Railroads Cut Inspections, Rely on Tech for Track Safety

The Shift to Automated Track Inspections

The nation's freight railroads are set to rely more on technology for track inspections, with the federal government approving a waiver request that allows for fewer in-person inspections. This decision comes after the Association of American Railroads (AAR) requested relief from inspection requirements that were established in 1971. According to the railroads, modern automated track inspection technology is so advanced that it can detect issues early, making frequent human inspections unnecessary.

Federal Approval and Adjustments

While the AAR had initially sought to reduce inspections from twice a week to twice a month, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) did not go that far. Instead, the agency approved a waiver that allows railroads to cut inspections down to once a week. Additionally, the railroads had asked for up to three days to repair defects identified by automated systems. However, the FRA stated that serious defects must be repaired immediately, and all defects should be addressed within 24 hours.

Concerns from the Union

The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWE) union, which represents track inspectors, has raised concerns about the effectiveness of automated systems. They argue that these technologies may miss critical issues such as shifting rock beneath the tracks, vegetation encroaching on the path, cracks in the rails, or rotting railroad ties. The union claims that automated systems cannot detect combinations of small defects that could lead to derailments.

“This is everyday defects across the entire country that we find through visual inspections that cannot be detected by this machinery,” said BMWE President Tony Cardwell. “And that technology is not there. It has been here for 30 years. It hasn’t really advanced much at all. It’s a glorified tape measure.”

The union acknowledges that automated systems do help identify problems but believes they should supplement, not replace, human inspections. Reducing track inspections, they argue, increases the risk of derailments.

Railroads' Perspective on Technology

Railroads counter that even if automated systems cannot detect certain issues like ballast shifting or tie rot, they will notice the symptoms of those problems. For example, if components are failing, the track geometry—essentially the alignment of the tracks—will be affected.

“What it is looking at is the ultimate performance. If those components are doing their job, then the track geometry is being maintained. If they’re not doing their job, the track geometry is not being maintained,” said Mike Rush, AAR's senior vice president of safety and operations.

Evidence of Effectiveness

BNSF Railroad provided evidence during its discussions with the FRA, stating that the technology proved to be far more sensitive and effective at detecting geometry defects than manual inspections. Over two years of testing, manual inspections found only 0.01 defects per 100 miles, while the combination of technology and reduced inspections found 4.54 defects per 100 miles in the test area.

The FRA agreed that tracks don't need to be inspected visually as frequently when automated systems are used regularly.

Union's Concerns About Reduced Inspections

Cardwell and the union's safety director, Roy Morrison, believe reducing the frequency of inspections is a bad idea. They argue that frequent inspections allow inspectors to become intimately familiar with their territories, helping them spot subtle changes that might go unnoticed otherwise.

“A track inspector who’s out on his mainline track twice a week, he knows that track inside out, and a lot of times he’ll spot a defect without even knowing what he’s looking at yet,” Morrison said. “He’ll get out of the truck and say, hey, there’s something wrong here. Take some measurements and go, OK, this is what’s going on.”

Benefits for Railroads

Despite these concerns, railroads argue that freeing up inspectors from mandated track inspections will allow them to focus more on switches and other equipment that must be inspected manually. Norfolk Southern noted in its comments on the request that even if regular inspections aren't done as often, special inspections will still be conducted regularly anytime there is a major storm or flooding in a certain area.

Norfolk Southern also reported improvements in areas that the automated system cannot detect because inspectors were free to spend more time focused on those areas.