UTU Local 426 Archived News.
9/19/05
FRA ECHOES UTU RCL SAFETY CONCERNS
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Federal Railroad Administration has put the nation's carriers on notice that UTU safety concerns about remote control operations and remote control operator training are valid and must be addressed promptly.Responding to a Senate Commerce Committee study-assignment made at the request of the UTU, the FRA told the nation's railroads it shares the UTU's safety concerns as they "relate to the use of remote control locomotive (RCL) technology in main line movements."
More specifically, those shared UTU-FRA concerns relate to the suitability of RCL technology in non-incidental mainline train movements and the adequacy of training being provided remote control operators (RCOs).
The UTU was the first to alert Congress and the FRA that railroads were using RCL outside yards in mainline operation -- something the FRA said it was "surprised" to learn as the carriers had never notified the FRA they intended to expand use of that technology beyond its tested limitations.
Although the FRA said incidental mainline track operations (such as using a mainline for so-called tail room when switching within a yard) are "generally safe," the agency said, "non-incidental movements over mainline track by RCLs can pose an unacceptable safety risk and should be strictly limited. Further, it appears that remote control operator training provided to date is not sufficient to support non-incidental mainline operations.
"The primary problem with the current state of the RCL technology," said the FRA, "is that it is inadequate to control in-train forces during heavy-haul operations; similarly, we are concerned that the way to operate the RCL over the main track, and its variously graded conditions, without pulling the train apart, may require manipulating the remote control device in a way that is counter-intuitive to the way it was designed to be used.
With regard to remote control operator training, the FRA said, "we have concluded that the typical 80 hours of remote control operator training that is specified in each railroad's locomotive engineer certification program is inadequate to prepare a remote control operator for operating an RCL over mainline track."
FRA concerns about RCL technology
The FRA said it agreed with the UTU that the "speed control feature on the remote control transmitter (beltpack) was originally designed for yard switching operations. When used for switching, such as limited number of cars on a yard-switching lead track with limited horsepower, the system works well," the FRA said.
"When this system is used to haul trains, however, the speed control feature must be circumvented at times to control in-train forces," the FRA said. "The computer is not programmed or designed to make train-handling decisions, such as taking into account the number of cars and tonnage that are in the train being moved or the topography of the track over which the train is operating."
The FRA also agreed with UTU concerns about the RCL braking system, which the agency said is "primarily designed for yard switching movements ... FRA does not believe that further modification of RCL technology could overcome these limitations while providing a level of safety equal to that of conventional operations on the mainline."
FRA concerns about operator training
While the FRA found that training of "experienced" conductors to operate RCL is "adequate," it found inadequacies in the training of less experienced conductors. The UTU advocates significant additional training for new and less experienced employees to ensure they are completely familiar with the physical plant, understand RCL operating procedures, and are otherwise qualified to operate the equipment.
More specifically, the FRA said:
-- Remote control operators should be required to have the same or the equivalent level of classroom training as that provided for conventional train service engineers on each railroad when RCL equipment is used for mainline operations.
-- Each remote control operator should have a minimum of 120 hours of actual, documented hands-on operating experience, and training programs should "remain flexible and provide more than the minimum on-the-job training" to be determined on a "case-by-case basis" depending, for example, upon track profile and environment.
Restrictions on mainline operations
The FRA recommended that where railroads do "choose to conduct RCL operations outside of yard switching operations," they:
-- Establish standard operating procedures that limit RCL movements outside of yard switching operations;
-- Limit those operations to locomotive consists not exceeding 3,000 horsepower, utilizing no more than eight axles;
-- Limit train length to no more than 1,000 feet (approximately 20 car lengths);
-- Limit train speeds to no more than 15 mph;
-- Prohibit operations on any grade of 0.5 percent or greater than extends for more than one-quarter mile.
The FRA warned that while its recommendations "are subject to discussion and adaptation, it will be necessary to determine that reasonable limits are being set in practice or FRA will have to take more definitive action."
The FRA also recommended "that railroads adopt operational restrictions that reflect the inherent limitations of a system configured for yard operations that rely upon radio-frequency transmission of safety-critical demands."
UTU International President Paul Thompson said the FRA letter to carriers "validates what the UTU has been telling Congress, the FRA and railroads since the inception of RCL operations. In fact, these areas have been the subject of extensive discussion during recent mediated negotiations in response to the railroads' Section 6 notices," Thompson said.
"We have made clear to the carriers," Thompson said, "that they must increase the use of mentoring programs that focus on local conditions; that training is not a one-time event and more attention must be devoted to upgrading skills to match introduction of new technology; that greater emphasis must be placed on teaching the proper application of operating rules; and that railroads must stop stretching the envelope by using RCL beyond its design capabilities.
"We expect this FRA letter will accelerate those talks and lead to a safer operating environment," Thompson said.
Click here to view the full letter, which was signed by FRA's associate administrator for safety, Daniel C. Smith, and sent to the presidents of the Association of American Railroads and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association for dissemination to all railroad CEOs and chief operating officers.
9/1/05
September 1, 2005
UTU Brothers & Sisters:
In the wake of the tragic devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina,
we are seeking photos for the UTU NEWS depicting the damage done to
the railroads in the affected areas.
