Fastfrt1 Table of Contents Page

This page if for Safety Issues that we know about...If you have any Safety Concerns, Please E-mail a Division Officer or the Web-Master and it WILL BE POSTED HERE

* Note: There is a difference between filling out an injury report and making a statement...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want each and every one of you to know, that all of you have the right to SHOP a Jitney, if you feel it is unsafe to operate over the road, it does not matter how far the ride is, you would not drive your car with your kids in it in an unsafe conduction, why should we be forced to ride in some of these jitneys.

Matt Kronyak

Remote control train kills UP switchman: Critics say Utah death highlights hazards

(The following story by John O'Connell appeared on the Idaho State Journal website on April 12.)

RIVERDALE, Utah -- A 38-year-old Union Pacific Railroad switchman was killed early Monday after he apparently fell under a freight car being pushed by a remotely-controlled locomotive.

Union Pacific officials have not released the employee's name, pending notification of members of the family.

But according to the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, whose members have voiced safety concerns about the use of remotely-controlled traincar switching, it was the victim's second day of work at the Riverdale switch yard after a transfer from Salt Lake City. Riverdale is located about 30 miles north of Salt Lake City.

The man had eight months of total experience with the railroad and was not wearing the appropriate safety gear to assist with remotely-controlled switching, according to the BLET.

UP has been implementing remotely-controlled operations at switch yards throughout its system for the past few years. The technology arrived in Pocatello in February, making the Gate City the first yard in Idaho to start switching cars without engineers.

It now takes only a foreman and helper working remote control belt packs to switch cars and make up trains, sometimes up to a half mile away from the locomotive. When anyone wearing a belt pack falls, a safety mechanism shuts off the train. Engineers in the switch yards who have been displaced by remote control trains have been moved to long-haul trains.

Monday's victim was believed to have been riding on the freight car and there were no witnesses who saw the 3:50 a.m. accident, Union Pacific spokesman John Bromley said.

Bromley said he was not wearing a belt pack at the time, so the locomotive did not stop when he fell. When his co-workers lost radio contact with the man, they searched for him, Bromley said.

"There were no witnesses. But apparently, he fell under the car," Bromley said, adding UP is conducting an investigation to determine what happened. "It's kind of hard to determine if an engineer could have seen him or not. It's hard to say. There's no way I could guess (if an engineer could have prevented the accident)."

Detective Nolan Geilmann, of the Riverdale Police Department, said he's in the midst of an investigation, and he doesn't believe there was any criminal wrongdoing behind the accident.

"Speculatively, we think he slipped off the train. He was there alone," Geilmann said.

The Federal Railroad Administration is also investigating the accident, according to spokesman Warren Flatau. Flatau said the FRA's Region 7 inspector has already started the investigation, which will entail inspecting equipment and infrastructure.

Flatau said investigations usually take upwards of seven months.

He said switching is usually conducted at slow speeds, and statistics have shown remote control switching to be safe.

"We are investigating it as we do with all employee fatalities," Flatau said. "I know there was switching going on, but they haven't given me anything definitive yet."

Flatau said it is too early to determine if the presence of an engineer on the train would have made a difference.

In their lobbying against remote control trains, BLET leaders have said the switchmen who operate them have much less experience than the engineers had, an extra set of eyes is always a good thing and additional workers have been brought in to make up for inefficiencies of the technology.

To become an operator, an employee with eight months of experience, such as the victim of the Riverdale accident, is required to have six days of classroom training and 15 days of training on the job with an instructor.

"He's one of the people we were worried about who may or may not have been properly trained," said Mike Hysell, the BLET's legislative representative for southern Idaho and a locomotive engineer on a train from Pocatello to Nampa. "The amount of time he was employed with the railroad and the experience (in the Riverdale yard) is definitely a factor."

Jim Lance, chairman of the local BLET, said at this point, it's unclear if the presence of an engineer could have prevented the accident. However, he agrees the inexperience of the switchmen UP is allowing to operate remote control trains is a factor in it.

