[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AMERICA BUILDS: THE ROLE OF INNOVATION
AND TECHNOLOGY IN RAIL MODERNIZATION
=======================================================================
(119-25)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES,
AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 24, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-293 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking
Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
District of Columbia Arkansas,
Jerrold Nadler, New York Vice Chairman
Steve Cohen, Tennessee Daniel Webster, Florida
John Garamendi, California Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaott Perry, Pennsylvania
Andre Carson, Indiana Brian Babin, Texas
Dina Titus, Nevada David Rouzer, North Carolina
Jared Huffman, California Mike Bost, Illinois
Julia Brownley, California Doug LaMalfa, California
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Mark DeSaulnier, California Brian J. Mast, Florida
Salud O. Carbajal, California Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Greg Stanton, Arizona Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Sharice Davids, Kansas Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Tracey Mann, Kansas
Marilyn Strickland, Washington Burgess Owens, Utah
Patrick Ryan, New York Eric Burlison, Missouri
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon Mike Collins, Georgia
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio, Mike Ezell, Mississippi
Vice Ranking Member Kevin Kiley, California
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan Vince Fong, California
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina Tony Wied, Wisconsin
Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Tom Barrett, Michigan
Robert Garcia, California Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska
Nellie Pou, New Jersey Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,
Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan Pennsylvania
Laura Friedman, California Jeff Hurd, Colorado
Laura Gillen, New York Jefferson Shreve, Indiana
Shomari Figures, Alabama Addison P. McDowell, North
Carolina
David J. Taylor, Ohio
Brad Knott, North Carolina
Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
Northern Mariana Islands
Mike Kennedy, Utah
Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
Jimmy Patronis, Florida
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
Daniel Webster, Florida, Chairman
Dina Titus, Nevada, Ranking Member
Andre Carson, Indiana David Rouzer, North Carolina
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Mike Bost, Illinois
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina Doug LaMalfa, California
Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania,Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Vice Ranking Member Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Jerrold Nadler, New York Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Steve Cohen, Tennessee Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaacey Mann, Kansas
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Burgess Owens, Utah
Patrick Ryan, New York Eric Burlison, Missouri
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio Vince Fong, California
Laura Friedman, California Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska,
Mark DeSaulnier, California Vice Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Jefferson Shreve, Indiana
David J. Taylor, Ohio
Mike Kennedy, Utah
Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines,
and Hazardous Materials, opening statement..................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, opening statement.......... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
WITNESSES
David L. Shannon, General Manager, RailPulse, LLC, oral statement 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Brigham A. McCown, Founder and Chairman of the Board of
Directors, Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure, oral
statement...................................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Eric Gebhardt, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology
Officer, Wabtec, on behalf of the Railway Supply Institute,
oral statement................................................. 20
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Tony Cardwell, President, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employes Division, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, oral
statement...................................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 26
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Dina Titus:
Letter of June 17, 2025, from Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking
Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and
Hon. Dina Titus, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, to Hon. Sean Duffy,
Secretary, Department of Transportation.................... 5
Letter of June 24, 2025, from Michael S. Baldwin, President,
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, to Hon. Sam Graves,
Chairman, and Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Hon. Daniel
Webster, Chairman, and Hon. Dina Titus, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials.................................................. 6
Letter of March 27, 2024, from L. Ed Dowell, President, American
Train Dispatchers Association, to Hon. Amit Bose,
Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia.................... 52
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Daniel Webster:
Statement of Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Association of American Railroads................. 67
Letter of June 24, 2025, from John Schmitter, Co-Founder,
Chief Commercial Officer, RailState LLC, to Hon. Sam
Graves, Chairman, and Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Hon.
Daniel Webster, Chairman, and Hon. Dina Titus, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials.................................................. 71
APPENDIX
Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Brigham A. McCown, Founder
and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Alliance for Innovation
and Infrastructure............................................. 73
Questions to Eric Gebhardt, Executive Vice President and Chief
Technology Officer, Wabtec, on behalf of the Railway Supply
Institute, from:
Hon. Daniel Webster.......................................... 76
Hon. Rick Larsen............................................. 77
Questions to Tony Cardwell, President, Brotherhood of Maintenance
of Way Employes Division, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, from:
Hon. Rick Larsen............................................. 78
Hon. Dina Titus.............................................. 79
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
June 20, 2025
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines,
and Hazardous Materials
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and
Hazardous Materials
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``America Builds: The
Role of Innovation and Technology in Rail Modernization''
_______________________________________________________________________
I. PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
will meet on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167
of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony at a
hearing entitled, ``America Builds: The Role of Innovation and
Technology in Rail Modernization.'' Witnesses will discuss how
technology and process improvements can contribute to safer and
more efficient freight and passenger rail transportation. The
hearing will also cover the regulatory and market-based
environment for rail. Members will receive testimony from David
Shannon, General Manager, RailPulse; Brigham McCown, Chairman
of the Board, Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure; Eric
Gebhardt, Chief Technology Officer, Wabtec Corporation; and
Tony Cardwell, President, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employes Division--International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
II. BACKGROUND
America's freight and intercity passenger railroad networks
are essential for the movement of goods and people across the
country. America's freight rail network consists of almost
140,000 miles of track.\1\ Six Class I freight rail carriers
and approximately 600 Class II and III (short line and
regional) railroads move roughly 1.6 billion tons of goods each
year.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ass'n of American Railroads, State Fact Sheets, available at
https://www.aar.org/
data-center/railroads-states/#: :text=in%20Your%20State-,Freight%20Rail
%20in%20Your%20State,nearly%20140%2C000%20miles%20of%20track.
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak is the Nation's primary intercity passenger rail
service and operates over roughly 21,000 miles of track in 46
states, serving over 500 destinations.\3\ In addition, there
are 30 commuter railroads in the United States, many operated
by state or regional governmental authorities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Amtrak, Amtrak Facts, available at https://www.amtrak.com/
amtrak-facts#: :text=With
%2021%2C000%20route%20miles%20in,to%20more%20than%20500%20destinations.
\4\ American Pub. Transp. Ass'n, How many commuter railroads are in
the United States, available at https://www.apta.com/faq-items/how-
many-commuter-railroads-are-in-the-united-states/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Innovation is widely recognized within the economic
sciences as a fundamental driver of long-term economic growth,
prosperity, and overall societal welfare.\5\ The private sector
is responsible for approximately 75 percent of economy-wide
research and development.\6\ A return on investment in research
and development serves as a necessary incentive to justify the
inherent economic risk.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney, A Dozen Facts About
Innovation, The Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution (Aug.
2011), at 1, available at https://www.hamiltonproject.org/publication/
economic-fact/a-dozen-economic-facts-about-innovation/.
\6\ Nat'l Science Foundation, Nat'l Center for Science and
Engineering Statistics, U.S. R&D Totaled $892 Billion in 2022; Estimate
for 2023 Indicates Further Increase to $940 Billion, (Feb. 27, 2025),
available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf25327.
\7\ McKinsey & Company, What is Innovation?, available at https://
www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-
innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like other sectors of the economy, the freight rail
industry and its associated sectors invest in the research and
development of new technologies and processes to enhance
safety, improve efficiency, and drive overall productivity.
These innovations include advancements that support internal
management, enhance customer service, address regulatory
requirements, and optimize the use and management of system
assets.\8\ This memorandum provides a brief overview of these
technologies and systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ass'n of American Railroads, Freight Rail: How Decades of
Technological Progress Makes Railroads Safer, available at https://
www.aar.org/issue/decades-of-tech-progress/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. RAILROAD SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES
The freight railroad industry has invested in a range of
technologies designed to enhance safety while also improving
operational efficiencies. Some of these technologies have been
mandated by statute or regulations, such as Positive Train
Control, while others have been voluntarily developed and
implemented by the industry, including systems for railcar
bearing monitoring and defect detection systems.
POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL
Positive Train Control (PTC) describes technologies
designed to automatically stop or slow train-to-train
collisions, derailments caused by excessive speed, unauthorized
incursions by trains onto sections of track where maintenance
activities are taking place, and movement of a train through a
track switch left in the wrong position.\9\ A fully functional
PTC system must be able to precisely determine the location and
speed of trains; warn train operators of potential problems;
and act if the operator does not respond to a warning. For
example, if a train operator fails to stop a train at a stop
signal, the PTC system applies the brakes automatically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ FRA, Positive Train Control, available at https://
railroads.dot.gov/research-development/program-areas/train-control/ptc/
positive-train-control-ptc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirement that certain freight, passenger, and
commuter rail lines use PTC was mandated in the Rail Safety
Improvements Act of 2008.\10\ Operators were initially given
until December 21, 2015, to install these systems.\11\ Actual
implementation took longer than expected and the deadline was
extended in subsequent legislation to December 31, 2020.\12\
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) reported on December
29, 2020, that PTC was in operation on all required lines.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-432, 122
Stat. 4848.
\11\ Id.
\12\ Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-73,
129 Stat. 576.
\13\ FRA, Positive Train Control: Overview, available at https://
railroads.dot.gov/
research-development/program-areas/train-control/ptc/positive-train-
control-ptc#: :text=On
%20December%2029%2C%202020%2C%20FRA,deadline%20set%20forth%20by%20Congre
ss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAILCAR WHEEL AND BEARING MONITORING AND DETECTION SYSTEMS
The railroad industry has voluntarily deployed a range of
monitoring systems to detect and assess the condition of
railcar wheel bearings in an effort to prevent failures that
could lead to derailments. According to one analysis, defects
in railcar wheels or axles are the second leading cause of
derailments.\14\ For example, the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB), found that the Norfolk Southern derailment
in East Palestine, Ohio, was due to an overheated wheel bearing
that was not detected in time by trackside sensors.\15\
However, from 2023 to 2024, FRA safety data showed incidents
attributed to overheated bearings declined by 55.5 percent.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Brandon Z. Wang, et. al., Quantitative Analysis of Changes in
Freight Train Derailment Causes and Rates, Journal of Transp.
Engineering, Part A: Systems, Vol. 146, No. 11, (2020) [hereinafter
``Quantitative Analysis''], available at https://railtec.illinois.edu/
wp/wp-content/uploads/Wang-et-al-2020-Quantitative-Analysis-of-Changes-
in-Freight-Train-Derailment-Causes-and-Rates.pdf.
\15\ NTSB, Norfolk Southern Railway Derailment and Hazardous
Materials Release, RIR-24-05, (June 25, 2024), available at https://
www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/
RIR2405%20CORRECTED.pdf.
\16\ Dep't of Transp., Train Accident (not at Highway-Rail
Crossings) Summary, available at https://data.transportation.gov/
stories/s/2ju5-8zxb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several types of wheel bearing monitors and
detection systems. One of the most widely used is the thermal
wayside detector, commonly referred to as a ``Hot Box
Detector'' \17\ which uses infrared sensors placed alongside
the tracks to measure the temperature of wheel bearings as
trains pass.\18\ Another type employs acoustic sensors mounted
trackside to detect sounds that may indicate bearing defects.
There are currently no Federal regulations governing how these
detectors are used or which reports are sent to monitoring
centers and which are sent directly to rail crews.\19\ The
Association of American Railroads (AAR), however, released
updated industry standards increasing the frequency of
detectors along key routes, and established a new standard for
stopping and inspecting trains when detector readings exceed
170 degrees, among other initiatives.\20\ Other systems under
development are designed to be mounted directly on railcars,
enabling real-time monitoring and reporting of wheel and
bearing conditions throughout a train's journey.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Ass'n of American Railroads, Freight Rail: How Decades of
Technological Progress Makes Railroads Safer, available at https://
www.aar.org/issue/decades-of-tech-progress/.
\18\ Id.
\19\ See e.g. Rachel Premack, There are no federal regulations on
key rail sensors, Freight Waves, (Mar. 9, 2023), available at https://
www.freightwaves.com/news/there-are-no-federal-regulations-on-key-rail-
sensors.
\20\ Ass'n of American Railroads, Railroads Addressed NTSB East
Palestine Initial Findings, Await Final Report, available at https://
www.aar.org/news/railroads-addressed-ntsb-east-palestine-initial-
findings-await-final-report/.
\21\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Advanced On-Board Condition Monitoring
System for Freight Railcar Applications: Abstract, available at https:/
/www.transportation.gov/utc/advanced-board-condition-monitoring-system-
freight-railcar-applications; see also, Bill Stephens, Wheel bearing
expert: To prevent derailments, railroads should equip cars with
sensors, Trains, (Mar. 6, 2023), available at https://www.trains.com/
trn/news-reviews/news-wire/wheel-bearing-expert-to-prevent-
derailments-railroads-should-equip-freight-cars-with-sensors/
#: :text=The%20Rail%20Safety
%20Act%20of,detectors%2C%20according%20to%20the%20FRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRACK CONDITION MONITORING TECHNOLOGIES
While defective wheel bearings are the second leading cause
of derailments, the primary cause is defective track.\22\ These
defects can include issues with the rail itself, such as
cracks, shelling, or steel flaking from the rail head, as well
as problems with track geometry (e.g., misalignments, cutting
failures, ballast degradation), and flaws at joints and
switches, among others.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Quantitative Analysis, supra note 12.
\23\ FRA, Track Inspector Rail Defect Reference Manual--July 2015
Revision 2, available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/
files/fra_net/15669/Final%20FRA%20Rail%20Manual
%20July%2029%202015_031716.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automated Track Inspection (ATI) technology, uses a suite
of sensors mounted on locomotives or railcars to scan track
conditions and identify defects, particularly in track
geometry, at earlier stages than traditional methods.\24\ While
FRA regulations do not generally require freight railroads to
inspect track geometry using automated track geometry
measurement systems, voluntary use of this technology to
prevent derailments has been increasing since its inception in
the 1970s.\25\ FRA has noted in proposed rulemaking that it
``acknowledges the safety benefits of this technology,
specifically its ability to quickly and accurately detect small
changes in track geometry.'' \26\ Advances in camera technology
allow for images of track conditions to be captured and
analyzed by artificial intelligence (AI).\27\ This predictive
capability supports more informed decisions about when and
where to prioritize repairs.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Gary A. Carr, et. al., Autonomous Track Inspection Systems--
Today and Tomorrow, presented to American Railway Eng'g and
Maintenance-of-Way Ass'n, [hereinafter ``ATI Report to AREMA''],
available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tLl5SXggjI3zPMY5bxarGa-
adTHvmYRO/view?usp=sharing.
