The nation’s freight railroads are now allowed to depend more on technological solutions for track inspection, following a recent waiver approval from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The Association of American Railroads (AAR) initiated this move, claiming advancements in automated track inspection technology have made traditional inspections less necessary.
These automated systems utilize high-tech cameras and lasers to monitor tracks for early signs of misalignment or shifts. Evidence from tests conducted by BNSF and Norfolk Southern indicates that safety can actually increase even when human inspections are reduced from bi-weekly to bi-monthly.
However, the FRA has approved only a reduction to weekly inspections, emphasizing that any serious issues identified must be addressed immediately, although minor defects could take up to 24 hours for repair.
Union Concerns Over Safety
Despite the promise of technology, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division—a union representing track inspectors—has raised alarms about potential shortcomings. Union President Tony Cardwell argued that automated systems fail to detect crucial elements such as shifting rock beds, vegetation interference, or rotting ties. He emphasized that visual inspections are necessary to identify a combination of small defects that could pose significant risks.
Cardwell stated, These are everyday defects across the entire country that we find through visual inspections that cannot be detected by this machinery. The technology hasn't truly advanced in 30 years and remains a glorified tape measure. The union advocates for maintaining regular human inspections to mitigate the chances of derailments.
Railroads Defend Technology Efficacy
The railroads rebut these concerns, asserting that the automated systems are effective at identifying track geometry issues caused by underlying problems, citing data from extensive trials. For example, during a review period, manual inspections caught just 0.01 defects per 100 miles, while automated methods reported over 4.54 defects per the same distance.
Mike Rush from the AAR noted that the automated systems monitor the ultimate performance of the tracks, making it feasible to reduce visual inspections while maintaining track safety. The FRA has, accordingly, allowed for fewer requirements as long as regular automated inspections are implemented.
While rail companies maintain that reduced inspections will free up resources for manual checks on switches and other high-risk areas, the union remains skeptical. Union officials worry that inspectors, spending less time on the tracks, may lose familiarity with critical conditions essential for preemptively spotting issues.
Union safety director Roy Morrison emphasized the advantage of having consistent inspectors: A track inspector who’s out on his mainline track twice a week knows that track inside out and can identify potential issues before they become serious problems. Meanwhile, railroads assure that special inspections following severe weather events will continue, contributing to overall safety.