"He should have had a belt pack on in order to protect him," Lance said. "It drives right at the heart of the issue. We have a concern about lack of training and lack of safety."

By Mark K. Ricci, Ph.D.
Chairman, Washington State Legislative Board
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

CLEVELAND, April 6 -- The BLET, the UTU and representatives from all major railroads operating in the US, have joined forces to implement an integrated fatigue management plan for the entire rail industry. In the past, this Work/Rest Task Force actively employed the good faith efforts of many labor and management representatives. However, the efforts of the last decade did not produce the mitigation of fatigue necessary to foster a desired level of safe railroad operation and did not address the level of fatigue experienced by operating employees.

On February 16, 2005, railroad officers and labor leaders issued a statement of principles designed to invigorate fatigue management efforts in the US using fatigue management plans. Much of the current work has built on the successes of labor and management in the late 1990’s with one major difference: the adoption of a concept of a “continuous improvement process.” In scientific terms, this means evaluating existing and new processes and collaborating (management and labor) to design processes that improve fatigue mitigation and provide a safer railroad operation. In a Hoghead’s language it means taking the call, setting out the bad orders, and highballing again.

Like you, I know that the train is not ready to move until the brakes have been checked, the power is ready, and the signal is a high green. This is the same idea that is going to provide a workable fatigue management plan to mitigate unsafe levels of railroad worker fatigue.

The difference in the current attempt to address fatigue is the willingness to evaluate the effects of the fatigue mitigation efforts, get rid of what does not work, and try new strategies that have been shown to work in other locations. Evaluation is the key difference between the effort adopted on February 16, 2005, by labor and management and all previous attempts to address fatigue. Further, since evaluation must be integrated into the process from the very beginning, engineers do not need to wait 5 years to determine if this is going to be a success or a failure. Engineers are going to know within months if these strategies are “loading or just idling.”

Management and Labor working together in good faith, will give individual railroad workers the ability to retain the greatest number of options possible to address their individual experience of fatigue. Unfortunately, given the history of railroad worker fatigue, accidents investigated by the NTSB, and ongoing research, this is perhaps the last best hope for an industry inspired solution before a public call for action imposes a fatigue solution that may not be empathetic to railroad culture.

It seems to me that the UTU bought out the brakeman and now they want him back at the expense of the engineer...

(The following story by Dan Weikel appeared on the Los Angeles Times website on November 22.)

LOS ANGELES -- Two of the nation's largest railroads are turning to remote-controlled locomotives in their freight terminals throughout Southern California — part of a national trend that has drawn fire from the engineers union.

The technology, which allows a worker to operate a locomotive with no engineer aboard, has been phased in by Burlington Northern Santa Fe over two years. Union Pacific is now training operators at its freight yards in Orange, Los Angeles and Riverside counties.

Company officials say the arrangement is cheaper and safer than traditional methods that use so-called switch engines to assemble cars into freight trains.

"The safety record is superior to the conventional approach," said John Bromley, a spokesman for Union Pacific, "and we believe remotes can match or surpass engineer-driven locomotives in efficiency."

The transition to remote-controlled engines in Southern California is part of a three-year effort by the nation's seven major railroads to adopt the technology, which has long been used in Canada.

But one of the most powerful railroad unions in the United States, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, has launched a national campaign against the technology — prompting scores of cities, including San Francisco and Detroit, to pass resolutions limiting its use.

Union officials say the technique is not as safe as the railroads assert, moves fewer freight cars during work shifts than use of conventional engines, and threatens to eliminate hundreds, if not thousands, of well-paying jobs for engineers.

Although the railroads disagree, union representatives say the remote-controlled engines could be a harbinger of automated freight trains that would travel long distances with no one aboard to act in case of emergency.

The railroads "have blindly jumped into this thing, thinking it will cure all their ills," said Timothy L. Smith, a Brotherhood official in California who has studied radio-controlled locomotives. "With all the new technology, CEOs will not be happy until they can go to work and push a green button and have their life-size Lionel train set move automatically."