I am sending this out to those on my e-mail list, even though I
realize many of you are not in the affected Gulf states. I trust
you'll forgive me and simply delete this message if you're in
another part of the country.
There's simply no quick or easy way for me to sort through the many
addresses I have -- and in many cases, there's no way I can reach
those in affected areas by telephone, so I thought I'd try this
route. I understand that if the phones aren't working, there's
probably little chance of an e-mail message getting through, and the
immediate concerns of those in the area outweigh any "needs" of the
UTU NEWS, but you never know -- maybe someone in the periphery of
the area will see this or will relay the request to someone who,
somehow, has photos of interest.
A handful of photos have already been forwarded to us and are on
display on our website at:
http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_news.cfm?ArticleID=23308
Digital photos can be e-mailed to us at:
utunews@utu.org
Hard-copy pictures can be mailed to:
UTU News
14600 Detroit Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44107-4250
We thank you for your consideration of this request, and urge all to
donate to the relief fund set up by the UTU to benefit all rail
workers and their families, regardless of craft or union affiliation
(and any affected UTU bus workers.)
As indicated on the UTU website, checks should be made out to the
"UTU Katrina Relief Fund" and mailed to:
UTU Katrina Relief Fund
Attn: Cheryl Sneed
United Transportation Union
14600 Detroit Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44107
Again, thank you for your patience with this message, and a special
thanks to those who have contributed to this fund.
John H. Horvath
UTU NEWS/Public Relations
United Transportation Union
14600 Detroit Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44107-4250
(216) 228-9400 Ext. 341 Voice
(216) 228-5755 Fax
j_horvat@utu.org
utunews@utu.org
To stay informed go to WWW.UTU.ORG
FACTS ARE FACTS IN BLE VIA RAIL SELL-OUT
Facts are facts when it comes to the BLE sellout of conductors on Via Rail.
FACT No. 1: In 1999, the Canadian Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) ruled that the BLE had “breached its statutory duty of fair representation in negotiating three items of a collective bargaining agreement” with Via Rail.
FACT No. 2: The CIRB ruled that in breaching its statutory duty of fair representation, the BLE failed to create conductor general committees of adjustment as promised, failed to provide craft autonomy to conductors as promised and acted in a discriminatory and prejudicial manner toward conductors and assistant conductors by signing an agreement with Via Rail that failed to provide conductors and assistant conductors with the necessary training to perform the duties of the new craft.
FACT No. 3: The CIRB ruled that the BLE, along with Via Rail, must reimburse some 230 conductors for any lost earnings or potential earnings, and also must pay all legal fees and expenses incurred by those conductors and assistant conductors. The CIRB will determine how much Via Rail must pay and how much the BLE must pay.
FACT No. 4: It is estimated that the award, when finalized by the CIRB, could total in the tens of millions of dollars.
FACT No. 5: The BLE challenged the CIRB decision in the lower courts, including a federal appeals court, and lost.
FACT No. 6: In May 2003, the CIRB reprimanded the BLE for delaying the final damages award determination through “a flurry of legal proceedings.”
FACT No. 7: In January 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the lower court decisions that denied all BLE appeals.
FACT No. 8: That Supreme Court of Canada decision also affirmed the CIRB ruling that the BLE had “breached its statutory duty of fair representation.” The Supreme Court of Canada ordered the CIRB to conclude its determination of damages to be paid the conductors and assistant conductors.
FACT No. 9:
The CIRB is in the process of finalizing the award of damages to
conductors and assistant conductors. The final determination is
expected before spring 2006. The CIRB said it will determine the
final amount to be awarded the conductors and assistant conductors
on an individual basis.
FACT No. 10: During the proceedings
before the CIRB, BLE Vice President Gilles Halle admitted under oath
that the BLE had lied to Via Rail conductors and assistant
conductors. He said under oath that the BLE “cannot be held
accountable for what was said during a campaign and there can be no
reasonable expectation on the part of UTU members that they would
obtain all they had been promised.”
FACT No. 11: The CIRB responded to Halle’s assertion by ruling, “What these proceedings have brought to light is the BLE’s recklessness in telling the conductors and assistant conductors” fabricated promises.
FACT No. 12: The CIRB also ruled (affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada) that “the BLE failed to uphold a reasonable standard of competence in representing its members and, in this regard, is accountable to them for its shortcomings.”
FACT No. 13: On July 12, 2005, in the wake of the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, the CIRB ordered Via Rail and the BLE to dovetail conductors and assistant conductors into the BLE engineer seniority roster using their trainmen date of seniority. This was accomplished in August.
FACT No. 14: On July 18, BLE (now Teamsters Canada Rail Conference) Vice President Gilles Halle wrote his engineer members, “Brothers and sisters, this is a decision from the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. The issue of seniority has been ruled on and after all these years of debate we must apply it in conformity with the board’s decision. Hoping you will understand that there is no more we can do on the seniority issue.”
FACT No. 15: At the time of the BLE-Teamsters merger vote in late 2003, the BLE published on its website “Questions and Answers” regarding that merger. The Q&A made clear that notwithstanding the merger and creation of a separate Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, there would be “no change” in “financial obligations,” meaning the BLET will not be able to avoid its financial obligation with regard to the damages that will be awarded by the CIRB; and the Teamsters will not be contributing to the payment.