\25\ DOT, FRA, Report to Congress: Automatic Track Geometry
Measurement System Technology Test Programs, available at https://
railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/
files/2021-11/FRA%20Report%20to%20Congress-
Track%20Inspection%20Test%20Program
%2011.23.21.pdf.
\26\ Track Geometry Measurement System (TGMS) Inspections, 89 Fed.
Reg. 84845, 84846 (Oct. 24, 2024).
\27\ Carly Bowling, Right on track: Researchers use new tech to
improve railroad safety, University of New Mexico News, (Feb. 14,
2025), available at https://news.unm.edu/news/
right-on-track-researchers-use-new-tech-to-improve-railroad-
safety#: :text=The%20cameras
%20attach%20to%20railcars,the%20FRA%20in%20the%20past.
\28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATI is associated with improved operational efficiency. For
example, it allows for more frequent data collection without
occupying valuable track time because it can be conducted
during revenue service.\29\ FRA noted that the industry could
reasonably expect a 30 to 50 percent reduction in per-mile
survey costs compared to traditional inspection methods.\30\
FRA has stated that Autonomous Track Geometry Measurement
System (ATGMS) technology is designed to enhance, not replace,
traditional inspection methods.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ ATI Report to AREMA, supra note 24.
\30\ Letter from Thomas Hermann, Director, Office of Tech.
Oversight, Office of Railroad Safety, to Jerry C. Boles, President,
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, and Freddie Simpson, President,
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division of the IBT (Feb. 8,
2019), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/
fra_net/18300/Signed%20Final%20Response
%20to%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration%20(FRA-2018-
0091)%20with%20exhibits.pdf.
\31\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Autonomous Track Geometry Measurement
System, at 4, available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/
files/fra_net/17766/Autonomous%20Track
%20Geometry%20Measurement%20System_presentation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND RAIL
The railroad industry, and its customers, have increasingly
adopted information technology to enhance both safety and
operational efficiency. These technologies include data
analytics, Internet of Things (IoT) integration, and predictive
maintenance systems.\32\ While not exhaustive, the following
examples illustrate several key innovations in this space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Ass'n of American Railroads, Freight Rail: How Decades of
Technological Progress Makes Railroads Safer, available at https://
www.aar.org/issue/decades-of-tech-progress/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAILCAR TELEMATICS
Railcar telematics is an emerging technology with potential
safety and efficiency implications. The term broadly describes
a suite of sensors that collect and transmit real-time data on
a railcar's location, condition, and performance, to car owners
or operators.\33\ Potential benefits to railcar owners include
improved asset utilization (e.g., identifying under, or over-
used railcars), enhanced scheduling and deployment, and
proactive maintenance planning.\34\ Testing is currently
underway for telematics-equipped railcars to, in real time,
detect, collect and report additional data including whether a
handbrake has been applied, a door is left open or closed,
whether the car is empty or loaded, or assess wear levels to
inform maintenance scheduling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ ZTR, Telematics for Railcars--Introduction, available at
https://www.ztr.com/
blog/telematics-railcars-
introduction#: :text=In%20the%20context%20of%20railcars,this
%20information%20to%20remote%20users.
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE INTERNET OF THINGS
The Internet of Things (IoT) refers to a network of
embedded sensors, software, and other technologies that connect
and exchange data over the internet.\35\ In the rail context,
IoT technologies allow operators to collect large volumes of
operational data, which can be analyzed to improve efficiency,
better manage logistics, and identify new business
opportunities.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Oracle, What is IoT?, available at https://www.oracle.com/
internet-of-things/
#: :text=What%20is%20IoT?,objects%20to%20sophisticated%20industrial%20to
ols.
\36\ The Internet of Things: A world of opportunity for railroads,
Progressive Railroading, (Mar. 2016), available at https://
www.progressiverailroading.com/rail_industry_trends/
article/The-Internet-of-Things-A-world-of-opportunity-for-railroads--
47507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUEL USE
Diesel fuel use is a significant cost for railroads.
Wabtec's ``Trip Optimizer'' is locomotive software that
generates a fuel-use operating plan based on train
characteristics, including weight, length, terrain, and routing
data.\37\ Currently, approximately 11,000 units are in use
across 17 railroads. On average, the system delivers a 10
percent reduction in fuel usage, though results vary depending
upon train type, terrain, and operational conditions.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Id.
\38\ Wabtec, Trip Optimizer, available at https://
www.wabteccorp.com/TripOptimizer-brochure.pdf?inline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. OTHER RAILROAD TECHNOLOGIES
LOWER EMISSIONS AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL LOCOMOTIVES
The railroad industry invests in locomotives to reduce
emissions of harmful air pollutants and operate with
alternative fuels. Certain railroads are piloting battery-
electric and hydrogen fuel cell locomotives, testing hybrid
consist models, and incorporating renewable fuels to further
lower emissions. Some railroads have deployed zero and low-
emission equipment to transload and move goods, to improve
operational efficiency and reduce emissions.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Ass'n of American Railroads, Freight Rail: Climate Change,
available at https://www.aar.org/issue/freight-rail-climate-change/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One such technology includes Tier 4 compliant locomotives,
which are diesel-powered but engineered to significantly reduce
emissions of particulate matter nitrogen oxides compared to
older models.\40\ These locomotives may operate solely on
diesel or be designed to accommodate alternative fuels,
offering greater flexibility while contributing to emissions
reductions.\41\ As of 2023, 6.7 percent of Class I locomotives
were Tier 4 compliant.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ BNSF, Tier 4 Locomotives Pulling for a Cleaner Future, (Apr.
22, 2024), available at https://www.bnsf.com/news-media/railtalk/
community/tier-four.html#: :text=Tier%204s%2C%20the
%20latest%20of,its%20first%20locomotive%20emissions%20standards (Tier 4
refers to the EPA emissions standards for new and newly remanufactured
locomotive engines, see also 40 C.F.R. Chapter 1, Subpart U, Part
1033.101.
\41\ Wabtec, Freight Rail's Bridge to a Net-Zeo Future: Wabtec's
Evolution Series Tier 4 Locomotive, available at https://
www.wabteccorp.com/trains-of-thought/freight-rail-s-bridge-to-a-net-
zero-future-wabtec-s-evolution-series-tier-4-
locomotive#: :text=One%20of%20the%20beauties
%20of,and%20total%20cost%20of%20ownership.
\42\ Email from Ass'n of American Railroads to Comm. Staff (on file
with the Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the industry is developing and deploying
battery-powered locomotives and locomotives that utilize liquid
hydrogen. As part of its fiscal year (FY) 2023-2024
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements
Program Selections, the FRA awarded $36.5 million to the
California Air Resources Board to procure nine battery-electric
locomotives and one hydrogen fuel cell locomotive to operate on
the Pacific Harbor Line, an Anacostia Rail Holdings Company
railroad, in and near the Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ FRA, FY 2023-2024 Consolidated Rail Infrastructure
Improvements (CRISI) Grants Program: Project Summaries, (Oct. 29,
2024), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/fy-2023-24-
crisi-program-project-summaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTONOMOUS RAILCARS
Autonomous battery-electric railcars travel independent of
locomotives and can couple with other cars to form up to 50-car
autonomous trains.\44\ Parallel Systems received approval from
the FRA in January of 2025 to test its first system in
partnership with Genesee & Wyoming across a 160-mile span of
two Georgia railroads, which connect with the Port of
Savannah.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Ed Garsten, A `Parallel' Path To Autonomous-Electric Rail
Freight Travel, Forbes, (Sept. 12, 2023), available at https://
www.forbes.com/sites/edgarsten/2023/09/12/a-parallel-path-to-
autonomous-electric-rail-freight-travel/.
\45\ FRA, Program Approval: Georgia Central Railway, L.P. and Heart
of Georgia Railroad, Inc., available at https://railroads.dot.gov/
regulations/federal-register-documents/2025-02252; see also FRA
approves testing of first autonomous freight-rail system, Progressive
Railroading, (Apr. 15, 2025), available at https://
www.progressiverailroading.com/rail_industry_trends/news/FRA-
approves-testing-of-first-autonomous-freight-rail-system--
74325#: :text=Parallel's%20aim%20is
%20to%20deliver,with%20U.S.%20and%20Australian%20railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. CHALLENGES TO THE DEPLOYMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES IN RAIL
Railroads and their customers may face a series of
challenges in utilizing and deploying new technology. These
barriers can be regulatory and market-based or both, as
described below.
REGULATORY CHALLENGES
The primary agency that oversees railroad safety and rail
grant programs is the FRA, which exists within the Department
of Transportation (DOT). The FRA has the authority to issue
regulations and orders pertaining to rail safety and to issue
civil and criminal penalties to enforce those regulations and
orders.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ The Internet of Things: A world of opportunity for railroads,
Progressive Railroading, (Mar. 2016), available at https://
www.progressiverailroading.com/rail_industry_trends/article/
The-Internet-of-Things-A-world-of-opportunity-for-railroads--47507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FRA's Office of Railroad Safety (ORS) promotes and
regulates safety through the Nation's railroad industry.\47\
Its safety and compliance program is executed through various
skilled staff focused in six technical disciplines focusing on
compliance and enforcement in: 1) Grade Crossings; 2) Hazardous
Materials; 3) Motive Power and Equipment; 4) Operating
Practices; 5) Signal and Train Control; and 6) Track.\48\ These
regulatory activities are carried out in Title 49, Subtitle B
of Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ FRA, Railroad Safety, available at https://railroads.dot.gov/
railroad-safety.
\48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA regulations specify how railroads will achieve
regulatory compliance. For example, FRA Track Safety Standards
for Class I and Class II railroads requires tracks be canvassed
by qualified inspectors twice every week.\49\ The regulations
further specify how the inspection is to be conducted, such as
requiring inspections to be made on foot or by vehicle and
establishes the maximum speed of a vehicle.\50\ Technology may
be used to supplement required visual inspections.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 49 C.F.R. Sec. 213.233.
\50\ Id. at Sec. 2133(b).
\51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recognition of evolving practices and technologies,
Federal law does provide FRA discretionary authority to issue
non-emergency safety waivers that waive or suspend safety
requirements upon a finding that doing so ``is in the public
interest and consistent with railroad safety.'' \52\ Industry
waiver requests can seek to implement a new practices and/or
technology on discrete segments of a railroad's network that
achieves an equal or greater safety outcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20103(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operator safety waiver applications are submitted to, and
reviewed by, FRA's Rail Safety Board. To receive a waiver,
operators are required to: 1) identify the rule, regulation or
standard that the petition seeks to have waived; 2) explain the
nature and extent of the relief sought and identify and
describe the persons, equipment, installations, and locations
to be covered by the waiver; and 3) contain sufficient
supporting information, including an analysis of costs and
benefits of the request and relevant safety data.\53\ As in
Notice and Comment Rulemaking, FRA is statutorily required to
notice waiver petitions and provide the opportunity for public
comment.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ 49 C.F.R. Sec. 211.9.
\54\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20103(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each waiver request is considered fact specific and unique,
taking into consideration the information and data the
petitioner presents, public comments received, FRA's own
technical analysis, and field investigation, if
appropriate.\55\ FRA conducts its waiver reviews concurrent
with the public comment period.\56\ After considering all data
and relevant information, FRA authorizes the Railroad Safety
Board to issue a decision on the request, either approving or
denying the request.\57\ Regulations specify that such a
decision should be rendered not later than nine months after
receipt.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ FRA, Guidance on Submitting Requests for Waivers, Block Signal
Applications, and other Approval Requests to FRA, at 1, (Dec. 2022),
available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/
fra.dot.gov/files/2022-12/
Guidance%20on%20Submitting%20Waiver%20Special%20Approval
%20Other%20Requests%20for%20Approval%20to%20FRA%20%28Dec%202022%29%20fin
al.pdf.
\56\ Id. at 5.
\57\ Id. (interested parties may also petition FRA to reconsider
its approval or denial of a waiver petition); See, 49 CFR Sec.
211.41(f) & 211.57.
\58\ 49 CFR Sec. 211.41(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroad track inspection safety waiver applications often
seek to use ATI in combination with reduced visual inspections
as a means of increasing efficiency.\59\ As a discretionary
process, FRA has rejected previous railroad safety waiver
petitions to combine the use of ATI with reduced frequency of
manual inspections and/or to vary repair times. These
applicants contend the waivers can produce enhanced operational
and economic efficiencies.\60\ Some organizations have
expressed concerns about these waiver petitions.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Ass'n of American of Railroads, Freight Rail and Automated
Track Inspections, available at https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/
2022/06/AAR-Automated-Track-Inspections-Fact-Sheet.pdf.
\60\ Ass'n of American Railroads, Rail Industry Challenges FRA's
Inaction on Waivers, (Nov. 8, 2024), available at https://www.aar.org/
news/rail-industry-challenges-fras-inaction-on-waivers/.
\61\ See e.g. Policy Statement, TTD, Transportation Labor Calls for
Worker Protections Amidst the Development of Autonomous & Automated
Rail Technologies, (Nov. 21, 2024), available at https://ttd.org/
policy/policy-statements/transportation-labor-calls-for-worker-
protections-amidst-
the-development-of-autonomous-automated-rail-technologies/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARKET CHALLENGES
As in other industries, the railroad industry seeks to
attain economic benefits to justify investment in technology
improvements. Railcar telematics can help railcar owners and
shippers optimize and achieve greater efficiencies in the use
of their railcars. According to a 2023 report, initial adoption
by high-value cars, such as refrigerated cars carrying
perishable goods, where information on railcar condition and
health is critical would be beneficial.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ David Schaar, et. al., Freight Rail's Digital Future is Just
Around the Bend, Boston Consulting Group, (January 6, 2023), available
at https://www.bcg.com/publications/2023/benefits-of-applying-advanced-
technologies-to-rail-freight-shipping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
System interoperability and standardization may also serve
as a barrier. For example, interoperability of the railroads'
PTC systems contributed to implementation delays.\63\ RailPulse
seeks to create a common telematics technology platform that
can be utilized by all stakeholders in the rail ecosystem,
shippers, railroads, and railcar lessors and owners, to better
ensure interoperability.\64\ According to RailPulse, there are
approximately 1.6 million railcars with 16,000 currently
outfitted with the geographic information system location
technology.\65\ Among its goals is helping freight recapture
and expand market share lost to trucks and improve railroads
customer service.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, Positive Train Control, As
Implementation Progresses, Focus Turns to the Complexities of Achieving
System Interoperability, GAO-19-693T (July 31, 2019), available at
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-693t.pdf.