Since February 2002, Burlington Northern Santa Fe has installed remote-controlled equipment in at least 265 locomotives at 57 locations — about 45% of the company's switch engines. It has trained at least 4,800 employees in their use.

Remote-controlled locomotives now operate at the company's freight terminals in Los Angeles, San Bernardino and San Diego counties.

Union Pacific has begun training in Anaheim and Santa Fe Springs for the first of about 400 employees assigned to freight yards in Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties. All are scheduled to be trained by April 2005, Bromley said.

The trainees are switching personnel and conductors who receive about two weeks of instruction. Unlike train engineers, who get six months of training for their regular job, remote operators are not qualified for main-line work. Yard workers also are paid considerably less.

Except for very short runs on main tracks, remote-controlled locomotives are almost exclusively confined to switching yards where freight cars are assembled into trains.

A conventional switching crew comprises an engineer in the cab and two workers on the ground who switch tracks and direct the movement of cars. They rely on hand signals and radios to communicate with the engineer.

With a remote-controlled locomotive, the engineer is eliminated, leaving two yard workers to conduct the switching operations. One or both can operate the locomotive via a radio transmitter mounted on a belt. The controls duplicate those in the engine's cab.

If an operator stumbles or falls, or if the radio signal to the locomotive is interrupted, the system is designed to stop the engine automatically.

Another precaution includes creation of marked safety zones in freight yards where only remote-controlled engines can operate. Also, the transmitter unit sounds an alarm if the operator does not touch the controls within 45 seconds.

Though engineers are losing yard jobs, Burlington Northern and Union Pacific officials say the shift to remote-controlled engines has not resulted in layoffs. They say the new locomotives are freeing engineers so they can be sent where they are needed most — to operate trains on main lines where there is a shortage of operators.

Company and government officials say the technology has reduced a major cause of yard accidents — miscommunication between the engineer and the workers on the ground.

"The beauty of remote control is that it puts the operation of the engine into the hands of the switchman, who is the most at risk," said Grady Cothen, acting safety director for the Federal Railroad Administration, which is monitoring remote operations and providing guidelines.

In a May 2004 interim report, the FRA concluded that remote-control-related accident rates were more than 13% lower from May to November 2003 than accident rates for conventional switching operations over the same period. The report also showed that employee injury rates were 57% lower for remote-controlled engines. A final report is due out next year.

In Canada, where remote-controlled engines have been used since 1989, the Canadian National Railway reported that from 1997 to 2001 the accident rate for those units was 44% lower than the accident rate for conventional switch engines.

Union officials, however, say there have been more deaths and amputations associated with remote-controlled locomotives than conventional switch engines. Their study of a 24-month period starting in January 2002 concluded that remote-related accidents have killed four workers and severed limbs in another four cases.

Conventional operations, union officials say, killed only two people, although manned engines did most of the switching work for the two-year period.

"More research needs to be done on safety," Smith said.

Federal Railroad Administration officials question the union's statistics. They cite the findings of an agency working group, which concluded that only one of the last six deaths involving switching operations was related to a remotely controlled engine. But the technology was not the cause.

Since its campaign began, the union estimates that nearly 60 cities, including Commerce in Los Angeles County, have passed resolutions opposing remote operations, though federal law overrides them. Nevertheless, Smith said the resolutions send "a clear and concise message" to railroad companies.

Though saving jobs is an issue for the union, Smith said the overriding concern was the safety of the public and railroad workers.

Trained and certified engineers, union officials say, should operate remote-controlled locomotives in the nation's freight yards because they are the most qualified and experienced.

Railroad companies say, however, that the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen is simply trying to protect the jobs of its members.

"The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers does not complain when they have a contract to operate remote-control locomotives," said Tom White, a spokesman for the American Assn. of Railroads, a trade organization and lobbying arm for rail companies.

