a heavy workload, the use of RCL might mean that the work doesn't get completed. Those are the sorts of assignments where the railroad has to decide if they really want RCL at all.

> After all, you can
> state they increased productivity from 100 cars per man to 150
> cars per man for the same job. In reality there has been no
> increase in actual output for the job itself. So when I hear
> about this increase in productivity, I take it with a huge
> grain of salt and question how they're showing this increase.

What you just described is indeed a productivity improvement in that fewer employees were required to switch the same number of cars. That is what productivity is all about. Capital productivity, also called asset utilization, is another aspect, which in your example didn't change.

> There are certainly areas and operations in which RCL might
> be a good fit. However, to simply claim it as being safe
> everywhere the way it's being made out to be is very
> shortsighted.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone say that RCL is safe everywhere. There are limitations on where it is being used, and where it is being used is supposedly safe. Time will tell.

> I personally think the railroads are trading the
> health and safety of their employees in return for higher pay
> for their executives and returns for their stockholders.

Is that an emotion-driven opinion? The statistics that have been published up to now show the operation as being safer. It's only the rumor mill that contends it is less safe, and that's without any solid information to support the opinion beyond a few incidents that have been highlighted.