Both accident and injury rates have declined where RCL has been implemented, the FRA said.

The UTU was behind the Senate Commerce Committee directive that FRA perform an intensive and detailed study of RCL safety. The FRA report is based upon data and other input gathered by its own safety inspectors, individual railroads, the UTU and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.

The FRA report, termed "preliminary" because a final report will be issued within another 12 months, assessed the impact of RCL on safety, including a comparison of the rate of accidents, injuries and fatalities involving RCL with similar operations involving manned locomotives.

Additionally, the report assessed the safety impacts of RCL at highway-rail grade crossings, on hazardous materials transportation and in urban areas, and considered any unique operating characteristics presented by RCL.

"Preliminary data indicate the safety record of RCL operations over the past seven months (May 1, 2003 through Nov. 30, 2003) has been quite positive," the FRA said.

"RCL train accident rates were found to be 13.5 percent lower than the train accident rates for conventional switching operations over the same period, while employee injury rates were found to be an impressive 57.1 percent lower for RCL operations than for conventional switching operations," the FRA said.

"The UTU did not want remote control technology just as no union welcomed other new technology that threatens employment," said UTU International President Paul C. Thompson. "But like diesel locomotives, radios and end-of-train devices, no union has ever been successful in halting the introduction of new technology.

"After 10 years experience of remote control operations in Canada, it was apparent that major railroads were going to introduce remote control in the U.S.," Thompson said. "It was further obvious that the Bush administration would not stand in the way, especially in light of improved safety data flowing out of the Canadian experience.

"Realizing we could not stop this new technology, and knowing that previous introductions of new technology resulted in significant job losses, the UTU negotiated its implementation," Thompson said. "Those negotiations led to an agreement -- overwhelmingly ratified by the UTU membership -- assuring not one single UTU member lost their job as a result of introduction of this new technology. That is unprecedented in the history of the railroad industry.

"We also gained for our members additional earnings to operate the new technology," Thompson said, "and sought to gain the same job protections for the other organization, which it declined."

Thompson praised the continuing efforts of Assistant President Rick Marceau in working with general chairpersons to ensure the introduction of RCL includes appropriate training and does not stretch the safety limitations of the new technology. Many of the FRA recommendations contained in the report echo previous UTU concerns.

The FRA said its goal has been to "identify a set of best practices to guide the rail industry when implementing" what it termed the "emerging" RCL technology.

The FRA said it has sought to restrict RCL operations to yard switching-type operations at slow speed yards, although the agency's guidelines permit "some limited main track movements to move a few cars a short distance to gain access to an industrial park or shipper."

The agency said it had dispatched regional safety inspectors to investigate all known locations where RCL operations occur on main tracks. Most of the RCL main-track movements were found to be short movements with limited numbers of cars, and the operators were appropriately trained," the FRA said. The agency said it would continue to monitor and evaluate the RCL main track operations, especially those that stretch the limits of the technology.

The FRA addressed several specific issues related to RCL operations.

-- The agency agreed with the UTU that while the initial crop of remote control operators were veteran employees familiar with rail safety and operating rules, new and inexperienced hires not familiar with working around moving freight cars in busy classification yards should not be confronted with learning railroad operations while simultaneously learning to be remote control operators.

-- The FRA recommended each remote control locomotive have a "distinct and unambiguous audible or visual warning device that indicates to nearby personnel that the locomotive is under active remote control and subject to movement."

-- The FRA said it frowns on the practice of remote control operators riding on the side of freight cars when using RCL technology and urges railroads to ban the practice. Only CSX has done so. Other railroads, as well as the United Transportation Union, believe there are occasions where it is more safe for the operator to ride on the side of freight cars when using RCL technology -- especially where yard footing is not secure. As a result, the FRA has not imposed a unilateral ban.

-- The FRA addressed point protection for train movement. "The leading cause of train accidents in conventional switching operations involves the failure of train crews to provide point protection for the train movement," the FRA said. Point protection is the practice of having a member of the train crew in position to see the track ahead of the train movement to ensure that the track is clear and that switches are properly lined each time the train changes direction.

"Failure to provide point protection has also been a causal factor in many RCL train accidents," the FRA said. "Establishing point protection for RCL operations raises challenges since there is no engineer on the locomotive to provide the point protection on that end of the train movement. While one solution would be to require a remote control operator to protect the point each time there is an RCL train movement, this practice would greatly reduce the speed and efficiency of RCL operations," the FRA said.

"To meet this challenge, railroads have adopted a Canadian practice of establishing remote control zones," the FRA said, but noted that procedures differ across individual railroads and that some "appear to be excessively complicated." As a result, the FRA will conduct audits "to ensure train crew compliance with point protection rules and remote control zones and issue recommendations at a later date.

-- The FRA stressed that when RCL operations cross public highway-rail grade crossings, train crews must provide proper protection at the crossing per existing operating rules. One railroad has experimented with remote camera systems whereby the remote control operator remains on the switching lead and observes the crossing from a video monitor. The FRA has halted this practice pending further study.

A final report on RCL safety will be issued by the FRA within 12 months and include a new safety-data assessment along with additional recommendations that could include proposed new regulations, the FRA said.

To view the full report, go to this Internet web address:

www.fra.dot.gov/Content2.asp?P=1462