Remote control: Improving safety, building business

Railroads have long known that locomotive remote control is safe and efficient. They're now discovering it can help grow the top line.

By Marybeth Luczak, Managing Editor

	Puget Sound & Pacific's use of remote control helped the short line increase business by 20% last year at the Port of Grays Harbor. To handle the increase, PS&P added two employees. Puget Sound & Pacific Photo

Locomotive remote control is a safe, expedient way to get the job done-you're in total control of every movement. And it's extremely comfortable to use." That's high praise from a locomotive engineer with seven years experience. Donna Poynor, a Puget Sound & Pacific employee, uses remote control regularly to set up trains and switch cars. No longer is she restricted to operating a locomotive from inside the cab to perform switching. No longer must she rely on a brakeman's radio or hand signals to direct her moves. Poynor handles both jobs herself.

Such remote control suppliers as CANAC, Cattron-Theimeg, and Control Chief say the technology offers railroads like PS&P a safer, more efficient alternative to traditional switching operations.

Faced with an economic downturn, many railroads are looking for ways to improve efficiency. "We often ask ourselves, 'How can we do more with less, safely?'" says M.R. (Mike) Oakley, system manager-train handling performance for Canadian National. One answer, he says, is to operate with locomotive remote control.

Remote control in action

CN is one of the pioneers of locomotive remote control. Over 124 CN locomotives are equipped with CANAC's BELTPACK® system, and more than 2,100 yard and terminal employees are trained to use it. They use a BELTPACK® transmitter, which communicates with an onboard locomotive receiver to control train movements. Digital "packets" of information are sent from the transmitter via radio to the receiver, which interfaces with the cab controls. Users choose one of seven pre-programmed locomotive speeds, and the computer onboard the locomotive operates at that speed, accounting for tonnage and track grade.

CN started using remote control in the 1980s to improve safety, eliminating such human errors as visual or voice miscues, inadvertent movement, and other potential switching hazards. "It puts control of the locomotive at the point where the majority of serious injuries occur: at the coupling of cars," Oakley says. Users control the locomotive from positions adjacent to the track or train, allowing a full view of the surrounding area. According to CN, yard and terminal accident rates have dropped 56%, and there has never been an incident attributable to a remote control failure or malfunction. "While remote control will not eliminate all accidents or incidents," says B. Paul Mertes, vice president-remote control technology, "it will help reduce them by more than a factor of two."

Remote control suppliers like CANAC build many safety features into their products. Among those in BELTPACK®: a tilt detection system (if an operator tilts the transmitter more than 45 degrees, an audible alarm will sound; if the operator does not "right" the transmitter within 10 seconds, BELTPACK® will automatically bring the train to a controlled stop), protective pitch and catch (locomotive control may be transferred between a pair of operators at opposite ends of the train; although only one operator can control the locomotive at one time, either operator can apply such safety features as the emergency brake), operator alertness monitor (if an operator has not inputted a command within 50 seconds, an internal timer will sound an alarm and send a stop command to the locomotive), event recorder, remote diagnostics, 24-hour help desk support, and locomotive horn, bell, and sand control. Most important: If remote control communication fails, locomotive movement will stop.

Railroads take additional safety precautions when operating remote control, providing employee training and instituting site-specific operating rules. Indiana Rail Road, which uses four remote control systems (three from CANAC and one from Cattron-Theimeg), has set up "remote control zones" to protect employees. For example, remote control operators can lock out the yard-access switch at IRR's Indianapolis Yard to prevent other train crews from entering. "If other crews want to enter the zone, they are required to stop and ask permission from the remote control operator first," says Thomas J. Quigley, executive vice president and chief operations officer for IRR.

Taking on trucks

Remote control gives IRR the ability to compete "head-to-head with the trucking industry," says IRR President and CEO Thomas G. Hoback. "Smaller accounts that we previously would have considered marginal are now viable opportunities for new business."

One such account in Bloomington, Ind., required a switch engine based at its warehouse. "Remote control pays for us to have an engine there," says IRR's Quigley. "If we had to station a full crew as well, we may not have been able to do it."

