LINKS

ARCHIVES

New Technology in the Rail Industry

New Technology in the Rail Industry

Like many industries, the railroad has undergone dramatic restructuring over the course of the past few decades. Advances in radio, telecommunications, computers and other forms of technology have decimated the ranks of the nation's railroaders, from brakemen and switchmen to clerks and car inspectors.

For Train and Engine (T&E) crews, perhaps the biggest threat of the new century comes from Remote Control Operation (RCO) in the yard and from single-person operation of over-the-road trains. In fact, with a technology known as "positive train separation", it may be possible to begin limited operation of some trains with no operator whatsoever in the not-too-distant future.

RCO was implemented on a broad scale on most of the nation's major railroads in 2002 (see Industrial Worker, May 2003). The industry is motivated by the perceived cost savings in personnel, since once in place, RCO no longer requires an employee to be stationed at the controls of the locomotive, thus reducing crew size, and hence saving the railroad in wages. The employees on the ground, who couple and uncouple the rail cars, join the air hoses and a host of other tasks, are now able, by use of a "belt-pack", to operate the locomotive as well by manipulating the buttons and switches on the belt-pack devise.

A myriad of other technologies have developed over time which now conspire to make single-employee operation of over-the-road trains a possibility. First attempted and then backed away from by the union-busting Wisconsin Central in the 1990s, the practice has remained in limbo, waiting on the back burner. Various states, including Wisconsin have adopted two-person crew laws in a union sponsored effort to protect their membership and provide a safe work environment. But just as the old state caboose laws which mandated a caboose at the end of every train bit the dust in the 1980s, it is doubtable whether such laws will withstand corporate efforts to abolish, modify or otherwise circumvent them when the time comes for the carriers to push for single-employee crews.

No one technology is responsible for bringing us to a point where single person operation is considered to be an option by the industry. Centralized Traffic Control (CTC), whereby a train dispatcher has control over the entire piece of railroad including remote control track signals and switches eliminated the need for a head brakeman and rear flagman in many cases. Automatic trackside detectors which sense overheated journal bearings, dragging equipment, stuck brakes, etc. contributed greatly to the demise of the caboose, and make train inspection by an on-board crew stationed at the end of the train no longer mandatory. Advances in radio have allowed the dispatcher to speak directly to the train crew through base stations so that s/he can communicate immediately with the crew regardless of the train's location. Taken together, these and other technologies have reduced the responsibilities of the train crew. As this issue of Labor Notes goes to press, the national freight carriers appear poised to attempt to force the unions to accept the elimination of the road conductor. They are openly advocating trains run with a single-person crew, a "transportation employee" who will not only run and take charge of the engine, but who also will be expected to assume the duties of his/her former colleague, the conductor. (see related article, Page ____). One can only speculate how this would work: rather than call signals to each other across the cab, the employee will call them over the radio. Rather than have the conductor handle necessary switches in front of the train, the lone employee would now dismount from the locomotive and throw them or have an all-purpose "utility employee" tend to the switches. The lone employee would no doubt also be expected to handle all of the paperwork for the train, keeping track of waybills, orders, hazardous material information, etc. during his/her tour-of-duty.

Both RCO and single person over-the-road crews present the workers remaining with a host of concessions concerning work rules and safety. RCO has mandated that switchmen on the ground must now operate the locomotive in addition to their former responsibilities. After just 80 hours of training, a novice switchman is now operating a locomotive that once took an engineer months to learn to properly operate. In addition, that engineer was required to have a federal certification and a complete understanding of the locomotive's operation. Without the experience of being "in the seat", there is no way an employee working from the ground can handle a train as efficiently or as safely as a properly trained employee in the locomotive cab. Further, now that there is no employee in the locomotive cab, there is usually no employee "on the point" (the leading end of a move) to provide protection against other trains and movements. And because these RCO jobs are often the least coveted by older workers on the railroad, they often fall to inexperienced switchmen, who are only just learning the ropes of handling switches, rail cars and the myriad other tasks of their craft. Obviously, employee safety has been greatly compromised by the advent of RCO.