\64\ RailPulse, Improving Rails Future Competitiveness, available
at https://railpulse.com/news-updates/improving-rails-future-
competitiveness/#: :text=The%20Challenges%20of%20Today
%27s%20Rail%20Telematics&text=These%20solutions%20often%20lack%20interop
erability,and
%20resulting%20in%20customer%20frustration.
\65\ May 2025 RailPulse update to Committee Staff (on file with
Comm.).
\66\ RailPulse, Improving Rails Future Competitiveness, available
at https://railpulse.com/news-updates/improving-rails-future-
competitiveness/#: :text=RailPulse%20Facilitates%20Next
%20Generation%20Technology,rail%20shipping%20for%20the%20future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. WITNESSES
LMr. David Shannon, General Manager, RailPulse
LMr. Brigham McCown, Founder and Chairman of the
Board of Directors, Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure
LMr. Eric Gebhardt, Executive Vice President and
Chief Technology Officer, Wabtec, on behalf of Railway Supply
Institute
LMr. Tony Cardwell, President, Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employes Division, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters
AMERICA BUILDS: THE ROLE OF INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY IN RAIL
MODERNIZATION
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m. in Room
2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Daniel Webster
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Webster of Florida. The Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to
declare a recess at any time.
Without objection, show that ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that Members who are not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit on the subcommittee and ask
questions.
Without objection, show that ordered.
As a reminder to Members, if you wish to insert a document
into the record, please also email it to
[email protected].
I recognize myself for the purpose of an opening statement
for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL WEBSTER OF FLORIDA, CHAIRMAN,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mr. Webster of Florida. The free enterprise system is
responsible for generating the most efficient and innovative
technologies of our modern world. In the global economy,
technology advancements are some of our Nation's greatest
competitive achievements.
Our national freight and passenger rail networks are no
different from other sectors of the economy. Innovation and
technology are vital to improving the rail industry's growth
and safety outcomes. Ensuring that technology advancements and
innovations continue to flourish will require a combination of
the right policies, particularly regulatory policies, to
incentivize current and future research, development, and
deployment of new technology.
Unfortunately, while our other Government agencies,
including those in the Department of Transportation, are
embracing the promise of innovation and developing the right
regulatory framework for its promotion, much of the Federal
Railroad Administration's regulatory framework remains a relic
of the past.
For example, most FRA regulations are prescriptive in how
they require safety inspection and tasks to be conducted. They
determine the frequency and means used to achieve regulatory
compliance. Many of these regulations were written decades ago,
at a time when technology was limited and/or sometimes
nonexistent.
However, we are here to examine technology's progress.
Technological progress moves on. Although the law allows
railroads to apply for waivers to test new processes and
technologies that can achieve safety objectives while improving
efficiency, this current waiver process is less than
transparent, and subject to political interference. This
regulatory uncertainty hinders both innovation and the rail
industry's ability to compete against other modes of freight
transportation.
As Congress begins consideration of legislation
reauthorizing surface transportation programs and agencies, we
should look to promote policies that encourage innovation and
investment in our rail system, improving both its safety and
its ability to survive and thrive. This includes reforming the
antiquated regulatory structure that is inhibiting innovation.
Today's witnesses will provide important insight into how
technologies have the potential to revolutionize freight and
passenger rail transportation. We are interested in learning
their views on what Congress can do to encourage innovation and
bring our railroads into the 21st century.
[Mr. Webster of Florida's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
The free enterprise system is responsible for generating the most
efficient and innovative technologies of our modern world. In the
global economy, technological advancements are some of our nation's
greatest competitive advantages.
Our national freight and passenger rail networks are no different
from other sectors of the economy. Innovation and technology are vital
to improving the rail industry's growth and safety outcomes. Ensuring
that technological advancements and innovations continue to flourish
will require a combination of the right policies, particularly
regulatory policies, to incentivize current and future research,
development, and deployment of new technology.
Unfortunately, while other government agencies, including those in
the Department of Transportation (DOT), are embracing the promise of
innovation and developing the right regulatory frameworks for its
promotion, much of the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA's)
regulatory framework remains a relic of the past.
For example, most FRA regulations are prescriptive in how they
require safety inspections and tasks to be conducted. They determine
the frequency and means used to achieve regulatory compliance. Many of
these regulations were written decades ago at a time when technology
was limited or non-existent.
However, as we are here to examine, technological progress moves
on. Although the law allows railroads to apply for waivers to test new
processes and technologies that can achieve safety objectives while
improving efficiency, this current waiver process is less than
transparent and subject to political interference. This regulatory
uncertainty hinders both innovation and the rail industry's ability to
compete against other modes of freight.
As Congress begins consideration of legislation reauthorizing
surface transportation programs and agencies, we should look to promote
policies that encourage innovation and investment in our rail system,
improving both its safety and its ability to survive and thrive. This
includes reforming the antiquated regulatory structure that is
inhibiting innovation.
Today's witnesses will provide important insight into how
technologies have the potential to revolutionize freight and passenger
rail transportation.
We are also interested in learning their views on what Congress can
do to encourage innovation and bring our railroads into the 21st
century.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Now I would recognize
Representative Titus, the ranking member, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DINA TITUS OF NEVADA, RANKING MEMBER,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Ms. Titus. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing and for our witnesses for testifying.
As you mentioned, we are here today to discuss rail
innovation. In the United States, our innovative spirit is one
of our greatest strengths, and we should be harnessing this
spirit to improve our transportation networks.
Innovation has transformed both passenger and freight rail
since the 19th century. This includes how locomotives are
powered, as we have moved from steam to diesel to electric. And
now Brightline, which is going to be in my district, running
from Las Vegas to southern California, is bringing zero-
emission, all-electric high-speed rail to the forefront. This
will create good union jobs, it will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and it will make it easier, more convenient, and
quicker for people to travel between Las Vegas and Los Angeles.
And once that is established, we think it will go far beyond.
I am interested in exploring today and hearing from the
witnesses how we can use emerging technologies to combat cargo
theft. This costs our economy between $15 and $30 billion each
year. I held a roundtable to explore this issue earlier in the
year, and co-led a bipartisan bill that would create a Federal
task force to help address the issue. In addition to improving
Federal enforcement, technology can help shippers track
railcars and packages in real time, and that could be immensely
helpful to combating this growing issue and make it safer for
communities and people working on the rail lines.
And speaking of real-time tracking, I am also very
interested in how innovation can make the shipping of hazardous
materials safer. Hazardous material runs right through the
heart of my district in Las Vegas, goes right by train right
down through the heart of town. And I want to be sure that my
constituents and first responders are equipped with the
information they need to respond to any incidents that might
occur involving hazmat.
Now, any conversation about innovation in the rail
industry, like I mentioned or others that may come up, have to
include discussions of rail safety. We have a duty to ensure
that advancements in technology do not come at the expense of
the safety of workers, passengers, and the communities that
trains pass through.
That brings me to my next topic, which is track
inspections. Automated track inspection, ATI--let me get all
these acronyms straight--technology such as track geometry
measurement systems, TGMS, can play an important role in
identifying rail track defaults and in keeping passengers safe.
These systems were first deployed in the 1970s, and they have
been a good supplemental tool for inspecting the 140,000 miles
of track we have across the United States. There are not any
regulations that prohibit any railroad from using these track
geometry measurement systems or any other automated track
inspection technology.
I want to say, though, that ATI should not--should not--
replace visual, in-person track inspections. The National
Transportation Safety Board--another acronym, NTSB--has
cautioned against replacing visual track inspections with ATI.
This is because ATI cannot look for 17--17--different types of
track defects that a human inspector can identify. This
includes broken rails, drainage issues, track obstructions,
trespassers, vandalism, and washouts.
I sent a letter with Ranking Member Larsen to Secretary
Duffy urging the Federal Railroad Administration to not grant a
safety waiver that would allow Class I railroads to reduce
visual track safety inspections from twice a week to twice a
month. That is a big difference, and that is what they are
asking for. The safety waiver request also asks the FRA to give
the largest railroads 72 hours to address defects instead of
immediately addressing them, as current regulations require.
I would also ask, Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent that a
letter be included in today's record, that letter.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Without objection.
[The information follows Ms. Titus' prepared statement.]
Ms. Titus. Okay, thank you very much.
As the subcommittee works on surface transportation
reauthorization, I look forward to working with you, Mr.
Chairman, and the chairs of the committee on provisions that
will push us into the next generation of rail with robust and
dedicated investment while improving and upholding rail safety,
always at the forefront.
I would now ask if we could submit a letter from the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen to be entered into the record
that addresses some of the safety issues I brought up.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Without objection.
[The information follows Ms. Titus' prepared statement.]
Ms. Titus. Well, thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding
the hearing, and I look forward to having those questions
addressed that I have mentioned. Thank you, and I yield back.
[Ms. Titus' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
As you mentioned, we are here today to discuss rail innovation. In
the United States, our innovative spirit is one of our greatest
strengths, and we should be harnessing this spirit to improve our
transportation networks.
Innovation has transformed both passenger and freight rail
operations since the 19th century. This includes how locomotives are
powered, as we have moved from steam to diesel to electric locomotives.
Now, Brightline is bringing a zero-emission, all-electric high-speed
train to my District in Las Vegas through the Brightline West project.
This will create good jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and make
it easier for people to travel between Las Vegas and the Los Angeles
area.
I am interested in exploring today how we can use emerging
technologies to combat cargo theft which costs the U.S. economy between
$15 and $30 billion each year. I held a roundtable to explore this
issue earlier this year and co-led a bipartisan bill that would create
a federal task force to help address this issue. In addition to
improving federal enforcement, technology to help shippers track rail
cars and packages in real time could be immensely helpful to combat
this growing issue.
Speaking of real-time tracking, I am also very interested in how
innovation can make the shipping of hazardous materials safer.
Hazardous material runs through the heart of my district in Las Vegas
by train. I want to be sure that my constituents and first responders
are equipped with the information they need to respond to any incidents
involving hazmat.
Any conversation about innovation in the rail industry must include
discussions about rail safety. We have a duty to ensure that
advancements in technology do not come at the expense of the safety of
workers, passengers, and the communities that trains pass through.
That brings me to my next topic: track inspections. ATI technology
such as Track Geometry Measurement Systems (TGMS) can play an important
role in identifying rail track defaults and keeping passengers safe.
These systems were first deployed in the 1970s and have been a useful
supplemental tool for inspecting the 140,000 miles of track across the
United States. There are not any regulations that prohibit any railroad
from using track geometry measurement systems, or any other automated
track inspection technology.
ATI should not, however, replace visual, in-person track
inspections. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has
cautioned against replacing visual track inspections with ATI. This is
because ATI cannot look for 17 types of track defects that a human
inspector can identify, including broken rails, drainage issues or
track obstructions, trespassers, vandalism and washouts.
I sent a letter with Ranking Member Larsen to Secretary Duffy
urging the Federal Railroad Administration to not grant a safety waiver
request that would allow Class I railroads to reduce visual track
safety inspections from twice a week to twice a month. The safety
waiver request also asks the FRA to give the largest railroads 72 hours
to address defects instead of immediately, as current regulations
require. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be included in
today's record.
As this Subcommittee works on surface transportation
reauthorization, I look forward to working with Chairman Graves,
Ranking Member Larsen and Subcommittee Chairman Webster on provisions
that support the next generation of rail, with robust and dedicated
investment, while upholding and improving rail safety.
Thank you again to Chairman Webster for holding this hearing and to
our witnesses for sharing your expertise on these matters.
With that, I yield back.
Letter of June 17, 2025, from Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Hon. Dina Titus,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials, to Hon. Sean Duffy, Secretary, Department of Transportation,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Dina Titus
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515,
June 17, 2025.
Honorable Sean Duffy,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington,
DC 20590.
Re: FRA Docket # 2025-0059
Dear Secretary Duffy:
We write to express our concern with the Association of American
Railroads' (AAR) request to drastically reduce the number of visual
track safety inspections currently required of Class I railroads under
Part 213.233, title 49 Code of Federal Regulations from twice a week,
to twice a month. The request also proposes to allow railroads to
address track defects up to 72 hours after finding any defects rather
than immediately addressing them, as current regulation requires \1\.
We urge you to deny this waiver request in the interest of rail safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2025-0059-0001 (last
accessed May 27, 2025)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We support the use of technology to improve rail safety and sustain
railroad jobs. We do not believe that fewer visual inspections or
waiting three days to address known problems is in the public interest
nor is it consistent with railroad safety, as safety waivers are
required to be by law.
Following the Norfolk Southern derailment in East Palestine, Ohio
on February 3, 2023, that devastated the surrounding community, Class I
railroads committed to joining the FRA's Confidential Close Call
Reporting System (C3RS). This system allows rail workers to report
unsafe events and conditions. It has been over two years since this
pledge, however, and only two out of the six Class I railroads have
joined C3RS on a pilot basis that covers just a subset of their
employees.
There has also been bipartisan support for improving rail
safety.\2\ Shortly after the derailment, rail safety legislation was
endorsed by then President Biden, former President Trump, and Senator
Vance. The FRA also committed to improving rail safety.\3\
Unfortunately, rail safety legislation has yet to be enacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See https://democrats-transportation.house.gov/news/press-
releases/ranking-members-larsen-wilson-and-tandi-democrats-call-for-
action-on-rail-safety-following-release-of-ntsb-report-on-east-
palestine-derailment and
https://transportation.house.gov/news/
documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=407707
\3\ https://www.transportation.gov/examining-state-rail-safety-
aftermath-derailment-east-palestine-ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The railroads have used Automated Track Inspection (ATI), including
Track Geometry Measurement Systems (TGMS), since the 1970s. ATI is an
effective measurement tool that can identify one type of track defect:
anomalies in track geometry. ATI cannot look for the remaining 17 track
defects that a human track inspector can identify, including broken
rails, drainage issues, or washouts. There are no regulations that
prevent railroads from continuing to use TGMS.
In September 2021, an Amtrak Empire Builder train derailed on BNSF-
owned and maintained track in Joplin, Montana, that was caused by bad
track conditions. That derailment killed three passengers and injured
49 other passenger and crew members. In its final report, the National
Transportation Safety Board stated that ``automated track inspections
by geometry cars or railcar-attached devices provide detailed
information on specific track parameters, but they do not capture the
diverse array of unique track hazards detectable to human inspectors.
