On July 9, 2004, a Union Pacific remote controlled locomotive and its train collided with another Union Pacific train as it enter the yard at Pine Bluff, Arkansas. There were no injuries but the main was closed for 24 hours as crews contained a diesel fuel spill and worked to reopen the line. The FRA is conducting a “routine” investigation into the accident. The BLE ( & T) denounced the collision while Frank Wilner (UTU Spokesman) stated, "It has nothing to do with safety … "
The previous paragraph was condensed from an article containing 8 paragraphs however, I am unable to bring you “the rest of the story” as the article was continued on another page of the newspaper and I was not able to find “that” page.
However, it does show that remote controlled locos can and do have accidents. Since the FRA is involved in this one we will wait and see what they find and what they do about it. On a recent tour of a railroad yard I noticed many signs stating that remote controlled locomotives were in use and to use caution around them. One wonders if they are so “safe” why the need to “warn” people of their use?
On a side note the North Little Rock CIty Council passed a resolution discouraging the use of remote controlled locomotives in North Little Rock which is a major hub for UP in the south. However, since railroads are federally mandated the “city” and its wishes are at odd with UP as it continues to use remote controlled locos for its operations in North Little Rock.
No matter how safe a technology is there will be accidents.
As for the signs, I am guessing that is to make sure that someone who isn’t paying attention (most likely a tresspasser) will not just assume that there is someone in the cab and assume that as long as he is in sight of the cab he is safe.
When the remote controller first came out I did not know if I was for it or against it. But all of these annoying city councils grandstanding and the members trying to make names for themselves using this issue has pushed me to lean towards pro-RCL.
how do you figer its an issue of someone useing this as a political grand stand to get votes for re-election… on this issue the local governing body such as a city council is actuly doing something helpfull to its citisens for once…looking out for the safty of its town!!! i dont know how anyone could go along with RCLs…even more so after what happend on 9-11… yes you can try and use the argument that they where used in steel mills for years…but also keep in mind.that the jobs they where used for in the mills where…1…places that it was way to dangeruse for a maned locomotive to go…and 2…for jobs of only moveing a few cars from point A…to point B in a dangours inveroment… not for switching out whole trains…it is crazy to use such technolgy in the post 9-11 day and age now in this country…thier is a group of people that is hell bent on killing evey last one of us…and they will use any way they can…the airliners showed us that… as well as the trains station in spain…and a living person in the cab of a locomotive is one more line of defence… im not saying this just becouse i am an engineer and dont want to lose my job.i have conductors rights…so i can just go back to the ground…im saying this as an american … one that has common sence none the less…
csx engineer
I don’t believe in remote control engines are safe at this time. The technology in my opinion has not advanced enough to make it relatively safe as the subway. Keep in mind although there is a chance that a derail, crash or someone will jump in front of the train or use the third rail; subways don’t carry dangerous materials. Subways don’t have to worry about debree and track defects due to heat and other weather effects usually. I believe the subway is equiped with some kind of sensors systems and remote controls as far as I know do not. Subways run on electricity so run away trains are unlikely; manned locomotives do it never mind if remote control locomotives to it.
Right now remote control locomotives should be put on a shelf by the railroads and wait till it is more safe. You just can’t beat the experience and the basic control by the engineer and his assistant the conductor.
I agree with you CSX, all the derailments at our near our terminal were due to RCL’s, and there were at least 4 of them already this year, and I saw one happen myself that would never have happened if an engineer was controlling the engine.
I am not talking about RCLs for road trains, just yard switchers.
Don’t believe those politicians when they say they have your safety at interest. They are only doing what will get them reelected or elected to a higher office.
If someone is determined to kill, they will not hesitate to kill the engineer. Given that, would RC make it easier for a terrorist to hijack a yard switcher? If so, then you have a point.
a body with eyes that can see someone about to come into the cab can get a warning out over the radio…even if he is killed in the end… their are only 2 ways into a cab…and both ways you just cant sneek into them… a live body means last line of defence!!!
keep in mind… a yard engin can be run on the road to… and all you need to do is just open the throttle up and out you go on to the main… if your intentions are to cause havick and death… what would be thier to stop a terrorist from just running it out the end of a yard and on the main into what ever train is comeing his way… remember the hijackers that flew the plans on 9-11 didnt learn how to take off and land…they just learned how to fly them once the hard part was done… with a locomotive already started…and moveing… the hard parts are all ready done!!! think about that one…
csx engineer
The switch crew is still out with the train. As soon as it starts do movements the operator does not tell it to do or if they see anyone in the yard that they do not recognize, they should radio it in. If they do not call in seeing someone in the yard that they do not recognize, it is probably because they think it is someone who is authorized to be there, which means they probably will not call in the person boarding the locomotive.
