WASHINGTON – The CSX Transportation carman who was struck and killed by a pair of locomotives in Walbridge Yard on Sept. 17 was walking from his truck to line and lock a switch at the time of the accident, the National Transportation Board said today in its preliminary report.
Visibility was clear at the time of the 3:24 a.m. accident near Toledo, Ohio, and the area was illuminated by yard lighting, the NTSB said.
“At the time of the accident, the accident carman was walking from a parked truck across multiple tracks to line and lock a switch to prepare for railcar inspections. As he began crossing the lead track to access the switch, he was struck by the locomotives, which were traveling south about 10 mph,” the NTSB said.
The locomotives of yard job Y397 were under the control of a remote control operator who was positioned on the lower ladder on the west side of the trailing locomotive at the time of the accident, the NTSB said.
“The CSX mechanical department crew involved in the accident consisted of two carmen. They started their shift at 11:00 pm, September 16, 2023, the day before the accident. Shortly before the accident, they parked a truck east of the lead track and several yard tracks,” the NTSB said. “Yard surveillance camera video reviewed by National Transportation Safety Board investigators showed the accident carman exit the driver’s side door of the truck and walk west toward the switch on yard track 5. His movement placed him on the lead track and in the path of the locomotives. The second carman, who was unaware that an accident had occurred, exited the truck’s passenger door and crossed the lead track to place a blue signal on yard track 5. As the second carman returned to the truck, he saw the accident carman lying near the lead track. The second carman then radioed to stop all train movement in the yard and request help.”
NTSB investigators reviewed data from forward-facing locomotive cameras, including those of the yard locomotives and a passing train, as well as a yard surveillance camera. They also observed remote control operations, conducted interviews, inspected the locomotives, and conducted sight distance observations.
The investigation is ongoing. Immediately after the accident, the Transportation Transportation Communications Union & Brotherhood of Railway Carmen called for a review of the use of remote control locomotives.
The NTSB preliminary report, however, said that “future investigative activity will focus on CSX’s carmen safety procedure training and awareness.”
After the accident, CSX issued a safety alert to all employees that emphasized safety briefings, situational awareness, and emergency action plans.
Open to knowledgeable parties explaining why, during this switching activity, there was no radio communication between to R/C operator and the carman?
Do you know for a fact that the operator has to ride the front locomotive? Is that in the CSX rule book or the General orders for Walbridge yard for RC operations? Do you know for a fact that the area the RCO was in was not a RCO zone?
And operators frequently run the RCO from the ground and not on the engine if they can protect the movement or know exactly the length of track they are on in a RCO zone.
No I don’t know the CSX handbook rules are Robert,that maybe the problem here, CSX allows the RCO to operate as stated in the investigation. I also do not know if the RCO was operating in an area authorized, but the movement was being operated by R/C regardless.
However, if indeed as you state the RCO frequently run from the ground and not from the engine if they can protect the movement, obviously failed here since the carman was struck.
There are several issues from my perspective here, many leading in my experience to question CSX’s operating rules.
Good points.
As I have stated before after spending an entire career working around, maintaining and installing R/C equipment, why on earth was the;
“remote control operator who was positioned on the lower ladder on the west side of the trailing locomotive at the time of the accident”.
It’s the middle of the night, dark and you cannot see around the locomotives, totally blind to the carman. An accident waiting to happen, and it did.
There is only one location the operator should have been and that would be on the front foot walk of the lead locomotive.
Visibility would be 100% in the direction of travel and any interference would have been seen. Yes maybe the carman failed to look but if the R/C operator was on the front of the lead locomotive he would have had a chance to avoid the accident.
This is a classical downside of radio control, the operator quite often has to do a lot of walking to do the job safely, in this case walking the length of two locomotives after the last move and climbing back on, human nature not to.
Radio control is 100% safe when properly used, and in some cases actually safer due to increased visibility, but haphazardness is deadly.
JIM Thanks for your input from you someone knows the equipment and the operation. One question, though. Do locomotives have a “front foot walk”?
Let me also ask a second question. If the r/c operator is supposed to be on the locomotive, what’s the point of remote control? If he is on the locomotive, why not just drive it from the cab?
Let me ask a third question. Are the duties of the r/c operator on foot compatible with the longitudinal distance people on foot are supposed to clear in front of or behind parked or moving equipment?
Good morning Charles from across the pond.
Maybe I used the wrong terminology footwalk, but to my observations all locomotives have a footwalk except the passenger ones. Are you taking my comment as the pilot steps long ago made obsolete?
Second question is easy, the use of R/C eliminates the need for two people, the operator can be the engineer and conductor, no need for a second person to couple and uncouple. This is the primary reason radio control is used in the railroad environment.
Thirdly, there in lies the problem, only one set of eyes, locomotive moments are one thing, a long cut of cars is a whole different story, that’s why at the end of the day I question the application.
In the industrial environment it’s easy, a single loco and a car or two. Worked well and safety where I worked and we had them in the early 70’s, long before today’s digital age.