British Columbia, Canada. How can rail-
roads prevent these types of incidents?
A Well, our review of the facts indicates
that [electronically controlled pneumatic]
brakes could have prevented both the Sher-
man Hill and the Spiral Tunnel accidents.
The Sherman Hill accident is still under
investigation by NTSB, but FRA has been in
communication with Transport Canada on
the Spiral Tunnel accident. One of FRA’s air-
brake experts went to Canada to discuss the
safety issue and provide advice. This has to
do with leaving trains in emergency, espe-
cially on a grade, and having brakes bleed
off. That’s certainly an issue. That’s a risk that
is characteristic of the type of brake systems
that we use on freight trains. The railroads
need to find ways to improve the brake
systems on these big freight trains. ECP
always comes to mind because that’s a very,
very powerful technology that could have
prevented these accidents.
The railroads have said there really
isn’t that much difference in performance,
overall, between ECP brakes and tradi-
tional brakes. Are you suggesting that in
cold temperatures they would respond
better than the traditional brake system?
A I think that ECP would have a signifi-
cant advantage in cold temperatures because
ECP brakes continuously charge the train,
which eliminates the risk of brakes bleeding
off, which is a factor that caused this train to
roll away. Keeping the brake system charged
would have maintained brake-cylinder pres-
sure and kept the train stationary.
Also, ECP brakes can provide many ben-
efits for train operations. ECP brake opera-
tions eliminate most significant in-train
forces and reduces stopping distance in both
service and emergency brake. Reductions in
service brake of 50% to 60% have been doc-
umented in tests conducted by the railroads.
ECP brakes also provide a communications
backbone down the entire length of the
train, so that now you can get real-time
information in the cab of the locomotive on
the health of each individual car. The com-
munications backbone monitors train conti-
nuity [no more kinked-hose accidents], pro-
vides real-time brake health monitoring on
individual cars, and, if properly equipped,
the ability to detect hot journals, or even a
derailed axle. There are so many things with
ECP brakes that you just can’t achieve with
conventional pneumatic brakes.
At some point, the railroads are going
to have to bite the bullet and implement
ECP brake systems. Frankly, it takes a long
time to stop a freight train because they
have such lousy brakes. ECP brakes can
improve braking and pave the way for
future innovation such as automated train
operation and moving signal blocks.What do you think of automated track
inspection systems, like the sensor-laden
boxcars Canadian National has or the
locomotive-based systems that can moni-
tor track conditions in real time?A I don’t think we’re ever going to totally
put the track inspector out of business. But
certainly, the new technology that uses sen-
sors and machine vision to measure track
deviations is really the future. FRA has is-
sued waivers to support pilot programs that
assess the capabilities of the new technolo-
gy. We work closely with railroads thatsponsor the pilot programs, but FRA insists
that the railroads make the safety case
themselves. We can’t do it for them. We’re
very excited about new technology and the
impact it will have on safety and moving
the industry forward in the 21st century.Do you see Precision Scheduled Rail-
roading, which is currently being adopted
by three of the Class I systems, having any
impact on safety?A Nobody at FRA is against PSR. It’s
essentially a way to move goods faster and
more efficiently, which has been the name
of the game in the railroad industry for-
ever. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. What
we do get concerned with is how it’s imple-
mented. Certainly, some of the decisions
that have been made, like allowing railroad
workers to board moving equipment and
raising the speed limits in yards, increase
risk without mitigating it. There’s also
financial pressure associated with imple-
menting PSR, which may encourage risky
behavior, so we are watching the industry
very closely. One thing I personally don’t
like about PSR is that the railroads are
looking for a fast turnaround. A more
gradual adoption to PSR would be safer
than the rip-off-the-Band-Aid approach.
With change comes risk, not just to the
railroad but to the viability of the industry.
PSR should be part of a long-term plan,
not a get-rich-quick scheme to get stock
prices up. A lot of what BNSF Executive
Chairman Matt Rose said about PSR makes
sense to me — I agree with him completely.What other issues do you see that
involve safety?A In my view, the public is getting more
powerful. We get complaint after complaint
about blocked crossings, noisy trains, and
quiet zones. We don’t have regulations in
all these areas, and if someone leaves diesel
engines running outside your house, or if a
train blows its whistle at a trespasser in a
quiet zone, there’s not a lot FRA can do
about it. However, FRA’s lack of authority
does not prevent the individual from com-
plaining to their congressman.
Blocked crossings and long trains are
also a problem. The Government Account-
ability Office is looking at this issue. If rail-
roads don’t respond appropriately to the
public to mitigate some of these situations,
the public will go directly to their elected
officials, and the next step will be a new rail-
road safety act from Congress addressing
blocked crossings. If the railroads can’t find
middle ground on these issues then Con-
gress will take action, and Congress’s solu-
tion may be something that the railroad
industry can’t live with. — Bill Stephens8 SEPTEMBER 2019NEWS
A Metra train passes under signals at Blue Island, Ill., that will be activated when positive train
control is introduced on the commuter railroad’s Rock Island District. TRAINS: David Lassen