What The Industry Failed To Mention About Belt-Pack

Robert B. Frank July 26,2002
Leg. Rep.- BLE Div. 839

By now, you should be familiar with the fact that Belt-Pack (RCL) has, to a large degree, failed to live up to its advertised promises of better safety, reliability, efficiency and productivity, hence overall profitability. If you recall, RCL was heralded as the invention that was going to save the railroad industry; the best railroad invention since the introduction of the diesel-electric locomotive, the pressure-creosoted tie, welded rail or the roller bearing, etc., etc., etc.

What separates these other fine railroad inventions from RCL, however, is the fact that these others indeed reduce the maintenance cycle of the asset, pro-long the life of the asset, increase the reliability of the asset, increase the capacity of the asset, and lessen the wear and tear on the railroad employee, which is the most important railroad asset of all. RCL, on the other hand, has literally the opposite effect in all these categories. For example, frequent RCL malfunction and the attendant wasteful tinkering from roundhouse personnel. Also, "square" wheels (bad flat spots) on RCL equipped switch engines, which pound the track structure apart. Further, over speed "radar", also known as "fish" joints, have obvious implications for ramming damage, especially where Haz-mat railcar couplings are concerned. Most significant, is the wear and tear of the switchmen, themselves, which we will study as we go on. Also, at a time when railroads should be increasing capacity, increasing through-put, increasing velocity with lower transit times and lower terminal dwell times, rail management is again causing just the opposite effect in these utilization categories through the misapplication of RCL.

As my late father, a Harvard MBA, use to say, "R.B., there are few things more dangerous than using the wrong tool for the wrong job" . In all fairness, RCL does have its safe, profitable and logical applications such as those found in highly repetitive, short and simple switching moves. Obvious examples of this would include gravity hump-yard operations, unit-train loading/unloading, or within the confines of an industrial plant, where RCL operators can walk their flock of freight cars around the plant like sheep herders. In the open expanse of busy classification yards, however, switch crews need to carry out their classification missions with a predictive, productive focus. This focus should not he blurred with the syndrome of "information overload." This focus should not be blurred with the physical oppression of this present day "ball and chain" called RCL. This focus should not be blurred with RCL's inherent failure to comply with the restricted speed rule. And not least nor last, should this focus be bluffed by RCL's utter slowness.

By now, you should be also familiar with how the RCL headlines and advertisements are far more reserved and far less boastful. No longer are they making the exaggerated claims of industry euphoria. For example, in a recent railroad employee magazine article about RCL, the only RCL positive point mentioned was how it "eliminated the bodily hazards of having an engineer in the locomotive cab." That was thee positive mentioned - the only positive mentioned. Speaking of hazards, this same article, of course, made no mention of the fact that three RCL switch engines are required to equal the productivity of two conventional switch engines (CSE). Remember the math? Three RCL jobs x 2 switchmen = 6 switchmen. Two CSE's x (I engineer + 2 switchmen) = (2 engineers + 4 switchmen) or six employees, also. Yep, "six and one-half dozen the other". The difference, here, with RCL, six people are walking yard tracks instead of four, and the six, on average, are walking more than each of the four account RCL operators find its use dangerous, while riding freight cars. Also, extra RCL walking is required to position and reposition switchmen lookouts to compensate for one less man, the engineer, who use to be in the elevated cab. Even when RCL electronics are working correctly, it is the lack of crew lookouts, positioning and repositioning, which causes the majority of human failure RCL accidents. In other words, avoidance of RCL accidents will be co-dependant on how much extra walking the RCL operators are willing or required to do. Please remember, the majority of FRA reported TY and E injuries stem from the mere act of walking. Therefore, it will be very interesting to see how FELA claims will be impacted in the mid to long term.

Even if RCL could be made profitable, there remains the most ironic point of all. The ironic point, if I can indulge you, would be the fact that any RCL generated savings would be passed on to the shipping public in the form of lower freight rates, anyway. Please allow me to explain. In a de-regulated, virtually cost-minus railroad industry vs. most other industries, which are cost-plus, our railroad cost savings are no longer used to give pay raises to the remaining railroad workers and/or retire long term debt and/or expand maintenance and/or increase our railroad stock's cash dividend. In fact, our "give-backs," whether in the arguable form of RCL or the UTU considered payment of our own health insurance, goes to foster our "race to the bottom" price war with Union Pacific. After all, who are we as BNSF workers to unwittingly make these "give-back" sacrifices to foster price war with Union Pacific. By the same token, who are Union Pacific workers to unwittingly make "give-back" sacrifices to foster price war with BNSF. As present day economists say - the only thing worse for an economy than inflation is deflation. The same applies to railroading. Therefore, rail unions need to put a stop to this deflationary insanity by saying NO to "give-backs." In fact, our rail unions would do our industry a macro-economic favor by forcing meaningful pay raises, thereby enabling the rail carriers to increase their "top-line" growth by joining the rest of the economy in terms of cost-push and/or demand-pull inflation. In conclusion to this long paragraph, manifest freight service is presently so cheap, yet so incredibly slow, many shippers wouldn't want rail service even if given to them for free, literally. Now the railroads want to make this manifest service even slower ill-thanks to the increased terminal dwell time associated with RCL. This is a lose, lose, lose situation for rail labor, rail carriers and rail customers.

The present day era of de-regulated price war among railroads is inarguably compromising the quality of maintenance, supervision, customer service and patrolled security. To compensate for these compromises, there should be more eyes, ears and brains, not less. Please be reminded that our rail carriers have difficulty in keeping up with the maintenance needs of simple locomotive appliances such as sanders, lights, windshield wipers, toilets and somewhat more complex air conditioners. RCL appliances are malfunctioning straight out of the factory; in a physically harsh and dirty railroad environment, RCL unreliability, in combination with aged use, will cause it to be all the more problematic for railroads to operate and maintain.

In conclusion, "economy, regardless of cost", is causing rail management to decide out of hand that railroad operating men are inferior to frail, problematic, expensive to replace and re-replace electronics. Rail management patronizes and insults our operating crafts by likening us to micro-processors. We are not micro-processors, but rather MACRO-processors, who are able to process the infinite number of variables affecting rail operations; who are able to fully re-cooperate in as few as eight hours, and who are able to grow in quality and experience over a career of up to 50 years! As Richmond, CA UTU Local 1730 Chairman, Jerry Sullivan, so aptly shared, "We (railroad men) are the cheapest computers railroad money can buy!"

Thank You!