Robot trains? Railroads call for greater automation

Driverless cars are gaining traction. Could driverless trains be next?

Railroads are pressing for increased automated operations and autonomous trains in the rail industry, while groups concerned about safety say automation should assist human operations, but not replace them.

Opponents say there are some tasks that can be performed only by humans, while proponents of increased automated operations and autonomous trains claim it would eliminate or reduce accidents attributed to human error.

In comments filed to the Federal Railroad Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration this month, the Association of American Railroads argued that in order to improve railroad efficiency and capacity, automation in the industry is necessary. Fully automated trains, the association said, “are certainly in the future” and plausible, either with human crews or without them.

“The bottom line is machines can detect more, respond faster, and provide a larger window for action, than a safety system that is subject to the limitations inherent in human eyes, minds and hands,” the association said.

The FRA requested the information to gain insight on the state of automation in the industry, and to learn how the FRA can best support deploying automated systems that would enhance safety and capacity, according to a Federal Register notice the FRA posted in March. Additionally, the FRA was seeking details on how the rail industry plans to include automated train systems, the expected benefits and challenges to reach the rail industry’s automation goals, and “expectations related to potential fully-automated rail operations.”

In its filing, the Association of American Railroads pointed to safety data from the Department of Transportation that attributed more than a third of train accidents to human error. As a result, the group argued that “autonomous operations will greatly reduce the level of human input and interaction required to operate a train and will improve safety through the reduction (or even elimination) or human error.”

The group also pushed back on concerns that automation would hurt jobs, and noted that the only fully autonomous train in the world has one crew member aboard. Likewise, they admitted autonomous trains would “require human response” in some instances and that the creation and implementation of positive train control, technology that automatically reduces speeds of trains that are over the speed limit, has established more railroad jobs.

But the Transportation Division for the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Union claimed in their own comments to the FRA that there are a plethora of tasks that humans complete using their “perception and judgement” that cannot be substituted with automation, including spotting issues before they become problematic, checking track conditions, and identifying hostile actors in a way automated technology cannot detect.

Additionally, SMART’s Transportation Division pointed out that separating a train in order to open a blocked road crossing is a two-person job.

“We know that it is vital that you have the eyes and ears of real people on these trains,” said John Risch, national legislative director of the SMART Transportation Division.

The union also warned in their comments to the FRA that automation of train operations could lead to the loss of “tens of thousands of good paying union jobs across America.” They noted that remote-control operations in railroad yards have contributed to “significant” job losses for locomotive engineers and others.

Risch said some automation was already occurring in the industry, and said SMART’s Transportation Division has long supported implementing positive train control. However, he added that this type of automation and technology should serve as a supplement to crew members.

“Positive train control is a backup, it’s a redundant safety feature,” Risch said. “Positive train control cannot replace either one or both crew members.”

Risch also pointed out that despite advanced automation in the aviation industry, the Federal Aviation Administration requires that U.S. airlines have at least two pilots in the cockpit.

“Airplanes can fly themselves, but there are rules prohibiting airlines from having anything less than two pilots in the cockpit — for very good reason,” Risch said. “Things don’t always go as planned.”

Although most freight trains are operated by two people, one-person crews are not prohibited. However, the FRA proposed a rule in 2014 that would require a two-person crew and legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate that would also demand a two-person crew minimum.

The Association of American Railroads has historically opposed efforts to mandate crew size, and in the comments filed this month the group criticized the FRA for proposing the rule once it appeared railroads might incorporate more automation, rather than promoting potential advancements or compiling data on the correlation between crew size and safety.

The Association of American Railroads recommended the Department of Transportation allow and support the rail industry as it moves toward automation, and pushed the agency to take a similar outlook on automation in the rail industry as it has with trucks and cars.

“The Department of Transportation has encouraged the development and deployment of this game-changing technology in other transportation sectors, and we hope this is the beginning of an ongoing conversation about how it can be put to work across the world’s best freight rail network,” Edward Hamberger, president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads, said in a statement this month.

As a result, the association urged the Department of Transportation to “shift its regulatory approach and attitudes” so that policies were adopted that would facilitate the creation and installment of automated operations in the industry. For example, the group proposed that a replacement or amendment be added to Department of Transportation regulations to alter mentions of a “person” to also include “technology that accomplishes the same purpose.”

The association also pressed the FRA to test new technology via testing programs and requested the agency “debunk any public misconceptions by vocally promoting the potential benefits of future rail automation and the safety benefits it will yield.”

Meanwhile, SMART’s Transportation Division is urging the FRA to remember its orders from Congress to promote and advance safety and therefore, consider safety ramifications when weighing the role automation will play in the rail industry moving forward.

Additionally, Risch said SMART’s Transportation Division “hope[s] Congress does the right thing and acts on legislation” in the House and Senate that would mandate all trains have at least two crew members on board.

“Automation does help in many respects, but automation is no replacement for crew members operating the trains,” Risch said.

“There are just some things you can’t do with technology,” he added.

Related Content