PS&P has achieved similar results. "Remote control allows us to be more service-oriented and competitive in areas we otherwise wouldn't be," says Vice President and General Manager Thomas R. Foster. Use of the short line's four Cattron-Theimeg remote control systems helped increase business by 20% last year at the Port of Grays Harbor. To handle the increase, PS&P added two employees.

At railroads where remote control operation is used, the technology does not generally create layoffs. Remote control has enabled IRR to redistribute labor within the system, so the short line can provide "more responsive customer service and more regular work assignments and rest patterns for trainmen," says IRR's Hoback. Communication between labor and management is key. "It's like everything else-you have to make sure people feel comfortable," PS&P's Foster says. "We found that people who were at first reticent about using remote control like it now."

Customization

"It is rare that a customer accepts a standard remote control package," says Bob Aiken, chief engineer for Cattron-Theimeg. "Our forte is custom engineering, which can be as simple as moving switches or producing different size transmitters." Cattron-Theimeg's line of fully-programmable MP (Multi Processor) series of remote control systems are available in four housing styles, and users can select joystick controllers, joystick toggle controllers, or joystick paddle controllers. With Cattron-Theimeg products, users have the option to select speed control, which allows the onboard locomotive computer to control speed, or throttle and brake, which allows operators to control speed.

Remote control systems can also monitor locomotive sensors. For example, Aiken explains, an engineer stationed in a locomotive can reduce the throttle and apply sand using traditional console controls when a sensor detects a wheelslip condition. With remote control, such an action can be programmed into the system, so it can be performed automatically when wheelslip occurs.

Control Chief's Train Chief® II remote control system can be integrated with GPS and cellular telephone technology for added security. If an incident occurs, Train Chief®'s "man-down" feature can alert a dispatch office via cell phone. The office can then track the remote-control-equipped locomotive with GPS to locate the affected employee. A command recorder, which archives operator commands and locomotive responses, can help determine what caused the incident.

Many of these custom features were developed directly from customer needs. CANAC introduced the CANTRAC™ LT (Lead/Trail configuration) remote control system (part of the CANTRAC™ series of throttle and brake products) last fall for such operations as main line transfers and main line switching. Because Wheeling & Lake Erie has a number of coal shuttle moves where trains must reverse directions, the short line ordered 31 CANTRAC™ LT devices. Now operators can control lead and trailing locomotives simultaneously using a remote control transmitter from a position on the ground or in either locomotive cab. Changing train direction is as simple as moving from one locomotive to the other. "Run-around moves can hold trains up for hours," says Larry Parsons, W&LE chairman and CEO. "CANTRAC™ LT will save us, in some cases, two hours per train." It also serves as a "poor-man's distributed power system," he says, since it will improve power and braking dynamics throughout the train.

Rail customers have also requested "plug and go" remote control systems to reduce costs. Bessemer & Lake Erie recently began using three of Cattron-Theimeg's QDS (Quick Disconnect System) transportable systems. Instead of equipping every locomotive with remote control, B&LE has the flexibility to move the receiver (locomotive cab equipment) between locomotives as necessary. However, such remote control systems, though convenient, have limited functionality. While critical features like throttle, brake, horn, and sand control are retained, custom functions like sensor monitoring are not available. CANAC and Control Chief are in the design phases of similar products.

Addressing union concerns

Not everyone is in favor of remote control technology. "The United Transportation Union, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, and Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers all speak with one voice on the remote control issue," says Jim Stem, UTU alternate national legislative director. "We encourage our industry to embrace technology in many applications, but remote control demands a tremendous sacrifice on the part of rail employees." Two of the unions' main concerns are the ergonomics of the transmitters carried by rail employees and the level of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the transmitters. Suppliers are addressing both.

In an effort to make remote control use as comfortable as possible, CN started phasing in 250 of CANAC's new BELTPACK® IIe systems ("e" stands for ergonomic) last month. The new transmitter has rounded edges and weighs just 3.4 pounds. CANAC reduced transmitter weight by 32% from its earlier model and volume by 39%. This reduction is significant, as users typically carry additional equipment like two-way radios and cell phones to perform their duties. All of this weight can cause back strain and fatigue. Control Chief has similarly reduced Train Chief® II's transmitter weight, redesigning it "to allow maximum operator freedom, with such features as one-hand operation of throttle/brake and sanding operations."