They are intended to supplement an inspection program and should not be
used to supplant an inspector physically examining a track.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Transportation Safety Board Final Report of September
25, 2021 Joplin, Montana BNSF Derailment. ``Derailment of Amtrak
Passenger Train 7 on BNSF Railway Track''. Published July 5, 2023.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/
RIR2308.pdf, page 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We urge you to reject the AAR's request, and we look forward to
working with your Administration to raise the bar on rail safety. Thank
you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Rick Larsen,
Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Dina Titus,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and
Hazardous Materials.
Letter of June 24, 2025, from Michael S. Baldwin, President,
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and
Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and Hon. Daniel Webster, Chairman, and Hon. Dina Titus,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Dina Titus
June 24, 2025.
Dear Chairman Graves, Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Larsen, and
Ranking Member Titus:
On behalf of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS) and our
members across the country, thank you for the opportunity to share our
perspective on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials hearing
on ``The Role of Innovation and Technology in a Safe and Efficient Rail
System.'' The BRS represents the skilled men and women responsible for
the installation, maintenance, testing and inspection of the signal and
train control systems that are the foundation of rail safety in the
United States, and we are pleased to provide our input.
Rail Innovation Must Begin with Safety
As the national conversation on rail innovation advances, the BRS
urges Congress to ensure that safety is not an afterthought, it must be
the foundation of every technological development and deployment.
Technology alone does not make railroads safer; it is the combination
of a well-trained workforce and strong federal oversight that ensures
technology is used in a way that advances safety. New technologies,
which hold great promises, must function within the framework of
existing laws and regulations that prioritize human life and public
safety. Signalmen are the custodians of rail safety, as we maintain the
systems that prevent accidents and ensure safe, efficient operations.
If these systems are malfunctioning, trains cannot safely move to their
destination because they need functioning signals to guide their
movements. But innovation must do more than offer vague promises about
performance; it must comply with our existing regulatory and statutory
obligations that were created for a specific reason, oftentimes
following preventable accidents and close calls. Each safety-critical
innovation, whether in signaling, communications, or automation is
subject to regulation by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and
is often rooted in legislation that governs labor, equipment safety,
and operational standards. Innovation in the rail industry should not
be able to bypass these safeguards in the name of efficiency or
modernization. These laws are not obstacles; they are the guardrails
that ensure innovation serves the public good instead of undermining
safety. Rail innovation must never outpace its regulatory
responsibilities, but too often, regulation struggles to keep up with
technological advancement, creating safety gaps that oversight is meant
to prevent.
Human Oversight Is Not Obsolete
Technological tools are only as effective as the people who
implement, maintain, and monitor them. From Positive Train Control
(PTC) to remote diagnostics and automated defect detection, the newest
generation of safety technologies still depends on qualified Signal
employees for proper installation, validation, and maintenance. Our
experience clearly shows that automation cannot and must not replace
human judgment. These systems fail, degrade, or misread data, sometimes
without warning, even when the technology has been around for decades
like PTC. When they do, it is BRS members who step in, diagnose the
issue, and ensure that service and safety are restored. For example,
PTC systems regularly experience communication failures and can
register false occupancy, indicating a train is in a certain location
when it is not, due to environmental conditions, software bugs, or
hardware faults. These scenarios require a Signalman to interpret fault
logs, check components on the ground, and restore operations safely.
Technology does not fix itself.
These kinds of failures are not rare occurrences in our field. Our
members witness them every day across our nation's rail networks, and
every time a Signalman responds correctly, they prevent accidents and
delays on our rail networks. Innovation has not made the signal
workforce obsolete; it has made it more essential. Today's Signalmen
are responsible for troubleshooting microprocessor-based equipment,
analyzing digital diagnostics, and ensuring that mechanical and digital
subsystems function correctly. The job now requires more skill, more
training, and more technical precision than ever before. Human
oversight is not outdated, it is indispensable.
Despite this reality, the rail industry is now seeking to cut back
on visual inspections performed by trained Signalmen. The railroads
claim that with new microprocessor-based systems, the required tests
are no longer necessary. The Association of American Railroads (AAR),
in their May comments to the DOT, advocated for weakening existing
signal inspection requirements. They stated that: ``FRA's current
inspection requirements are framed around arbitrary time-, event-, and
distance-based visual inspections that were the industry norm when
first promulgated more than 50 years ago.'' AAR further argued that
``railroads are continuously performing unnecessary inspections that do
not benefit safety'' and that ``regulation, when necessary, should be
data-driven and performance-based to enable maximum safety benefits and
continued safety innovation.'' They also claimed that ``regulation
imposes significant regulatory costs on the railroad industry that are
not outweighed by public benefits,'' suggesting that ``railroads have
had the technological capability to employ microprocessors, which are
far more reliable than visual inspections, to assess signal health for
some time now.'' Reducing or eliminating inspections overlooks the
lived experience of Signalmen, who know firsthand that failures still
occur, even in automated systems, and who are the ones who step in when
technology fails. No matter how advanced the system becomes, the rail
industry must not abandon the human expertise that ensures both the
safety of the technology and the safety of the network itself.
We Embrace Innovation that Provide Redundancy and Safety
The BRS has clearly demonstrated our commitment to responsible
innovation. Through our partnership in a federal Consolidated Rail
Infrastructure and Safety Improvement (CRISI) grant alongside the
University of Texas Rio Grande Valley and Hum Industrial Technologies,
we are actively helping develop telematics tools that can enhance
safety without displacing the workforce. This grant is a model of the
labor-academia-industry partnerships that should happen as it relates
to developing new technology. But we must be clear: reducing redundancy
in the name of ``efficiency'' is a threat to safety. Railroads have a
long history of removing critical safeguards as new technology is
introduced. That practice must end. Redundancy is not a weakness, it is
a necessary protection when technology fails, misreads, or
malfunctions, which it will. Removing the human element from safety-
critical systems is not innovation, it is exposure to preventable risk.
Signal systems have evolved from relay-based designs (solid state
driven by electricity) to microprocessor-based control systems
(computer chips). But the physical, labor-intensive component switch
machines, crossing gates and lights, cantilevers, wayside signals,
defect detectors, electric locks, and switch circuit controllers remain
largely the same. These are the backbone of the rail network, and they
still require hands-on, highly skilled testing and maintenance. FRA
requires periodic, in person inspections for all these systems which
signalmen do. These in-person inspections are vital to ensure that
these components are working and maintained properly. The railroads are
currently trying to reduce the frequency of in-person inspections for
grade crossing and signal systems and just rely on diagnostic data from
sensors. Rail-grade crossings are the most dangerous part of the rail
system and members of the public and rail workers sadly die or get
severely injured on a regular basis at grade crossings. These periodic,
in-person inspections are vital to ensure that the grade crossing
safety equipment, if it is installed at the crossing, is functioning to
protect the public and rail workers going through the crossing. The
railroads' attempt to reduce these in-person inspections is extremely
unsafe, and we urge Congress to vigorously oppose those attempts.
Where a Signalman once could walk into a relay house and visually
pinpoint a fault based on the physical position of a relay, today's
microprocessor-based systems require interpreting diagnostic logs,
analyzing digital fault data, and applying a working theory to locate
and resolve the issue. This evolution has increased the technical
aptitude required, not decreased the importance of Signalman. These
complex systems still depend on physical integrity, electrical
performance, and real-world conditions. Without a skilled workforce
validating and troubleshooting them on the ground, the system is only
as dependable as its last unchecked error code. This is why human
oversight, and mechanical redundancy must be preserved, not removed.
Innovation must augment safety, not automate workers out of the
equation.
Innovation Must Not Undermine Labor Standards
The BRS supports innovation. However, too often, technological
progress has been used as a justification to undermine labor standards,
reduce staffing, and weaken inspection frequencies which is what the
Class I freight railroads are attempting to do right now. Like other
crafts, the Class I railroads have cut the number of signalmen they
employ since 2015 by over 30%. This has left signalmen stretched thin
and in certain territories that signalmen are assigned to that stretch
hundreds of miles, the railroads only have a handful of signalmen left
to ensure the signal and grade crossing systems in those locations are
working properly. This is not modernization, it is a shift of risk,
leaving BRS members and the public more vulnerable.
A recent example is found in Sections 121 and 122 of H.R. 8996 from
the 118th Congress, which would authorize federal funding for the
development and deployment of telematics on railcars. While we support
advancing safety technologies, these provisions omit long-standing
labor protections, including the 4R Act (49 U.S.C. Sec. 22404) and
related provisions (Sec. Sec. 22905(b) & (c)) that protect rail workers
negatively affected by federal grants.
Even more troubling, Sections 121 and 122 of H.R. 8996 exclude
labor organizations from participating in project development or grant
eligibility. These omissions are not minor technicalities; they
represent a significant departure from how federally funded rail
programs have traditionally operated. The 4R Act and related
protections ensure that workers affected by technological change are
not displaced, downgraded, or relocated without fair and equitable
negotiations. They have been a core part of maintaining workforce
stability and upholding public accountability in federally funded
infrastructure projects. This sets a dangerous precedent. Innovation
that is funded by taxpayers must not come at the cost of workers'
rights, safety, or job security. When Labor is left out of the process,
implementation suffers. Signalmen bring practical field experience that
is critical to testing and refining new systems. BRS and our members
want to be involved in the development of new technology, including the
next generation of telematics, given our expertise on the issue and the
fact that our members will be interacting with this technology on a
daily basis. Excluding the workforce leads to avoidable failures and
undermines the very safety improvements the legislation intends to
support. Congress must ensure that innovation is inclusive,
accountable, and aligned with the values of safety, fairness, and
shared responsibility.
BRS Supports Innovation That Strengthens Safety and Jobs
Rail innovation should strengthen the system, not strip it down.
The path forward is not one of workforce reduction, but of workforce
integration. Technology should empower Signalmen, not replace them.
Safety outcomes consistently improve when the people who understand the
system best, those who work on it every day, are involved in its
evolution. We have seen this firsthand during the national rollout of
Positive Train Control (PTC) which started in the mid 2000's and took
over a decade and a half to complete. The PTC rollout was most
successful on railroads where signal workers were part of the planning
and deployment. Their field expertise helped solve real-world problems
that engineers and vendors could not foresee alone. When labor is
excluded, the consequences are costly: implementation delays, training
gaps, and reduced safety performance. Rail innovation cannot be
successful when it overlooks the very workforce that will build,
maintain, and troubleshoot the systems being introduced. Innovation
should also create opportunities for upskilling, trade recruitment, and
safety modernization, but that only happens when labor is meaningfully
involved from the start. With current workforce shortages across the
rail sector, now is the time to pair innovation with investment in the
people who can deliver it through training partnerships and federally
supported workforce development. Innovation is not just about what is
new, it is about who is included, and for it to succeed, it must
include us.
Conclusion
The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen is committed to a rail
network that is safer, smarter, and stronger. We believe in innovation,
but it must be done with us, not around us. Signalmen are ready to help
lead this next era of rail safety. We will not stand by as technology
is used to sideline the very workers who make safety possible.
Thank you for your attention to these issues, and for your
commitment to a safe and fair future for America's railroads.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael S. Baldwin,
President, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen.
Mr. Webster of Florida. I would now like to recognize and
welcome our witnesses and thank them for being here.
It is good to have you today. Thank you for it. I look
forward to hearing what you have to say. Let me take a moment
and tell you about the lighting system. Green means go, yellow
means it's time to wrap it up, red means it's time to quit.
It's pretty simple.
I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements
be included in the record.
Without objection, show that ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted in writing.
Without objection, show that ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15
days for additional comments and information submitted by
Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
hearing.
Without objection, show that ordered.
As your testimony, written testimony, has been made part of
public record, the subcommittee asks you to limit your oral
remarks to 5 minutes. And with that, I will call on Mr.
Shannon.
You are recognized for 5 minutes for your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID L. SHANNON, GENERAL MANAGER, RAILPULSE, LLC;
BRIGHAM A. McCOWN, FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, ALLIANCE FOR INNOVATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE; ERIC
GEBHARDT, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGY
OFFICER, WABTEC, ON BEHALF OF THE RAILWAY SUPPLY INSTITUTE; AND
TONY CARDWELL, PRESIDENT, BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY
EMPLOYES DIVISION, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
TESTIMONY OF DAVID L. SHANNON, GENERAL MANAGER, RAILPULSE, LLC
Mr. Shannon. Good morning, Chairman Webster, Ranking Member
Titus, and distinguished members of the rail subcommittee. I am
David Shannon, general manager of RailPulse, LLC. And it is an
honor to be here before you today on behalf of a diverse
coalition of railcar owners, all united in a common purpose: to
grow the use of freight rail transportation in North America
through innovation.
At the heart of this innovation is telematics on railcars,
the installation of GPS and smart sensors on railcars that
provide real-time information about their location, condition,
and health. These technologies may sound technical, but their
purpose is simple: to make rail a more competitive,
transparent, and reliable mode of freight transportation. And
this matters because, when more freight moves by rail, the
public benefits. Rail is more fuel efficient, sustainable, and
safer than trucking on a per ton-mile basis. And shifting
freight from road to rail reduces highway congestion, cuts
infrastructure wear, and lowers transportation costs across the
supply chain.
Growth in rail isn't just an industry objective, it's in
the national interest. But rail cannot grow without change.
Shippers have told us clearly why they choose trucks: reliable,
on-time performance; shipment visibility; and equipment
availability and capacity. RailPulse was created to deliver the
data that can be used to address these issues not just for
individual companies, but for the system as a whole.
Formed in 2021, the coalition came together out of the
realization that no single company or class of companies could
solve these issues. Fragmented adoption of telematics would be
slow and inconsistent. But by collaborating, sharing expertise,
data, investment, and equal governance, we could build
something transformative. Today, reflecting the diversity of
railcar ownership, RailPulse members come from all classes:
Bunge North America, a shipper; GATX, Greenbrier, Trinity Rail,
railcar lessors; G&W, Railroad Development Corporation, and
Watco, all short line railroads; and CPKC, CSX, Norfolk
Southern, and Union Pacific, all Class I railroads.
With the help of a CRISI grant, the Federal Railroad
Administration, and the State of Pennsylvania, railroads
launched a multiphase pilot project to test these concepts. We
equipped more than 1,000 railcars of different types--tank
cars, auto racks, boxcars, and more--with advanced sensors and
GPS devices from multiple vendors. We proved that data could be
captured, standardized, and shared securely to all authorized
stakeholders, and all in real time. Following the pilot, the
RailPulse platform was officially launched across North America
in September 2024, and we are now seeing strong interest in
adoption.