If the RCL operator notices the train doing movements he did not tell it to do he should kill it, if he has the ability to shut the locomotive down remotely (if not, this feature should be added).
Also, I would hope that once the yardmaster sees a train leaving the yard unauthorized he would do something about it.
If the terrorist wants to run it into a train that is just coming upon the yard any radio message will little, if any, good. If the switch is remotely controlled by the dispatcher then it should already be aligned for the train to go through. Regardless, won’t switching the turnout cause a signal change that will alert the crew of the oncoming train that something is wrong?
I know the local train yard as non-portable derails at the ends (probably a result of Commerce City). Making this an industry wide requirement, if it is not one already, will make hijacking a yard switcher more difficult.
im no longer going to bother with this one…since you have no industry experance…and trying to get a point of view acrros to you untill im blue in the face is pointless… since you have an annswer for everything…you would make do great in managment… somone that has no clue how it realy works…but has an anwser for eveything…
when your town has to be evacuated becouse of a RCL accident dont cry to me…you have been warned!!!
csx engineer
From hands-on operation of a RCL, I can say they are no more safe or unsafe than conventional switching–the arguement for safety is very weak in my opinion, but time will tell. I will say that SO FAR, studies on “safety” have been done by the railroads themselves and they can cook the books to make the figures say what they want. The FRA does need to step in at some point and make RCL rules an enforceable part the the Fed. code.
The REAL issue on these things is efficiency–there is absolutely NO WAY one or two guys working with a RCL can come anywhere close to flat switching the amount of cars a conventional crew can do with an engineer. Ask anyone who’s used them. I would say the UP is finding this out now with gridlock in yards, and inability to move “loose car” freight with any consistancy. You gotta have good “old-fashioned” switch crews to do this thing right. Remote has it’s place, but that’s not everyplace.
I thought that RCL use was just another way to cut railroad workers` pay. Is it true that the person operating the RCL is actually paid less than a train engineer?
I have the lunch hour duty here, so will maybe offer an explanation. Or maybe not. I think any yard work pays less than road work. I am also thinking that you need to be qualified as an engineer to work the RCL’s. If this is right - kudos to me, if not - I will sure hear about it in short order!
Don’t get me wrong, if engineers want to keep their jobs that is fine with me (although I think the argument that making switching (especially) more efficient will allow railroads to become more competitive with trucks and actually increase railroad jobs).
However, you can’t tell me that all these safety concerns aren’t really about jobs rather than safety. If terrorists are so prevelant that they have enough resources to hijack the local yard goat as opposed to the 200+ more important national targets, then we are all in trouble anyway.
By the way, I have heard allusions that the investigation in Arkansas is suggesting that something other than a routine accident may have been the cause. These allusions might have since dissipated, but I am waiting to see the report before I jump to any safety conclusions.
RCL operators are not engineers. The only way someone with RCL license can operate a locomotive is with the box on their chest. In class we were told we received the same class room work as a hostler, but would need more time on the job to get a hostler level license. A hostler could move engines by themselves around the yard. When I was working, to move power from the service tracks to the train on the departure tracks, we had to attach our RC engine to the road power. There was a case some time back about a train that ran out of time (hours of service) and a RCL yard crew went to tie the train down. When securing a train, after the hand brakes are set, the engineer releases the air brakes to make sure the hand brakes hold the train. The yard crew set the hand brakes, but radioed the yardmaster that they couldn’t release the air brakes. Both were RCL qualified, but neither were licensed engineers. The only way they could have released the air was if they had brought their RCL engine out and connected it to the road train. The yardmaster got a manager out of bed to come out and sit on the train until the outbound crew was called.
You could, as we did during a slow time, have an engineer who flowed back to being a conductor who became RCL qualified. One isn’t necessarily the other.
For working a RCL job, the switchmen get an extra 46minutes of pay added to their r
Throughout the history of railroads, there has always been safety issues. Only experience teaches us the safe way to do things. Back in Britain 150 years ago, they ran trains at time-difference intervals. Hard luck then, if one train had a breakdown on the line, and the trains left the station at 5 minutes intervals. End of time-difference systems. Please do not read me as a proponent of RCL, but unless the technology is used, we may have problems solving its shortcomings or experiencing meltdowns in the yards caused by RCL-s. Maybe will, i.e., UP-s experience in the yards, as given earlier in this subject, sow what’s best in a busy yard, being it RCL-s or manned switchers.
Jan
If you have heard about the early days of railroads, one would wonder if they would be able to make it today if they were just start. Boilers were exploding all of the time, rails were coming up through the floors of the cars (including passenger cars), derailments were common. It was an ugly scene. I am glad they stuck with it and worked out the problems.