The harness that remote control operators wear to hold transmitters in place must support transmitter weight and fit a variety of body types. To ensure that proper fit and support is maintained, CN recently developed a new harness with input from employees, ergonomists, and CANAC. The breathable mesh vest accommodates a remote control transmitter and two-way radio, holds switch lists, and meets personal protection requirements for visibility. Users can adjust transmitter height to suit their body type, and transmitter weight is transferred to their skeletal system through a hip belt to eliminate strain.

Control Chief offers Train Chief® II users like Minnesota, Dakota & Western an additional harness feature. If the harness or remote control transmitter gets caught on moving equipment, for instance, the harness will break away, reducing the possibility of injury.

The other union concern, unusually high levels of electromagnetic radiation, may be unfounded. According to a CN-sponsored study performed by Dr. O. P. Gandhi, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Utah, CANAC's BELTPACK® remote control system emits lower levels of radiation than a cell phone. CANAC's first generation BELTPACK® emissions are approximately 73 times lower than FCC standards set for the general population, and BELTPACK® IIe is estimated to be nearly 175 times lower. Other remote control product emission levels are said to fall into this range. In comparison, digital cell phones are only three to eight times lower. Additionally, absorption of radiation into the human body falls exponentially with distance. While the antenna on BELTPACK® is positioned at a distance of four inches from the body, a cell phone antenna is typically just 0.591 to 0.985 inches away.

A labor-management consensus on remote control use may not come quickly, but many railroads agree they would be hard-pressed to find a safer, more efficient alternative.

All eyes on FRA

The Federal Railroad Administration held a technical conference for unions, railroads, and suppliers last July to openly address remote control issues. Following that, FRA published a proposal to modify the instructions of three currently-approved railroad accident/incident reporting forms. For the next five years, U.S. railroads would have to label all remote control accidents/ incidents with a special code. With such accidents/incidents flagged, FRA can begin to establish trends. Comments are due Feb. 20.

At press time, FRA was also gearing up to issue a remote control safety advisory. "Remote control technology is proliferating," says George Gavalla, FRA associate administrator for safety. According to suppliers, there are approximately 2,000 locomotives equipped with remote control in the U.S. and 6,300 in Europe. "Now is the time, before it spreads further, to issue guidelines ensuring safety," Gavalla says. The guidelines are best practices or recommendations for remote control operation, not mandatory regulations. They cover remote control system features as well as reliability, maintainability, and system integrity.

In general terms, Gavalla says, guideline elements include:

The remote control transmitter should control such locomotive functions as throttle, brake, and horn.
Remote control systems (transmitters and receivers) should have protective features to prevent unauthorized use.
Remote control systems should prevent interference between two or more transmitters operating at one time.
Remote control systems should include safety features that stop locomotive movements if an operator becomes incapacitated.
Electromagnetic radiation emission levels from remote control transmitters should meet OSHA standards.
Remote control transmitters should be ergonomically designed so they do not cause long-term employee discomfort.
Railroads must institute remote control operating practices/procedures to preserve a safe environment.
Railroads must train/qualify their employees to use remote control systems safely. They must also inform and educate all other employees and individuals on or near the tracks where remote control locomotives are operating.
Remote control systems must be inspected/tested at regular intervals to ensure that system reliability is maintained.
Based on what we've seen thus far, if proper guidelines are adhered to, I'm confident that remote control can be used in a safe and secure manner," says FRA's Gavalla.

Not everyone is satisfied, however. "Guidelines provide the same information as regulations, but there is no incentive to comply with them," says Bob Harvey, BLE's regulatory research coordinator. "Guidelines are what you read before you program your VCR for the first time-something you won't read again until you buy your next VCR and have to program it. While I'd like to think the people in this industry are beyond that-that they take safety seriously-there are some cowboys out there."

But Gavalla points out that "if we [at FRA] determine that unforeseen problems exist, or that the safest practices are not being followed, we won't hesitate to step in."

Will guidelines increase remote control usage?

"Remote control technology will live or die based on how effective it is," says Gavalla. "If it promotes efficiency and safety, it will succeed; if it doesn't, it will fail. I don't see FRA guidelines being central to that. They will be in place to ensure that best practices are adopted."