Freight railroads across the nation are poised to enhance their reliance on advanced technology for track inspections following the recent approval of a waiver by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). This decision allows railroads to reduce the frequency of on-site human inspections, a change prompted by requests from the Association of American Railroads (AAR). Historically, inspection requirements were established in 1971, mandating regular human oversight of railway tracks.
Railroads assert that modern automated inspection technologies are highly effective in identifying potential issues early, thereby diminishing the necessity for frequent human inspections. Tests conducted by industry giants BNSF and Norfolk Southern demonstrated that safety levels actually improved even with a reduction in human inspections from twice a week to twice a month. The FRA has, however, opted for a more conservative approach, permitting railroads to decrease on-site inspections to once a week instead of the more extensive intervals the railroads requested.
Additionally, the railroads sought permission to have up to three days to address defects flagged by these automated inspections. The FRA countered this by stipulating that any significant defects detected must be rectified immediately, while all other identified flaws should be resolved within a 24-hour timeframe.
While railroads are enthusiastic about the potential benefits of this waiver, critics within the industry raise concerns about the limitations of automated technology. The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division union, representing track inspectors, argues that these systems have shortcomings. They point out that the automated inspections can overlook critical issues, such as shifting rocks beneath the tracks, vegetation encroachment, cracks in the rails, or deteriorating railroad ties. According to union President Tony Cardwell, the technology has been stagnant for three decades and can often fail to detect a combination of small defects that might collectively compromise safety.
Union representatives acknowledge the utility of automated systems in identifying certain problems but maintain that these technologies should complement rather than replace human inspections. With fewer inspections, they warn that the risk of derailments may increase, as inspectors develop familiarity with their territories that could help them catch subtle changes or developing issues.
Mike Rush, AAR’s Senior Vice President of Safety and Operations, defends the technology, stating that while the systems may not detect every underlying issue, they effectively monitor track geometry and performance. If underlying components are functioning properly, the alignment of the tracks will remain intact.
BNSF provided insight during discussions with the FRA, asserting that their automated systems have proven more sensitive in detecting geometry defects compared to traditional manual inspections. Over a two-year evaluation period, manual inspections noted only 0.01 defects per 100 miles, while combining automated systems with reduced inspection frequencies uncovered 4.54 defects per 100 miles.
Despite the FRA’s endorsement of less frequent visual inspections with the use of these technologies, union leaders remain troubled by the potential safety implications. They argue that frequent inspections allow inspectors to develop an intimate familiarity with the tracks, enabling them to detect issues that may be invisible to even the most advanced technology.
“To truly understand the state of the track, a human presence is indispensable,” noted Roy Morrison, the union’s safety director. He emphasized that inspectors often notice anomalies simply by being on-site more frequently.
In defense of the new regulations, Norfolk Southern stated that fewer routine inspections would permit better allocation of inspector time to other areas of maintenance that require manual attention. They also reassured that special inspections would be carried out routinely in the wake of extreme weather events to ensure track safety.
As this significant shift unfolds in the industry, the balance between technological advancement and traditional inspection methods will remain a crucial conversation, spotlighting the ongoing debate about safety in freight rail operations.