But we faced two critical challenges. The first I will call
the growth-to-value paradox. While our growth has been
impressive by traditional measures for a technology startup--
over 17 times since the pilot ended--it is nowhere near good
enough. Only when a majority of the 1.6 million railcars in
North America are equipped will we see the true systemwide
impact. It is only then that railroads can begin to leverage
the telematics data to change their operating practices, that
we can begin to contemplate new regimes for safety, and that we
can implement broad-scale, predictive railcar maintenance
strategies to increase the safety of the railcar fleet. But
getting there requires accelerated investment. And to that end,
we urge Congress to support financial incentives to help
railcar owners equip faster.
The second I will call the railcar innovator's dilemma. The
rail industry needs to embrace the same fail-fast ethos that
has driven American technology leadership globally. But right
now, even when there are internal funds available for
investment, there is concern, concern that innovations early
adopters invest in might be undercut by future regulation or
technology specification.
We need a regulatory environment that is outcome-focused
and supports--even incentivizes--experimentation and
innovation, especially for monitoring technologies that don't
directly affect the railcars' operation. If companies are
willing to test unproven tools responsibly, they should be very
actively supported.
In closing, I want to thank the committee for your time and
attention today. What RailPulse is doing is historic. For the
first time, a diverse set of railcar owners are working
together to modernize freight rail system at a foundational
level. With your partnership, the continued support of the FRA
and others, and with shared commitment, we can digitize all 1.6
million railcars in North America, and we can shift the
perception and reality of rail as a smart, safe, sustainable
mode of freight transportation.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Shannon's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David L. Shannon, General Manager, RailPulse, LLC
Good morning, Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and
distinguished members of the Rail Subcommittee. My name is David
Shannon and I serve as General Manager of RailPulse LLC. I am appearing
before the Committee today on behalf of the diverse coalition of member
companies who comprise the owners of RailPulse.
Why RailPulse
RailPulse, LLC was chartered in 2021 by a coalition of forward-
thinking railcar owners who joined together to drive growth in the use
of rail freight transportation in North America by enabling improved
service and safety through the collaborative use of railcar telematics
data. RailPulse believes that telematics on railcars provides
information necessary to address the critical issues that rail
customers identified as causing them to prefer truck over rail leading
to erosion in rail market share \1\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Flexible Freight and the Future of Rail, 2020 North American
Shipper Survey, Oliver Wyman, December 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. On-time Performance--When telematics devices are deployed at
full network scale, railroads can leverage the railcar data to improve
yard operations, interline movements, and empty capacity management,
resulting in greater velocity, resiliency, and predictable on-time
performance.
2. Equipment/Capacity--At individual fleet scale, railroads and
car owners can better manage railcar availability and utilization by
minimizing disruptions due to unplanned railcar maintenance and by
having better visibility of empty capacity on the railroads and in
customer facilities allowing more optimal and timely routing of
railcars to meet shipper demand.
3. Shipment Visibility--For any telemetry equipped railcar,
shippers gain visibility to their empty or loaded movements giving them
better insights into where their shipments are, what condition they are
in, and should anything go wrong, the basis for a productive dialog
with their serving railroad and a better customer experience.
The vision of the coalition is to create a central platform (The
RailPulse Platform) providing a single source of truth for telemetry
data on the location, condition, and health of all railcars in North
American revenue service. Through the RailPulse Platform, the coalition
aims to transform the North American freight rail industry by sharing
telematics data that delivers accurate, timely insights to railcar
owners and to all parties of a rail shipment, while driving railcar
telematics innovation, data standards, performance requirements, and
proactive sensor network management.
RailPulse's goals in creating a North American railcar telemetry
platform are aligned with national policy. Ultimately RailPulse is
about making rail service offerings more useful and attractive to
shippers, which we believe will lead to growth in rail, an extremely
safe and fuel-efficient mode of surface transportation. Specifically,
on a ton-mile basis, rail is 28 times safer for both the public and
workforce. It is four times more energy-efficient, which is crucial for
reducing overall energy consumption and dependence. And it produces
significantly less greenhouse gas emissions than trucking--trucking
produces 11.5 times more while moving only 1.5 times more freight \2\.
If RailPulse succeeds, we will have a safer, more energy-efficient
transportation system with fewer greenhouse gas emissions and reduced
highway congestion. Regardless of how you look at it, growth in rail
market share is a very important public good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Growth in the Freight Rail Industry, Adriene Bailey, Railway
Age, August 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structure & Governance
From its inception, RailPulse has been structured to reflect the
diversity in ownership of the roughly 1.6 million railcars in service
across North America. It is designed to benefit all constituents in the
rail ecosystem to drive carload growth: shippers, Class I railroads,
short line railroads, and railcar operating lessors, all while
enhancing the safety and security of proprietary car-owner data. Each
stakeholder has an equal voice in the governance of RailPulse and its
policy decisions to ensure that the coalition stays focused on what is
best for the North American rail industry rather than a single
stakeholder or industry class.
Founded by five railcar owning companies in 2021, today RailPulse
is owned by a coalition of companies representing all four railcar
owning classes: Bunge NA, a shipper; GATX, Greenbrier, and Trinity
Rail, railcar lessors; G&W, Railroad Development Corporation, and
Watco, short line railroads; and, CPKC, CSX, Norfolk Southern, and
Union Pacific, Class I railroads.
Goals
RailPulse is focused on solving the rail industry's most pressing
competitive and technological challenges associated with providing
visibility into the movement of rail freight. Sharing common goals that
will benefit the entire rail ecosystem is the foundation of the
RailPulse coalition. The RailPulse members recognized that working
independently would result in slow, incremental adoption of the latest
GPS and telematics technologies and siloed access to the data. Working
together as a coalition unifies our expertise and resources to take the
entire rail industry forward. Rather than duplicating efforts, through
RailPulse, railcar owners are now collaborating and aligning to not
only speed adoption but also foster greater innovation.
The RailPulse coalition has five key goals:
1. Create a comprehensive platform that acts as a single source of
truth for telematics data across the rail industry. By standardizing,
centralizing, curating, enriching, and securing data from a variety of
telematics vendors, the platform ensures that all stakeholders--ranging
from shippers to railroads--can seamlessly access and utilize this
information. The graphic below illustrates the role of the RailPulse
Platform in the rail ecosystem.
2. Facilitate collaboration among shippers, carriers, and car
owners, to build a unified framework that encourages synergy across all
sectors of the North American freight rail system. By integrating
shared telematics data and insights, RailPulse empowers stakeholders to
optimize operational efficiencies, elevate service standards, and
enhance safety practices. This collaborative approach not only
contributes to the growth of freight movement but also creates a
resilient and interconnected ecosystem that benefits the entire rail
industry.
3. Foster transparency into rail shipment movements and deliver
advanced insights into the estimated time of arrival for both loaded
and empty railcars. By providing precise and actionable data, this goal
aims to enhance supply chain productivity, enable better planning, and
improve shipper satisfaction across the North American rail freight
ecosystem.
4. Advance the use of telematics technology to enhance the
management and maintenance of the railcar fleet. By utilizing real-time
data from cutting-edge sensors and GPS devices, the coalition aims to
enable predictive maintenance practices that optimize asset
utilization, extend the operational lifespan of railcars, and create a
healthier, more reliable fleet. This approach not only enhances the
efficiency and effectiveness of rail operations but also contributes to
a safer transportation network by proactively identifying and
addressing potential issues before they escalate.
5. Drive telematics innovation by clearly specifying the desired
outcomes for monitoring the location, condition, and health of
railcars--critical elements for the long-term success and growth of
rail freight. RailPulse prioritizes a results-driven approach where
innovations are evaluated based on their conformance to performance
requirements rather than rigid design or technology specifications.
This ensures that vendors retain the freedom to innovate and push the
boundaries of telematics technology while delivering solutions that
enhance reliability, safety, and efficiency across the rail ecosystem.
Getting Started
To jump start its development, the coalition sought and was awarded
a CRISI (Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements)
grant. The grant, alongside the support of the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) and the State of Pennsylvania, provided seed
funding for RailPulse to evaluate the state of telematics technology,
to test its fitness for use across the North American rail network, and
to develop and demonstrate a neutral, open-architecture telematics
platform designed to provide a shared source of truth on the location,
condition, and health of railcars.
The CRISI grant facilitated a multiple phased project, concluding
in mid 2024, that involved over 1000 railcars equipped with modern
telematics sensors, including GPS units, impact sensors, load sensors,
door/hatch sensors, and handbrake sensors. Diverse types of railcars,
including tank cars, boxcars, hopper cars, auto racks, and gondolas
were used in the trials to ensure comprehensive data collection across
different freight categories. The project engaged multiple telematics
vendors specializing in sensor technology and data analytics,
demonstrating interoperability within a common platform across a
diverse vendor ecosystem while fostering technology innovation. These
outcomes created the baseline for the RailPulse Platform, set the
foundation for broader railcar telematics adoption, and highlighted the
transformative potential of equipping the entire fleet with advanced
telemetry.
Today
Today, RailPulse is transforming rail shipping by leveraging the
latest technologies to gather and share real-time railcar location,
health and condition information. It enables data from GPS and railcar-
mounted sensors to drive improved service levels, visibility, safety,
sustainability, and productivity into North American rail-based supply
chains.
The RailPulse Platform was officially launched and made available
to all railcar owners and stakeholders in North America in September
2024.
Opportunities & Challenges
1. Growth to Value Paradox
Since launching, RailPulse has been rapidly bringing on new
subscribers who are equipping railcars and using the data. On one hand
the growth in the number of installed railcars has been substantial
(over 17x the initial test population) while on the other hand it has
not been nearly substantial enough to deliver broad systemwide benefits
that contribute to the promised public good resulting for more use of
rail transport.
As with all new technology startups, companies that are engaging
with RailPulse and are equipping railcars tend to be early adopters who
are doing so based on the expected benefits that they can directly
obtain from the technology. As such, railcar equipping tends to happen
on a fleet by fleet, customer by customer basis where the needs are
most acute and the benefits can be realized primarily through better
individual shipment visibility, shipper-railroad collaboration and
dispute resolution, and similar transactional optimizations or where
individual fleet utilization improvements can be obtained. Railcar
growth can continue in this way for a long time but at a very measured
pace.
The paradox lies in the fact that, while when measured by
traditional metrics the growth RailPulse has experienced since
launching is great, it is still not good enough. This is because the
public benefits can only be unlocked by achieving a critical mass of
telemetry equipped railcars--beyond 50% full fleet penetration. At
critical mass, railroads can begin to leverage telematics data to
change railroad operating practices, new safety regimes can be
contemplated and implemented, and even broadscale predictive railcar
maintenance strategies can be implemented. In aggregate, these network
wide actions, and their associated benefits will be transformative to
the rail industry because they will lead to measurable improvements in
network efficiency, service, safety and ultimately growth in the use of
freight rail by shippers. With this growth the industry will deliver
the public good that this technology promises.
To accelerate the adoption of telematics network wide, we need to
break out of the traditional technology adoption pattern. That will
require incentive for railcar owners to equip railcars faster.
Ultimately, we believe that financial incentives need to be introduced
that will encourage equipping railcars when the transactional benefits
alone are unknown or insufficient to justify the car owner's
investment. This will bring more car owners into the market and drive
adoption of larger fleets faster.
The RailPulse Coalition intends to seek additional funding
opportunities to incentivize rail car owners to adopt telematics
technology and become subscribers to the RailPulse Platform. This
adoption incentive will align itself with the goal of getting more cars
online faster and getting the rail car fleet closer to the coalition's
goals of the larger systemic benefits like predictive estimated time of
arrival, predictive maintenance requirements, critical safety alerts,
and supply chain efficiencies that reduce the cost of freight rail
moves to shippers and carriers. We believe that supporting future grant
funding for these benefits is in the public interest. In fact, both the
European Union and India are both countries who have participated in
grant funding to outfit rail telematics across their freight rail
fleets.
2. Rail Telematics Innovators Dilemma
One of the key reasons the US leads the world in technology
innovation is the fail-fast ethos that permeates our technology sector.
This mindset encourages rapid experimentation and learning by embracing
failure as a natural part of the innovation process. The rail industry
needs to be incentivized to adopt a similar ethos and be strongly
supported when they do.
Development of unproven technology is inherently costly and
technically complex which makes investment risky. On top of that, in
the rail industry, there also exists a pervasive concern that the
innovation process might create liabilities for the companies that test
innovative but unproven technologies or that even if their innovation
is proven successful in testing, an alternative technology may be
mandated by the government that makes their investment moot. Thus, we
have a dilemma where there is belief in the potential of the technology
but a fear of being a first mover, even where internal investment is
available, due to the risk exposure of loss it might create.
We need a regulatory environment wherein the innovators don't fear
being penalized when leading the charge in new technology development.
The RailPulse Coalition needs to be able to experiment with new
technologies and new devices to prove them out. The coalition has a
mechanical committee that recommends the adoption of performance
criteria that any device and the data it generates must meet before an
expectation of use is created or regulated. Especially for monitoring
technologies (those that don't directly control the operation/use of a
railcar), the rail industry needs to be able to test innovative
solutions without fear of negative ramifications. The coalition simply
asks that coalition members, rail car owners, and technology vendors
should be free within agreed upon parameters to innovate and test
technology solutions before they are proven and when proven those
technology innovations will be supported.
Conclusion
In closing, I again want to thank the committee for its invitation
to be here today to discuss this exciting time in the freight rail
industry. Working collaboratively as car owners the entire industry is
making history as we utilize the latest in technologies working with
our technology partners and vendors to push the limits of rail
telematics for decades to come. By working together with this
committee, FRA and the rail coalition we have a tremendous opportunity
to convert the entire fleet of 1.6 million rail cars into smart rail
cars and in the process change the way rail shippers, regulators,
communities, rail employees and investors view the freight rail
industry.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.
Mr. McCown, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF BRIGHAM A. McCOWN, FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALLIANCE FOR INNOVATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. McCown. Thank you very much, Chairman Webster, Ranking
Member Titus, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am here in my
capacity as the chair of the Alliance for Innovation and
Infrastructure. Aii is a nonpartisan, independent think tank
developed over a decade ago focused on advancing pragmatic
solutions to improving safety, fostering innovation, and
strengthening America's infrastructure systems.
Today's hearing touches on a crucial issue. As we invest in
rebuilding and expanding American infrastructure, a critical
linchpin for not only our domestic economy but for our global
economic competitiveness, we must ensure that our regulatory
framework evolves alongside the technology shaping 21st-century
transportation. The challenge before us is not partisan; it's
practical. Modernization done right enhances both safety and
competitiveness. We can protect American jobs while making our
infrastructure smarter, more efficient, and more resilient.