The union has a labor contract with Montana Rail Link, a 900-mile system. Its engineers are cross-trained to operate remote-controlled locomotives.

(The following editorial by Ken Rodriguez was posted on the San Antonio Express-News website on November 22.)

SAN ANTONIO, Texas -- Seven train derailments in Bexar County since May, five fatalities since June, and Union Pacific is literally asleep.

America's largest railroad opens a 24-hour safety command center here while some if its engineers say they doze off on locomotives.

UP increases walking inspections and re-instructs managers while some of its engineers claim they are working on two to three hours of sleep.

"I nodded off several times last night," one Texas engineer told me Saturday morning. "It was tough to stay awake."

The engineer fears he will be fired if he discloses his name, so we'll call him Michael. Michael says he rarely reports to work having slept more than four hours. One day in the spring, he became overwhelmed by exhaustion.

"I told my wife, 'I'm dreading going to work tonight, I'm afraid I'll fall asleep and kill myself or kill somebody,'" he says. "I worry about that all the time."

Michael's story is not uncommon, judging from the engineers I spoke with. They said they are sleep deprived. They receive no assigned days off. They often work 70 to 80 hours a week. Some say they've fallen sound asleep on the job.

Fatigue sometimes is cited as a contributing factor in rail accidents, and staffing levels long have been an issue between the railroad and the unions representing its workers.

Keith Pratt, 68, a retired UP engineer in La Grande, Ore., says he fell asleep once, and narrowly missed a head-on collision with another train.

"The night before, I didn't get much sleep," Pratt says, "Just two, three hours maybe."

One former West Coast UP engineer-in-training quit, fearing a job that would have put her on call seven days a week.

"I was told, 'You need to learn to go to work with sleep deprivation,'" the former UP employee recalls. "I couldn't believe it. I feared not only for my life, but I feared for my co-workers. I feared for the general public."

Union Pacific, of course, fears bad public relations. Third quarter profits, after all, are down. The last thing UP wants is a wave of negative publicity, but the truth stings when it strikes right between closed eyes.

And the truth is that nearly a dozen UP engineers and conductors across the country have told me they are fatigued, afraid and battling to stay awake.

"If anyone says he hasn't ever nodded off, he's lying," Michael says.

"That's absolutely right," adds one California conductor. "You are fatigued all the time."

"I nodded off a couple of nights ago," a California engineer admits. "It's frightening. I'm not a disgruntled employee. I like my job. But Union Pacific needs to pay more attention to fatigue."

Contrast these comments with a message on UP's Web site, which reads: "At Union Pacific, safety is No. 1."

Engineers never know when they will be called. Deciding when to sleep is often guesswork. And sometimes, right when they prepare to lie down, they're called in to work.

Here's the UP spin: Engineers are not allowed to spend more than 12 consecutive hours on the rails.

Here's the reality: After a 12-hour shift, some engineers wait hours for a ride to get home or to a hotel. That's when their official day ends, sometimes 15 or 16 hours after it begins.

One area engineer recalls working a 98-hour week.

"It was 14 hours a day, seven days in a row," he says.

Here's another UP spin: Its engineers are given a minimum of eight hours rest between shifts.

Here's the reality: Engineers spend much of those off hours catching up with spouses, playing with children, doing chores, showering and eating. Little time is left for sleep.

UP says engineers have ample opportunity for rest. The railroad has a chart showing that, in one recent 40-day work period, only four San Antonio rail employees worked more than 34 days. UP says the chart is typical of other systems in the country, though it did not provide supporting evidence.

Nor did it provide any evidence to counter the claim that sleep deprivation is a problem.

It is. The Federal Railroad Administration says fatigue was a possible factor in two local derailments. UP says it's working on the fatigue issue. How? It's conducting a long-term study with the FRA.

UP, how about studying this: Your engineers are dozing. Your trains are derailing. People are dying. Wake up before the next engineer falls asleep and gets someone killed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------