Remote control locomotives are a threat to public safety

In an era when technological advancements promise enhanced efficiency and safety, Union Pacific Railroad’s shift toward remote control locomotives (RCLS) in Las Vegas represents a dangerous leap backward. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, Division 766, stands at the forefront of this issue, not as resistant to change but as guardians of safety in the face of profit-driven recklessness.

Las Vegas is a hub of rail transportation that navigates a complex network of steep grades and bustling crossings — a task that demands the irreplaceable human judgment and situational awareness of certified locomotive engineers. Replacing these skilled professionals with remote operators strips away a critical layer of safety, introducing a high risk of miscommunication and delayed emergency responses.

This is not speculative; it is a conclusion drawn from a disturbing record of accidents involving RCLS that speak to the inherent dangers of diluting human oversight in rail operations.

A recent New York Times article highlights a tragic incident in Buffalo, N.Y., where a young boy named Aron was severely injured by a remote-controlled train while playing near the tracks. The train, operated by a remote controller not on board, failed to detect the boy’s presence until it was too late. This incident, along with several others involving remote control locomotives, has prompted a federal review of the technology, emphasizing the need for stringent safety measures.

The push for RCLS is symptomatic of a broader, alarming trend in the railroad industry: prioritizing short-term operational efficiencies and cost savings at the expense of the safety of rail workers and the general public. This approach not only undermines Nevada’s legislative efforts to enhance rail safety, notably the vetoed Assembly Bill 456, but also signals a disheartening willingness to compromise on safety for economic gains.

Consider the daily reality in Las Vegas: Our rails carry an immense volume of hazardous materials. The safe transportation of these materials is nonnegotiable and can only be guaranteed by the presence of a certified locomotive engineer. To entrust this task to technology that lacks the capacity for human discernment and rapid decision-making in unpredictable situations is to gamble with the safety of our communities and environment.

Rail safety is not a mere checkbox but a comprehensive, ongoing commitment to protecting lives and ecosystems. The deployment of RCLS without robust safety measures and oversight is a regression, undermining progress and disrespecting the expertise of locomotive engineers.

This is not a path to efficiency but a potential derailment of safety, with costs measured in irreplaceable human lives and the integrity of our environment.

The dangers of remote operations extend beyond individual incidents. A recent rash of accidents involving remote control locomotives has prompted a federal review of the technology. These trains, often operating without onboard engineers, have been linked to multiple fatalities and severe injuries, further illustrating the peril of prioritizing cost-cutting over comprehensive safety protocols.

Progress in rail transportation should harmonize technological advancements with the enhancement of safety protocols, ensuring that the lathter is never compromised.

Nevada stands at a critical juncture, facing a choice between the lure of operational savings and the imperative to protect human life and the environment. Gov. Joe Lombardo’s veto of Assembly Bill 456, a bill that would have addressed numerous concerns related to railroad safety and operations, was a missed opportunity. But the path forward remains clear: We must prioritize safety over profit, honoring the vital role of human expertise in maintaining our railroads as the safest and most reliable mode of transportation.

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, Division 766, calls upon lawmakers, industry leaders and the community to reevaluate and redirect our approach to rail safety. We urge every concerned citizen to contact their representatives and Union Pacific Railroad, demanding the retention of certified locomotive engineers in the cab.

Let us reject the unnecessary risks of RCLS and affirm our commitment to a rail network that values human life, skill and the safety of our communities. Together, we can define the future of rail in Nevada not by the efficiencies gained but by the disasters averted and the lives safeguarded.

The legacy of our railroads must be one of safety, reliability and respect for the crucial role of those who keep them running.