Technology is not the enemy of safety; it is often its greatest
ally.
Aii's recent report, ``Driving Regulatory Innovation for
Safer Railroading,'' reveals significant friction between the
current regulatory approach and the adoption of safety-
enhancing tools. In the last 5 years, nearly 70 percent of
Class I railroads have sought waivers from the Federal Railroad
Administration to use technologies like automatic track
inspection, yet 40 percent of those waivers took more than 6
months or longer to be approved, many with limited or no
explanation. As a former Federal regulator, let me say that
this isn't about shortcuts. It is about ensuring that when
railroads deploy rigorously tested systems that improve defect
detection and reduce risk, they should be embraced.
The concern is that if the regulatory system moves too
slowly with proven technology, how can we expect it to move at
all when innovation comes knocking? The regulator must be
equipped to fairly and swiftly evaluate new innovations. To
FRA's credit, a recent proposed rule on ATI acknowledges the
need for reform, but it still leans on outdated assumptions
such as mandatory visual inspections, even where automated
systems have demonstrated superior performance. FRA's proposal
lacks key elements of a modern regulatory design: objective
standards, structured timelines, and transparent
decisionmaking.
We should move away from prescription and toward an
outcome-based approach of continuous improvement like those
found in safety management systems. Safety and technology go
hand in hand, and continuous improvements require regulators to
rethink how they regulate. By the time a regulation is written,
the technology is already outdated. Because today's technology
moves at the speed of light, this regulatory lag that is
inherent in the system is innovation's worst detractor. We are,
in many cases across Government, literally discouraging
technology from being developed.
That same approach can benefit rail safety. As I have said,
safety and innovation are not mutually exclusive. When
regulations reward validated results, regardless of the method
used, we empower both workers and innovators to contribute to a
stronger system.
I do also recognize that workforce concerns are real. New
technologies can be deployed in ways that enhance the ability
of workers to complete their task more efficiently.
Technological innovations often require more people, not less.
You may recall when Americans were told that word processors,
computers, and printers would make our lives a life of leisure,
but that hasn't exactly turned out that way. Technology,
though, improves our ability to do more. And that is important
because more needs to be done.
Technology is that secret sauce to the American economy,
and it can be leveraged to improve infrastructure, the
companies regulated by it, and the regulator itself. Aii does
not advocate for deregulation, but it supports smarter
regulations that empower innovation and increase efficiency and
resilience of the infrastructure while protecting communities
and ensuring tax dollars are wisely spent.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I commend
your bipartisan leadership and the work, the important work,
that you all are doing. This hearing is a step toward building
a regulatory framework that reflects America's capacity for
innovation and responsibility. Thank you again for the
opportunity to contribute, and I look forward to your
questions.
[Mr. McCown's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brigham A. McCown, Founder and Chairman of the
Board of Directors, Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure
Executive Summary
This testimony presents both personal insights and research
findings regarding the limitations of the current Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) regulatory framework and waiver process. Key
points include:
Approximately 70% of Class I railroads submitted FRA
waivers in recent years involved relief from rules restricting modern
safety technologies.
Approximately 40% of those applicants experienced delays
beyond 180 days.
In Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. FRA (2023), the Fifth
Circuit ruled FRA's waiver denials were ``arbitrary and capricious.''
Aii identifies opportunities for Congress and FRA to
modernize the framework through objective standards, increased
transparency, and timeline accountability, building on the intent of
the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act and the intent of draft
Railway Safety legislation.
I. Introduction
Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name
is Brigham McCown, and I appear before you today in my capacity as the
Chair of the Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure (Aii). Aii is
an independent, non-partisan think tank dedicated to advancing
pragmatic, data-informed solutions with a goal of advancing
infrastructure safety and efficiency across the United States.
Aii has written several white papers and policy briefs on
innovation, safety, and regulatory reform for rail transportation in
recent years and produced dozens of additional reports and resources on
U.S. transportation and infrastructure systems. We create independent
and objective analysis to achieve the best outcomes for public safety,
infrastructure resilience, and innovation. Issues like the one before
this committee today are precisely the reason I founded Aii over ten
years ago.
The topic of this hearing, how America builds, raises a critical
and timely point: the nation's regulatory infrastructure must evolve in
parallel with our physical infrastructure. While our transportation
systems have benefited from dramatic technological advances, our
regulatory framework has not kept pace. Legacy rules and outdated
procedures, particularly around the Federal Railroad Administration's
waiver and inspection systems, may hinder rather than help efforts to
improve rail safety. This hearing offers a valuable opportunity to
consider how the federal government can modernize its regulatory
approach to reflect today's capabilities and tomorrow's needs.
Today, I will share findings from Aii's most recent report, Driving
Regulatory Innovation for Safer Railroading \1\. The report examines
the current limitations of FRA's waiver process and regulatory
structure and identifies potential reforms to support the safe
integration of modern technologies, particularly Automated Track
Inspection (ATI), into the national rail safety framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.aii.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Driving-
Regulatory-Innovation-for-Safer-Railroading.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The Stakes: Why Reform Matters
Rail transportation is vital to the American economy, and the
safety of our network must remain at the forefront. Yet the current
regulatory framework under which the FRA operates remains rooted in an
era before the emergence of technologies such as sensor-based defect
detection, data-driven condition monitoring, and AI-supported
inspections.
Aii's analysis shows that over the past five years, approximately
70 percent of Class I railroads submitted waiver applications to FRA
related to the use of advanced safety technologies. Approximately 40
percent of those experienced delays longer than 180 days, with many
decisions lacking detailed technical justification.
These regulatory bottlenecks have not only slowed innovation, but
they have also drawn legal scrutiny. In Union Pacific Railroad Co. v.
Federal Railroad Administration (2023) \2\, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit ruled that FRA's denial of ATI waivers was
``arbitrary and capricious'' under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Court concluded that the FRA failed to meaningfully evaluate safety
data already in its possession and failed to articulate a clear
rationale for preferring visual inspections over technology-based
alternatives. This ruling reinforced stakeholder concerns that FRA's
waiver decisions often lack transparency, analytical rigor, and data-
driven reasoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/22-
3648/22-3648-2024-08-20.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. FRA's Proposed Rule and Observed Regulatory Gaps
FRA's October 2024 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on ATI reflects a
formal recognition that modernization is needed \3\. Aii's review finds
that while the rule introduces structured considerations for ATI, it
largely preserves a prescriptive posture that may limit flexibility to
deploy emerging technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/23/2024-
30595/track-geometry-
measurement-system-tgms-inspections-extension-of-comment-period
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, the proposal would continue to require a baseline
level of manual visual inspections, even where ATI has demonstrated
greater detection performance. Data analyzed by Aii suggests ATI
systems outperform manual inspections in identifying geometry defects
in several test environments.
Current waiver criteria still rely heavily on broad statutory terms
such as ``public interest'' or ``consistent with rail safety.'' Aii's
findings suggest that the use of more objective evaluation standards,
such as quantifiable safety outcomes, operational efficiency, and
third-party validation, could improve clarity and consistency.
Transparency also remains limited. While the proposed rule provides
an avenue for stakeholder input, it does not commit to publishing
Railroad Safety Board member identities, voting records, or technical
rationales. Aii notes that increasing transparency may build public
trust and institutional accountability.
Timeliness continues to be an issue. Aii observed that
approximately 40 percent of relevant Class I railroads experienced
waivers with significant delays. Structured timelines, especially those
aligned with validated safety data, may help ensure the timely
integration of modern technologies.
These findings reflect broader provisions within the Infrastructure
Investments and Jobs Act (IIJA) \4\, which instructs the FRA to act
within defined timeframes and reassess frequently waived regulations.
Aii's analysis indicates that a structured waiver review trigger, such
as three waivers granted on the same provision, could provide a pathway
for proactive modernization consistent with legislative intent.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/
3684/text and
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2022-12/
Guidance%20on%20Submitting%20Waiver
%20Special%20Approval%20Other%20Requests%20for%20Approval%20to%20FRA%20%
28Dec
%202022%29%20final.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
\5\ Aii Report Recommendation 5, p. 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Lessons from Other Modal Agencies in DOT:
The FRA is not the first agency to encounter tension between safety
mandates and the pace of technological change. During my federal
service, I was involved in the creation of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Integrity Management Program.
That initiative moved PHMSA away from rigid compliance checklists and
toward a performance-based model grounded in risk assessment and
verifiable safety metrics.
The results were significant. Between 2014 and 2024, hazardous
liquid pipeline incidents decreased by 36 percent, even as mileage and
throughput increased. Notably, these improvements coincided with
stricter incident reporting standards, ruling out underreporting as the
cause. This suggests that performance-based frameworks can enable
innovation while enhancing safety.
These principles, clearly defined performance goals, flexibility in
achieving them, and strong oversight, may also be applicable to the
rail sector. The PHMSA model demonstrates that federal regulators can
embrace modernization without sacrificing their safety mission.
V. Observed Regulatory Opportunities
Based on Aii's research and policy analysis, several areas appear
to offer Congress and the FRA avenues for enhancing the effectiveness
of the waiver and rulemaking processes:
The Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act provisions on
waiver timeliness could be further supported by clearer deadlines and
agency accountability mechanisms.
Evaluation of waivers may benefit from the use of
quantifiable performance metrics, rather than broad or subjective
terminology.
Public transparency in waiver decisions, such as the
release of voting records and technical justifications, could
strengthen public confidence.
In instances where ATI or other validated technologies
consistently meet or exceed safety standards, there may be grounds to
reassess the need for parallel manual inspection requirements.
Patterns of recurring waivers could be used to signal
that existing rules may no longer reflect technological or operational
realities.
These findings are intended to support ongoing oversight and
bipartisan efforts to modernize the regulatory framework without
compromising safety or accountability.
VI. Conclusion: A Legislative Opportunity to Modernize Rail Safety
The current regulatory structure, while rooted in safety, was
designed for a different era. It does not fully accommodate the tools
and technologies available today. Aii's research highlights examples
where validated innovations have faced delays or denial under existing
procedures, despite measurable safety benefits.
Congress, through mechanisms such as the proposed Railway Safety
bills and future surface transportation reauthorization, can build a
regulatory framework that is both rigorous and adaptable. Observed
outcomes in other transportation sectors suggest that performance-
based, transparent models can enhance safety, accelerate innovation,
and strengthen public trust.
I thank this Subcommittee for its continued, bipartisan attention
to these issues. Your leadership in oversight and modernization efforts
reflects a deep commitment to improving transportation safety and
resilience.
On behalf of the Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure and the
professionals who support our work, thank you for the opportunity to
contribute to today's hearing. I welcome your questions and the
opportunity to support further dialogue on these important issues.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much. Now, Mr.
Gebhardt, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF ERIC GEBHARDT, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, WABTEC, ON BEHALF OF THE RAILWAY SUPPLY
INSTITUTE
Mr. Gebhardt. Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear today. I am Eric Gebhardt. I am the executive vice
president and chief technology officer of the Wabtec
Corporation, testifying on behalf of the Railway Supply
Institute.
Wabtec's commitment to innovation stretches back to George
Westinghouse's 1869 invention of the automatic airbrake. And
today, our 29,000-person global workforce, including 12,000
U.S. employees, helps move roughly one-fifth of the world's
freight through our locomotives, braking systems, and digital
platforms. RSI's more than 200 member companies support tens of
thousands of American jobs and share a mission of advancing
safety, innovation, and network efficiency across the rail
system. For Wabtec, that mission comes to life through three
pillars of modernization: accident prevention, asset health
monitoring, and network utilization.
For accident prevention, Wabtec's Interoperable Electronic
Train Management System and Positive Train Control continuously
monitor train location and speed on more than 24,000 North
American locomotives, preventing train-to-train collisions,
overspeed derailments, work zone incursions, and movements
through misaligned switches. Our enhanced wayside asset
communications support real-time information exchange for
automatic train control and early hazard warnings, creating an
integrated digital safety net. This integrated approach gives
railroads and regulators the tools to prevent and mitigate
accidents, and exemplifies how Wabtec and the broader RSI
membership are turning continuous improvements into concrete
safety gains.
Wabtec and RSI have been at the forefront of deploying
asset health monitoring and predictive maintenance systems.
Preventing the next incident means spotting defects early.
Wabtec's kinetics inspection technologies combine machine
vision, laser scanning, acoustic and thermal sensing, and AI
analytics to assess the condition of locomotives, freight cars,
and track components. Onboard diagnostics track vibration, fuel
flow, and pressure against fleet baselines to predict component
fatigue, while railcar telematics turn freight cars into
connected assets that broadcast mileage, impact shocks, and
handbrake status. By shifting from calendar-based to condition-
based maintenance, railroads reduce failures and keep equipment
in service longer.
For network utilization, Wabtec's trip optimizer and EPA-
certified smart cruise control calculates an optimal speed
profile and automatically manages throttle and dynamic brakes,
delivering about 10 percent fuel savings and more than 400
million gallons conserved to date. Complementing trip
optimizer, real-time planning solutions optimize the train
network to unlock additional mainline capacity. And cloud-based
yard management platforms trim idle time and the on-foot
exposure that causes many yard injuries.
The Tier 4 modernized locomotives reinforce these digital
tools, achieving 76 percent lower NOx, 70 percent lower
particulate matter, and up to 30 percent better fuel economy
than previous generations. To maintain this progress, we
respectfully recommend three Federal actions.
One, sustain and grow Federal investments, particularly the
CRISI program, with dedicated set-asides for digital safety and
advanced inspection platforms so railroads of all sizes can
accelerate deployment of these critical technologies.
Two, expand FRA research, development, demonstration, and
deployment capabilities to advance AI-enabled inspections,
collision avoidance systems, and alternative fuel locomotives.
And three, modernize and streamline regulatory processes so
that technologies with proven risk reduction benefits can move
more quickly to demonstration and widespread use.
In conclusion, modern technology has become an
indispensable driver of rail safety, reliability, and
efficiency. These improvements protect our communities,
strengthen supply chains, and fuel economic growth. Wabtec
Corporation, together with RSI and its member companies, is
committed to advancing the next generation of lifesaving and
efficiency-enhancing technologies. We appreciate congressional
support through past initiatives, and we believe continued
partnership is crucial.
