Remote Control Locomotives:
Technological Progress or an Ending Era?
The next time you see a train working within a rail yard or passing through a city crossing, before you stop to wave, you may wish to consider this fact : there may not be anyone inside.
Although remote controlled engine sets known as distributed power (DP) or slave and master units have been riding the rails for some time, in recent years remote controlled locomotives (RCLs) that don’t require an engineer onboard at all have become standard equipment within the confines of many rail yards.
In 1965, Locotrol became the first remote control system to allow “empty” locomotives to run on the tracks. These remote locomotives were used as helper engines that were placed, along with a human-operated locomotive, somewhere along the course of a train. The leading locomotive’s engineer drove the train. The Locotrol system read the actions of the engineer and directed the movements of the second, remote engine. When the lead engine stopped or sped up, the second locomotive would follow, giving trains that used this DP system better response time and greater pulling power.
The Canadian Pacific Railway was only the second user of the Locotrol system in 1967, and in 1969 the Pacific Great Eastern Railway (later BC Rail) started using the remote engines in British Columbia. By the 1990s, however, belt transmitter systems of remote control (such as the product Beltpack) were gaining popularity in well-known companies such as CN, BC Rail, and Canadian Pacific.
This new remote control system relies on a small device a rail operator can wear on his or her belt. The device sends signals to a computer onboard the locomotive which controls the engine’s actions. If the multiple signals per second sent to the computer are interrupted, the engine automatically stops.
Beltpack remote control system. http://www.directindustry.com/prod/cattron/radio-remote-controls-for-railway-
Many companies see the remote control system as simpler, cheaper, and safer, since it ends miscommunication between the workers moving rail switches and the driver. According to this view, operators of the remote engines should be able to see the track better and prevent accidents.
The remote engines have become very widely used in Canada. In 2000, Canadian National was using RCLs in approximately half its yard switching tasks and had more than 124 engines equipped with remote control technology. It reported that there were far fewer accidents with remote engines than with human-driven ones, and that the technology had never failed.
Although Canadian railways have been quick to make use of the belt system, in the United States many unions have protested large railroads such as Union Pacific changing to the remote engines. The remote control system replaces professional engineers with the less formally-trained operator, leaving many people to wonder if the celebrated job of driving trains will disappear completely.
Critics of the remote system point out that operators have limited training, whereas engineers need at least three years of railway experience plus specialized training before they are allowed to drive. This worker inexperience can lead to accidents. In addition, operators cannot actually see the track ahead from the engine. There have been various cases of accidents involving remote engines that have caused rail employees to question the remotes’ safety. In one example, a yard engine at a crossing hit and pushed an 18-wheeler down the line because the rail operator did not know that the truck was present.
Image from http://www.tslb.org/remote_control.htm. |
Just as important is the role of the engineer. In the old days of railways, the engineer was the most important member of a train’s crew. Engineers, emblematic of rail travel, were held in high esteem and given the best pay and benefits. But since engineers are not needed for remote control locomotives, many face the risk of losing their jobs as the new technology expands.
The shift to remote controlled locomotives has changed the face of rail transportation, and like any technology, it has benefits and risks. Remote control systems show an efficiency and ease of use that is creating great opportunities for railway companies. They are also causing many employees to wonder which direction their work and livelihoods will take in future.
Sources:
Association of American Railroads
2003 Data, experience prove remote control locomotive (RCL) technology keeps workers, rail yards safer. http://www.aar.org/NewsAndEvents/Press-Releases/2003/11/Data%20experience%20prove%20remote%20control%20locomotive%20RCL%20technology%20keeps%20workers%20rail%20yards%20safer.aspx.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
Jan. 30, 2002. Washington Times. http://www.blet56.org/presiden.htm.
Canadian National
2000 Canadian National Experience with Locomotive Remote Control Technology. Federal
Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation. http://www.beltpackcorp.com
/docs/164_1.pdf.
Federal Railroad Administration
2011 Remote Control Locomotive Operations. US Department of Transportation.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/pages/94.shtml.
Hitz, Urs
2004 The History of Locotrol on PGE/BCR: 16-21.
State University
2011 Railway Engineer Job Description. Job Descriptions and Careers.
http://careers.stateuniversity.com/pages/809/Railroad-Engineer.html.
Texas State Legislative Board
2011 Remote Control Locomotives: Issues and News. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
and Trainmen. http://www.tslb.org/remote_control.htm.
Web Guy Editorial
2011 Remote Control Technology: What’s in it for me? Guest Editorials.
http://www.ble272.org/RCL.htm.