On the subject of single-person operation, since it has yet to be widely implemented, one can only speculate. However, it should be obvious that its implementation will necessarily result in a downgrading of safety standards. With no other employee in the cab to confirm signals, speed restrictions, the location of track gangs, and a host of other permanent and temporary restrictions upon the train's movement, the lone employee will be placed in a position of complete and total responsibility as there will be no other co-worker to protect against mistakes or miscalculations. In addition, the extra responsibilities and tasks which were formally assumed by the conductor will now be those of the remaining employee, resulting in additional stress and distraction from the primary task of safely operating the locomotive. Finally, anytime there is a work environment where a single employee operates in remote conditions, far from other co-workers, supervisors, or in many cases no other human being whatsoever (trains often run in remote and forbidding locations, in inclement weather conditions, all hours of the day and night, far from civilization, access roads, etc.), the danger increases to that employee exponentially.

While rail workers have suffered years of craft union ineffectualness and infighting, represented as they are by an array of different organizations, the application of new technologies, such as RCO, have often served to exacerbate this division as members of different crafts scramble to protect their own at the expense of their brothers and sisters in a different craft. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers has historically represented the vast majority of the nation's engineers. Meanwhile, the United Transportation Union has represented the trainmen. But rather than unite and fight on the RCO issue, the two unions are at each others' throats. Why? Because the looming threat of this new technology, if implemented, meant that jobs were going to be lost in droves. Would these job losses be engineer jobs or would they be conductor jobs? Rather than take what would be a principled stand and collectively resist, neither union trusted the other. In 2002, the UTU beat the BLE to the punch and signed an agreement with the carriers that would allow the UTU represented conductors to be the sole operators of the RCO locomotives. As a result, thousands of engineer positions represented by the BLE in yards across the U.S. were abolished.

In the face of such behavior, there is deep seated anger. Now that it appears that the major rail carriers plan to launch an assault on the two unions designed to eliminate one of the two over-the-road positions from the engine cab (see related article, Page ___), the need for the utmost solidarity is called for. Unfortunately, in the face of the UTU's behavior regarding RCO, it should come as no surprise if the BLE fails to put up a real fight to defend the concept of two employees in the cab if and when push comes to shove. If the unions lose another round on this issue, thousands more jobs will once again be eliminated. The rail carriers have skillfully managed to undermine the natural solidarity of train-and-engine employees, whose work environment provides for an extremely close relationship. The carriers have been able to skillfully divide-and-conquer the workforce by exploiting a powerful combination of outdated craft unionism and the implementation of new technologies.

Currently there exists no organized workplace strategy to combat RCO. The BLE has been conducting an ongoing campaign with some success to lobby local and county governments to outlaw RCO as an unsafe technology. The organization has compiled a comprehensive list of accidents and injuries that have taken place across the country with the new technology, and is pushing the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to at minimum, publish a series of guidelines and regulations concerning its implementation and operation. The UTU however, once an arch foe of RCO prior to its implementation (and UTU represented crafts gaining control of the belt-packs), offers no criticism of the technology whatsoever. While many trainmen may dislike or even despise the concept and practice, probably most who use it (often newer and less senior employees) have come to accept it. (Also, they realize that if the BLE had its way, its engineers would be handling the belt-packs, and the trainmen would be out of a job). Those workers who are most negatively affected by RCO, the engineers, are from a different craft and different union, and are not involved directly in the day-to-day usage of the technology.

There is some speculation that trainmen around the country are working to rule with the new RCO technology, in an attempt to work safely and to prove the inherent inefficiency of the technology when it is applied in a genuinely safe manner. Over the last eighteen months or so, many rail terminals around the country, especially on the nation's biggest railway, the Union Pacific, have become congested and backed up, contributing to big delays out on the mainline.. How widespread the practice of working to rule actually is, and how much it has in fact contributed to this congestion can only be speculated upon. The UTU, representative of the trainmen and proud sponsor of the technology would, of course refuse to agree that there is any discontent or sabotage on the part of RCO operators.

As for a fightback on the question of single-person operation of road trains, neither union has even dared to openly discuss the possibility of the concept, let alone what may be done to oppose and combat it. Now that the carriers apparently plan to open that can of worms and push for reduced crews aboard road trains, the unions will be forced to articulate a position on the issue. What kind of a fight they mount, how effective it will be and with what degree of inter-union solidarity remains to be seen.

Ron Kaminkow

Railroad Workers I.U. # 520

Last update: 5/25/2005; 5:09:45 PM.