On behalf of Wabtec and RSI, thank you for the opportunity
to testify, and I look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Gebhardt's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric Gebhardt, Executive Vice President and Chief
Technology Officer, Wabtec, on behalf of the Railway Supply Institute
Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's
hearing on rail innovation and technology. My name is Eric Gebhardt,
and I serve as Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of
Wabtec Corporation. I appear this morning on behalf of the Railway
Supply Institute (RSI), the trade association representing nearly 200
manufacturers, component suppliers, and technology companies that
support America's freight and passenger railroads. Together, RSI's
members have more than 725 rail supply locations in 46 states and 277
congressional districts. RSI represents an industry that has over 1.6
million railcars drawn by more than 28,000 locomotives on 140,000 miles
of rail. They design, build, and maintain the equipment, digital
systems, and services that advance the mission of safety, innovation,
technology, and sustainability within the rail industry.
Rail is vital to our nation's economy and mobility. It is also one
of the safest modes of transportation--and technology has been central
to achieving that record. In my testimony today, I will discuss how
modern rail technology is not only optimizing operations but also
saving lives and ensuring a more reliable rail network, and suggest
policy steps to sustain this progress.
Wabtec's Legacy and Global Impact
Wabtec's history is deeply rooted in rail innovation, dating back
to its founding in 1869 with a breakthrough that fundamentally improved
rail safety: the invention of the automatic air brake by our founder,
George Westinghouse. Wabtec has built on this heritage of innovation,
and today operates in over 50 countries with a workforce of over
29,000, including 12,000 in the United States. With the combined
expertise of legacy Wabtec, GE Transportation, and others, the company
has unmatched engineering and digital capabilities and a portfolio
spanning from locomotives, braking systems, digital solutions, and
propulsion technologies that enhance the performance of rail networks
worldwide.
Wabtec plays a key role in advancing rail infrastructure through
strategic partnerships, acquisitions, and investment in emerging
technologies. Wabtec's commitment to research and development ensures
that the rail industry continues to evolve to meet the needs of modern
transportation. Beyond North America, Wabtec has a significant presence
in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and Australia. This
international footprint enables Wabtec to leverage global best
practices and collaborate with rail operators worldwide to drive
advancements in transportation systems and rail networks. Despite
increasing competition from foreign manufacturers, Wabtec remains a
leader in locomotive and transit solutions by investing in proprietary
technology and maintaining strong partnerships with international rail
authorities. In an era where global rail infrastructure is rapidly
evolving, Wabtec continues to provide innovative solutions that keep it
at the forefront of the industry.
Representing the Rail Supply Community
While my testimony highlights Wabtec capabilities, I speak for a
much wider coalition of suppliers, large multinationals and specialty
shops alike, whose innovations span everything from castings and
fasteners to machine-vision inspection portals and cloud-based
dispatching software. In 2020, the rail supply industry directly
employed almost 240,000 workers, who contributed $27.7 billion of
value-added economic activity across the U.S. When the direct,
indirect, and induced contributions of the sector's activities are
combined, the U.S. rail supply industry's total economic impact was
$75.8 billion of GDP, 682,000 jobs, $49.0 billion of labor income, and
$15.5 billion in taxes.
Collectively, RSI members:
Deliver the critical hardware and software that Class I,
short line, and passenger railroads rely upon to meet federal safety
standards; and
Anchor an American industrial base that faces rising
foreign competition yet remains indispensable to resilient domestic
supply chains.
A shared commitment to rail safety and innovation binds the entire
RSI community. Wabtec approaches this critical issue through the lens
of a global locomotive and digital solutions supplier charged with
turning concept into deployable technology. Building on three domains:
1) accident prevention, 2) asset health awareness, and 3) network
utilization, our engineers translate industry needs into scalable
hardware and software that railroads can utilize today.
Accident Prevention
Accident prevention in today's rail network is built on a system of
in-cab, train handling, and wayside technologies supplied by Wabtec and
other RSI members.
Wabtec's positive train control technology (PTC), the Interoperable
Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS) is a safety overlay that
continuously monitors train location and speed and will intervene to
prevent accidents. This system is now installed on more than 24,000
North American locomotives across all Class I freight railroads and
many commuter lines. It is specifically designed to prevent train-to-
train collisions, overspeed derailments, incursions into established
work zones, and movements of trains through misaligned switches.
Additionally, wayside-to-asset communication systems offer numerous
new benefits to enhance efficiency, safety, and overall performance. A
robust communication system enables real-time information exchange
between trains and the wayside infrastructure. This allows for enhanced
safety features, such as automatic train control, collision avoidance
systems, and early warning mechanisms for potential hazards.
This integrated approach gives railroads and regulators tools to
prevent and mitigate accidents, and it exemplifies how Wabtec and the
broader RSI membership are turning continuous improvement into concrete
safety gains.
Asset-Health Monitoring
In addition to train control, Wabtec and RSI have been at the
forefront of deploying asset health monitoring and predictive
maintenance systems. Preventing the next derailment requires seeing the
earliest signs of mechanical trouble. Wabtec is a pioneer in the
inspection and monitoring of rail assets to improve safety through our
KinetiX Inspection Technologies portfolio. These technologies focus on
the rail vehicles and infrastructure themselves--using sensors,
analytics, and connectivity to continuously assess the condition of
locomotives, freight cars, and track components. By detecting emerging
problems early, asset monitoring systems allow railroads to fix issues
proactively before they lead to failures, accidents, or service delays.
Integrating machine vision, laser scanning, remote sensing with
acoustic and thermal technology, load monitoring, and AI-driven
analytics, the technology sets the standard for automating inspection
processes, enhancing asset availability and life, significantly
reducing operational costs and service disruptions. This is about being
proactive rather than reactive: finding the tiny warning signs in
mountains of data and acting on them, instead of waiting for something
to go wrong.
Wabtec's artificial intelligence capabilities facilitate predictive
maintenance, minimizing unplanned downtime and improving asset
utilization. By integrating AI-driven diagnostics with real-time
monitoring, we help railroads reduce mechanical failures and increase
train reliability. For example, our Railcar Telematics portfolio
includes state-of-the-art sensors that turn freight cars into smart
connected assets that allow operators and shippers to see the GPS
location of freight and better manage the safety and maintenance of the
fleet.
This improved fleet reliability means higher network utilization--
railroads can use their locomotives and cars more effectively and
schedule trains with more confidence that each trip will go as planned.
It also reduces maintenance costs over time, since repairs can be
scheduled optimally and asset life is extended by fixing issues before
they cause damage. In short, modern asset health monitoring is making
rail operations more predictable, efficient, and safe. It exemplifies
how digital technology and big data analytics are being harnessed to
tackle age-old challenges of railroad maintenance and safety.
Network Utilization
The examples of PTC and asset health monitoring all underscore a
fundamental point: modern technology is the key to taking rail safety
and efficiency to the next level. These innovations prevent accidents,
optimize operations, and improve asset health in ways that were not
possible with traditional methods. They complement the skill and
experience of railroad workers with precise automation and data-driven
insight, resulting in safer and more productive railroads.
These safety gains are compounded when trains flow smoothly through
the network. For example, Wabtec's Trip Optimizer is a smart cruise
control system for trains certified by the U.S. EPA to deliver 10% fuel
savings. Considering the terrain, train make-up, speed restrictions,
and operating conditions, it calculates an optimum speed profile. It
can automatically control the locomotive throttle and dynamic brakes to
reduce fuel burn and provide efficient train handling onboard
locomotives. The system is installed on over 11,000 locomotives
globally and has saved over 400 million gallons of fuel, cutting carbon
emissions by over 500,000 tons annually. Based on the typical price for
No. 2 diesel fuel, Wabtec has saved customers hundreds of millions of
dollars in fuel expenses.
Similarly, real-time planning solutions optimize train scheduling
and improve network throughput while reducing congestion and energy
use. By leveraging predictive analytics and AI-enhanced decision-
making, technologies enable freight and passenger trains to operate
more efficiently within existing infrastructure. Even in rail yards,
cloud-based yard management platforms can integrate inventory, switch
lists, and crane operations to eliminate cascading delays that often
ripple onto the main line. Improved yard fluidity through automation
can lead to reduced idle times and locomotive fuel consumption. In
addition, fewer yard conflicts translate directly into fewer human
movements between tracks, a leading cause of injuries.
Hardware that underpins safer, cleaner operations
Freight and passenger rail operators across North America rely on
Wabtec locomotives to deliver safe and reliable operations for our
customers. Continuing to invest in new and modernized locomotives,
along with the development of a portfolio of alternative fuel
capabilities to meet a variety of operator needs, will be vital to the
continued competitiveness of freight rail relative to other modes.
Freight Locomotives: Wabtec's Tier 4 locomotives
represent the most advanced diesel-electric locomotives available
today. These locomotives meet the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) stringent Tier 4 emissions standards, which require a 76%
reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx) and a 70% reduction in particulate
matter (PM) emissions, compared to previous generations. With over
1,000 Tier 4 locomotives in operation, Wabtec continues to set the
standard for sustainable rail transportation. Railroads adopting these
locomotives benefit from improved fuel efficiency and a reduced
environmental footprint.
Locomotive Modernization Programs: Wabtec modernizes
aging locomotive fleets to extend their operational life while
incorporating the latest efficiency and safety enhancements. These
efforts have resulted in up to 30% improvement in fuel efficiency and a
more than 50% increase in haulage ability.
Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Technologies: Wabtec is
investing in hybrid-electric and alternative fuel technologies to
support a range of next-generation propulsion technologies. The
development of fuel-flexible, battery-electric and hydrogen internal
combustion engine locomotives represents a significant step toward
implementing innovative technology solutions and increasing energy
efficiency within the rail sector.
Policy recommendations
Thanks to sustained private sector and federal investment in rail
technology, the industry has made great strides. We have seen the
virtual elimination of certain types of collisions and derailments
through PTC; we have dramatically cut fuel waste and emissions through
smart automation; and we are catching maintenance issues long before
they would historically have been discovered. All of this translates
into a stronger rail network that can transport more goods, more
safely, and at a lower cost. With freight demand expected to grow and
with heightened attention on supply chain resilience, these technology-
driven gains are more important than ever--they help railroads handle
growth while maintaining the highest safety standards and reliability.
But continued progress is not automatic. It depends on ongoing
innovation and deployment of new technologies across the industry.
Railroads, suppliers, and government must work together to ensure that
we fully leverage the latest advances (such as artificial intelligence
for inspection, or automation for operational efficiency) and that we
do so without undue delay.
To promote rail safety and efficiency through technology, we
encourage Congress to:
1. Sustain and grow grant programs, particularly the Consolidated
Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program, with
dedicated set-asides for digital safety and advanced inspection
platforms. With the growing adoption of life-saving and efficiency-
enhancing innovations by railroads of all sizes, these federal programs
have been critical to accelerating the deployment of these technologies
nationwide.
2. Expand research, development, demonstration, and deployment of
next-generation rail technologies. Increasing the FRA's research and
development budget and establishing public-private partnership programs
will help drive the next wave of innovation--for example, advancements
in artificial intelligence for track and equipment inspection,
autonomous or remotely operated trains for certain applications,
enhanced cybersecurity for rail systems, and energy-efficient
technologies.
3. Modernize and streamline regulatory processes so that railroads
can more readily, test, evaluate, and adopt new safety technologies.
Current regulations, while well-intentioned for safety, can sometimes
be inflexible or overly prescriptive, inadvertently hindering the
adoption of improved technologies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, modern technology has become an indispensable driver
of rail safety, reliability, and efficiency. These improvements benefit
everyone--they protect our communities, make our supply chains more
efficient, and help our economy grow. Wabtec Corporation, together with
the Railway Supply Institute and its member companies, is committed to
developing technologies that move the needle on safety and performance.
We appreciate the support Congress has shown through past initiatives,
and we believe continued partnership is crucial. By sustaining
investment in rail technology deployment, supporting research and
pilots, and modernizing the regulatory framework, Congress can help the
rail industry deploy the next generation of life-saving, efficiency-
enhancing technologies. On behalf of Wabtec and RSI, I want to thank
the Committee for the opportunity to provide this testimony. We look
forward to working with you to ensure our nation's rail network remains
the safest and most efficient in the world. I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much. Now, Mr.
Cardwell, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF TONY CARDWELL, PRESIDENT, BROTHERHOOD OF
MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS
Mr. Cardwell. Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today. My name is Tony Cardwell, and I am the
president of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
Division of the International Teamsters. I was elected to lead
our national union in 2022. BMWED members are the railroad
workers who build and maintain the tracks, bridges, buildings,
and other critical infrastructure that support both freight and
passenger rail service across the United States.
I began my railroad career when I was hired by the Union
Pacific Railroad, and I have 25 years of seniority on the
Oregon division. Throughout my career, I have witnessed
firsthand the industry's evolution, particularly in areas such
as safety, technology, and innovation.
A common misconception is that the unions are
antitechnology. Let me be clear: The BMWED is not
antitechnology. We support innovation when it improves safety
for the general public and enhances the working conditions of
our members.
In BMWED's 138-year history, we have consistently embraced
significant technological advancements in the rail industry,
especially when those changes have made the railroad safer for
the communities we serve. As president of the BMWED, I
negotiate agreements with the railroads. We understand that in
50 years, railroad work will look far different.
What I will not do is trade safety for convenience or allow
the railroads to do so in the name of chasing the latest piece
of technology. No advancement is worth risking the safety of
the constituents you serve and the communities where our
members work and live. Nearly 2 years after the East Palestine
disaster, the railroads' lobbyists are once again putting
safety on the line. This time, they are targeting the safety-
sensitive work my members perform, seeking to weaken inspection
standards in order to satisfy Wall Street's short-term
expectations.
BMWED's track inspectors perform FRA-mandated visual
inspections of railroad track twice a week. During these
inspections, they look for 27 different variations of track
defects. ATI cannot find 73 percent of track defects, 73
percent. As we speak here today, the Association of American
Railroads, on behalf of the Class I railroads, is asking the
FRA for a safety waiver that would reduce the frequency of
these inspections by 75 percent, cutting them from twice a week
to just twice a month. The same waiver would allow railroads up
to 72 hours to address a defect after it is identified. Under
current FRA regulations, human track inspections are required
to remedy the defect immediately.
Allowing trains carrying passengers or hazardous materials
to travel over compromised track for up to 3 days is an
unacceptable risk. We fully support the use of ATI to
supplement visual inspections, not to eliminate them. ATI
cannot replace the work that track inspectors perform. It only
identifies one category of defects, which is track geometry. It
cannot detect 73 percent of derailment-causing defects such as
broken rails, numerous switch defects, loose bolts, and many
more.
