Autonomous Trains

Recently, there has been public hearings regarding autonomous trains. Several railroads are attempting to get the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to approve the movement of trains without crews on board. The railroads feel that with recent implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) and Trip Optimizer (TO) trains can be run safely with only a single person in the locomotive cab, with the desire to eventually have none.

If you ever have to chance to ask the following questions of those suggesting and possibly approving these actions, here are some suggestions.

1. Ask them if there will be "eyes on board". By this I mean is there someone or something that will be looking outside the cab. And not just forward. Currently, most locomotives have cameras that point forward. Those cameras are used during incident investigations. But they are black and white imagery. Trains run 24 hours a day. Grainy black and white just won't do it on a dark and stormy night.



Just as critical as looking forward is the ability to look back. Will the cameras provide the distant operator with the ability to view the entire train? There have been countless events that were noticed by an on board crew member. Crews have the ability to view the entire (or most) length of the train as it goes around a curve. Several times in my short career I have noticed things that left undetected could lead to catastrophic failure if not remedied. Would a camera notice smoke billowing from an axle caused by a stuck brake? If not caught, this could easily lead to a derailment. And we haul some pretty nasty stuff.

2. If there is going to be some sort of remote monitoring, ask how many trains will an operator handle. Many of you are probably familiar with remote aircraft being piloted by a remote control. In these cases it is one pilot, one aircraft. I won't go so far as to say that operating a train is as complicated as flying, but during the course of a trip there are many things to monitor and account for. Where the trouble will arise is when an operator becomes complacent. Most train trips are rather uneventful. Just take the train from point A to point B. Follow the instructions provided by the track side signals or given by the dispatcher. But because we are actually on board can see little things that have the potential to turn a routine trip into disaster. Will a distant operator who may or may not have skin in the game be paying as close of attention as they should? How will they avoid being distracted by events in the control room? Maybe their buddy in the next cubicle is showing pictures of the recent fishing trip, or telling a story about how their kid scored the winning touchdown. Crews on board also tell stories and so forth. But we are in the cab, looking outside the cab. Not at some distant location. We can't slide our chair back to look around the cubicle wall.

Just recently, a crew was able to avoid what could have been a significant disaster. When there is only a single track to carry trains in both directions sidings were built were one train can be diverted into this siding track to allow the other train to pass by. Recently, an eastbound 5,000 foot long train was directed into a 6,300 foot long siding to meet a westbound train. The crew of the eastbound train noted the westbound train they were meeting was longer (8,000+ feet) than the siding. This was not really an issue as the eastbound train was short enough to fit in the siding. What became the problem was PTC said the signal was OK for the eastbound train to continue through the siding and out the other end. Since the conductor was aware the westbound train was 8,000+ feet long, there was no way the east end of the siding was clear for them to proceed. The engineer was able to get his train stopped, avoiding a sure incident. If this train had been running without a crew, PTC and TO would have slammed the eastbound train into the side of the westbound train at speeds near 30 MPH. At best there would have been a significant derailment. And since we haul all kinds of hazardous materials, the resulting derailment could have catastrophic for the local environment and the people living nearby.

3. Ask the "bean counters" and the lawyers if there has been a risk assessment done. Inquire as to whether or not they have accounted for any additional lives that could be lost by piloting trains remotely. If they haven't, shame. If they tell you they have and there would no increase in incidents, be very dubious. At least once a day on any point on a railroad the actions of the on board crew has saved a life. It could be blowing the horn for someone walking down the tracks, or slowing the train enough to let a truck get off the tracks at a crossing. Maybe to distant operator will see these things too. But go to back to points 1 and 2. With two people on board there is almost always someone looking outside the cab. And this does make a difference whether a member of the public does or doesn't survive an encounter.

When asking the above question about risk assessment, also ask whether or not the associated risk is worth the cost savings. If the bean counters are honest and say yes, there is potential for additional lives lost, ask them if they are OK with this potential. Are the powers that be willing to accept these losses as just collateral damage to increased profits and better return on the stock value? You might be shocked at the answer.

4. Ask them what is the cost savings getting rid of the crews that currently run the trains. I freely admit that labor costs are the most significant cost for nearly any business. And ask them if they will pass along these savings to their customers and eventually to us consumers. If they tell tell you "Of course, we'll pass along the savings", then ask them if they did this when crew consists were reduced from five to three in 1985, then to two by the end of 80's. And ask them to prove it. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that railroad customers didn't see a any sort of reduction in what the railroads charged to move their goods.

The railroads will point out that Australia is running autonomous trains. From what I hear, it has been successful. But what the railroads won't tell you is these trains are run in the vast wilderness of The Outback. There are no population centers, and very few road crossings. When these trains near population centers, the company is required to put a crew on board. And these aren't crude oil trains nor are they carrying highly hazardous materials. Can you think of any area of the USA that has as much open, nearly uninhabited land as the Australian Outback?

The one thing I'd like you ask yourself is this; why do the railroads want to do this? Is it because they believe they can better service their customers? Do they feel railroads will be safer with no humans on board their trains? Is it just a profit motive? If you ever get the chance, and are so inclined, speak to your representative. See what they have to say about it.