If the railroads succeed in securing this waiver, rail
safety will be significantly weakened. We will see more
derailments, some of which could be as catastrophic as East
Palestine or even worse. Imagine if an event like that were to
happen in the heart of the districts you represent. That is why
BMWED has launched a national campaign to oppose this waiver.
We believe it would be devastating to our constituents and the
safety of rail workers.
We are grateful for the support of Ranking Members Larsen
and Titus and urge all Members of Congress to join us in
standing against this proposal.
While a track defect did not cause the East Palestine
derailment, Norfolk Southern failed to give carmen workers
inspecting the train enough time to do their jobs. East
Palestine was a tragic reminder of the FRA mandate inspections.
Whether of track, signal systems, railcars, locomotives, or
grade crossings, they are all essential. They all matter. The
East Palestine derailment should have been avoided. My message
to the railroads and the companies developing rail technology
is simple: Partner with us to get it right.
We are not opposed to innovation or technological change.
However, it must be implemented in a way that safeguards the
communities across the country where our members work and live.
I want to be extremely clear. BMWED will not stand by if
waivers are accepted and place you and your constituents at
risk. If the AAR waiver is granted, it will expose the American
people to imminent danger.
At a time like this, we should be reminded of the words of
the Holy Bible, Ezekiel 33:6: ``But if the watchman sees the
enemy coming and does not sound the alarm to warn the people,
he is responsible for their death.'' We see the dangers coming.
We are sounding the alarm. The question before you now is, Will
the warning be heard?
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Cardwell's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tony Cardwell, President, Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employes Division, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters
Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee.
My name is Tony Cardwell, and I am the President of the Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED) of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters. I became the National President of BMWED in
2022. Before I was elected President, I was a General Chairman of the
Union Pacific Railroad in Oregon, where I have 25 years as a BMWED
track worker and have seen up close the changes in the railroad
industry over the years as it relates to safety, technology, and
innovation.
Background about BMWED
BMWED is a national union representing the workers who build and
maintain the tracks, bridges, buildings, and other structures on
passenger and freight railroads in the United States. BMWED represents
members on all six Class I freight railroads, Amtrak, most commuter
rail systems, and several unionized short lines (most short lines are
not unionized).
BMWED members play critical roles in maintaining rail tracks, rail
bridges, and overhead electric catenary systems that provide power to
trains. BMWED members inspect track to ensure it is free of defects,
maintain overhead rail catenary primarily from Washington, D.C. to New
York along the Northeast Corridor, and provide protection to workers
working in the railroad right of way so that they don't get killed or
injured by oncoming trains, track cars, machines or motor vehicles
crossing grade crossings.
BMWED is one of the oldest unions in the United States and was
founded in 1887 in Demopolis, Alabama. In 2004, the BMWED merged with
the Teamsters and is now part of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters.
For Nearly 140 Years, BMWED Has Welcomed Innovations That Advance
Safety
Importantly, BMWED is not ``anti-technology.'' On the contrary, we
are advocates of responsible use of technology when it improves the
working lives of our members and more so when it makes the railways
safer. In BMWED's 138-year history, there have been significant
technological improvements in the rail industry that BMWED has
embraced, particularly when it has helped our members and/or provided a
safer railroad.
Some examples include:
Mechanization and Hydraulics: When the railroads were first created
in the 1800s, Maintenance of Way crews lifted heavy rails and railroad
ties manually, using their brute strength, heavy steel lining bars, and
teamwork to get the job done, which was slow and dangerous work--many
rail workers were severely injured in the process--but it also limited
how much could be accomplished in a single shift.
Initial technological advances brought heavy equipment that used
pulleys and cables, alleviating some of the brute force needed for rail
construction. However, ultimately, the introduction of hydraulic
systems revolutionized the industry. The backhoe's introduction
replaced many exhausting and injury-prone processes by bringing
hydraulic lifting power and mechanical precision into the equation.
Backhoes could lift, place, and move materials with far less physical
strain with the right attachments. Hydraulic and specialized track
equipment were built to advance and allow machines to lay rail, pull
spikes, drive spikes, and pullout and insert ties. Whereas workers
might have only been able to install 200 ties a day manually, they can
now install up to 1000 ties daily with the new equipment. For BMWED's
workforce, this meant adapting to new labor requiring equipment
training, spatial awareness, and mechanical problem-solving. Indeed,
for some time, the introduction of hydraulic mechanization did
eliminate some jobs, but it also changed the skills our members needed
and, in the process, created new jobs. BMWED members successfully
adapted and today operate this equipment daily.
Track (Production) Tamper: Track ballast is the material that forms
the track-bed upon which railroad ties are laid on top of. Ballast is
critical to ensure tracks remain stable vertically and horizontally as
trains operate over them and that water is drained correctly away from
tracks so railroad ties do not rot. Ballast is usually made of stone or
gravel; the material you see underneath railroad tracks. Historically,
Maintenance of Way workers relied on manual labor and tools such as
track jacks, lining bars, and tamping picks to compact ballast beneath
the ties and adjust the track's alignment. This process was labor
intensive, took time, and often yielded uneven results.
The introduction of the mechanized Production Tamper changed the
rail industry by replacing the hard, manual work of hand tamping with a
faster and more precise way to maintain track elevation and alignment.
When the tempers came along, railroad workers could lift, line, and
tamp the track all at once, making it easier to keep trains running
smoothly and safely. For Maintenance of Way employees, this meant
learning how to operate heavy equipment, understand hydraulic and
electronic systems, and troubleshoot on the fly. Instead of pushing
back against the change, they leaned into it and added a new layer of
technical skill to their work. Today, BMWED workers operate track
tampers daily. Production tampers are one of the most critical
developments in railroad technology and are mainly responsible for the
ability to increase the type and speeds of track on a universal basis
while dramatically reducing the risks of derailment. This equipment
continues advancements with lasers, touch screens, advanced
diagnostics, and computer systems that genuinely improve the efficiency
and safety of the entire railroad system.
Continuous Welding Rail: Historically, railroad tracks were laid
using what is known as jointed rail. Jointed rail, as the name implies,
were 39-foot track sections bolted at various points using joint bars
and bolts to form long pieces of railroad track. Jointed rails are
weakest at the points where the joint bars or bolts are and are prone
to cracking or loosening at those spots, causing significant sway for
the train car while undermining the track's integrity.
In 1933, the first segment of Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) was laid
in the United States, marking the beginning of a transformative shift
in track infrastructure. CWR is rail track that has been welded
together into \1/4\ mile pieces. And, because it has been manually
welded together, CWR does not contain joints or bolts that jointed a
track has. Train rides are smoother and more stable with CWR, which
decreases the risk of derailment and increases the life of the rail.
The use of CWR expanded significantly in the 1950s as railroads
sought smoother rides, lower maintenance costs, and the ability to
manage faster and heavier trains. As jointed rail was gradually phased
out, Maintenance of Way employees adapted to the evolving technology by
mastering thermite welding, understanding rail stress dynamics, and
ensuring proper anchoring techniques. This transition elevated their
responsibilities and skillsets, transforming Maintenance of Way work
into a more technical and specialized craft essential to modern rail
operations. Maintenance of Way employees create and install CWR daily.
As evidenced by the above examples, BMWED and its members have
adapted successfully to significant technological change in the
railroad industry. There is one common thread with the technology we
have come to support: demonstrable safety improvement in some form.
Crucially, in these instances, workers are still doing the work, even
if they use machines. Maintenance of Way workers today still install
railroad tracks, ties, and ballast daily, even though they use machines
to install these track components, and these components have advanced,
like how Continuous Welded Rail has largely replaced jointed tracks. In
addition to creating a safer and more efficient railroad system, these
machines have made Maintenance of Way workers' lives easier--it is hard
to imagine going back to installing rails and railroad ties manually
like it was done in the 1800s, given how taxing that approach is. But
we still need humans to operate these machines--there are no self-
operating backhoes or track tampers, for example. And that is likely
going to be the case for years to come.
BMWED has consistently embraced technology because it has empowered
our members to work safer and smarter while making our railroad network
safer, which is in direct contrast with the actions of the railroad
industry, which has recklessly pursued cost-cutting at the expense of
safety and quality of service in the past decade. The industry has
drastically reduced its workforce levels by over 30 percent to unsafe
levels while relying on unproven technology that cannot replace the
expertise and skills of the workers the railroads let go. Additionally,
the railroads have sought safety waivers to regulations that are still
needed, and the Association of American Railroads recently asked the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to waive 80 more railroad safety
regulations \1\, many of which are written in the blood of previous
derailments and incidents that killed people, including rail workers,
and caused irreparable injuries and damages. These safety waivers are
what the railroads euphemistically call ``performance-based
regulations''--all it means is no regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2025-0026-0829
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BMWED and the Future of Technology
How we do railroad track or bridge inspections today will likely
not be how we do it 50 years from now. BMWED wants to be a union that
adapts to the changes and continues to perform all railroad
construction work, including operating machines. Just as our members
had to adapt by transitioning from manual labor to operating machines,
the next generation of technology will likely require our members to
become proficient in using artificial intelligence, analyzing multiple
data sources from sensors, and operating even more sophisticated
machinery, such as drones. BMWED members can make that transition if
given the opportunity.
In my role as President, I negotiate agreements between BMWED and
railroads. I want to negotiate with companies about developing and/or
deploying the next generation of meaningful technology so that BMWED
can be partners by having our workers utilize technology, and we can
ensure that our workers are being trained to have the skills needed to
use the technology.
For example, drones will continue to play an increasing role in
railroad track and bridge inspections, such as inspecting hard-to-reach
bridges and structures and conducting heat, high water, and track
washout inspections following storms. Our members currently perform
these inspections, and if the railroads transition to drone-based
methods, we fully expect that this work will remain BMWED work.
Consistent with long-standing principles under our collective
bargaining agreements, the railroads must train their workforce when
new technologies are introduced. We want BMWED members to be trained
and certified to operate drones, and we are prepared to work with the
railroads to implement programs that acquire the necessary equipment
and support our members in obtaining the FAA licenses and
certifications required for safe and legal drone operation.
Adjusting to new technology involves ensuring that workers receive
the training necessary to adapt to and operate said new technology. For
example, BMWED has had a long-standing interest in training our members
to get commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) to do more tasks on the
railroads that require heavy machinery since the amount of railroad
operations involving trucks is rapidly increasing. Our collective
bargaining agreements with the railroads pay our members who have CDLs
a higher hourly wage, so by helping them get their CDLs, we can improve
their economic standing. There have been some issues with federal grant
eligibility, but we would like to work with Congress to make CDL
training for railroad workers an eligible expense under the
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Grant Program
(CRISI), so BMWED can apply for a federal grant through CRISI to do
this CDL training.
Innovation works best when railroads and companies develop new
technologies and work hand in hand with their workers and unions to
identify problems and develop technological solutions. Railroad workers
are on the front lines, and it makes good business sense to canvass
workers who are intimately familiar with the technology they are using
and can help spot problems in the field. Indeed, their feedback is
invaluable. After all, our members are performing the work now and have
valuable input on how that technology might best be deployed to improve
the quality of work.
Despite over a century of continuous track maintenance and
construction work through all the ebbs and flows of technology,
railroads continue to resist engaging the BMWED in meaningful
discussions about how new technology can be used to improve safety. Our
collective bargaining agreements contain scope rules that govern the
work our members perform, and under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), those
agreements remain in effect until the parties agree to amend them. This
work is reserved for BMWED-represented employees through decades of
customary and historical performance. That means the railroads cannot
unilaterally decide to shift safety-critical work away from our members
without first bargaining with the BMWED and reaching an agreement.
When railroads explore new tools for track and bridge inspections,
they should be collaborating with the workers who have been doing the
work for decades. Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing. As
outlined below, we have repeatedly tried to bargain over Automated
Track Inspection (ATI), and the railroads have refused each time. We
have also asked the Class I carriers to let our members fly drones to
perform track and bridge inspections, which is work that is already
core to the maintenance of way craft, just with different tools. To
date, none of the carriers have agreed. This lack of engagement is a
missed opportunity and a safety concern. The safest outcome will always
come from combining experienced workers with emerging tools, not
removing the workers entirely.
Technology should be used to make America's rail network safer and
help skilled workers do their jobs more effectively. It should not be
used to bypass the people who know the work or to undercut the
agreements that have protected this work for generations. Railroads
should work with the BMWED to deploy new technology to enhance safety,
not sideline it.
Too often, we see labor unions and the workers they represent as
excluded from developing and deploying new technology. It is notable to
me that one of the witnesses testifying alongside me is from RailPulse.
RailPulse has many stakeholders who are part of their initiative to
develop a next-generation telematics platform for railcars. These
partners include shippers, Class I railroads, short line railroads, and
railcar operating lessors. To me, one prominent stakeholder is missing:
labor. There is not a single labor union listed, and as far as I know,
RailPulse has not approached any rail labor union to be part of the
coalition or help develop the technology.
BMWED does not oppose RailPulse's technology, and we think better
GPS technology on railcars can benefit shippers, workers, and other
participants in the railroad industry. BMWED and our members may or may
not be directly affected by RailPulse's technology. But I certainly
would appreciate the opportunity to be part of the coalition working on
the technology. And I know that several of my fellow rail unions would
likewise want to be part of that coalition because RailPulse's
technology will directly affect their members and their work. Some
craft of railroad workers will have to ensure that those sensors on the
rail cars are installed and maintained correctly, and the jobs of rail
workers across different crafts are going to be affected by this
technology, including the train crews that transport rail cars and the
carmen that inspect rail cars for defects. They should be included in
the development and deployment of this technology.
Over the last decade, the freight railroads have drastically
reduced the training they provide to their workers. As mentioned above,
programs like the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
Improvement (CRISI) program are invaluable because, uniquely under
CRISI, rail unions are directly eligible to apply for CRISI grants.
BMWED plans to apply for more CRISI grants to conduct workforce
training for its members. Retaining unions' eligibility to apply for
CRISI and expanding workforce development funding is one of BMWED's
priorities in surface transportation reauthorization. This workforce
development funding is critical to helping BMWED train our members to
adapt to new technology in our industry so they are not left behind
skills-wise.
We look forward to working with Congress on this issue.
No Existing Technologies Can Replace Trained Human Inspectors Capable
of Identifying the Full Range of Track Defects
Where technology and innovation can go off the rails and be
dangerous is when railroads or other private companies attempt to
prematurely use that technology to replace human workers even when
technology cannot replicate, or come close to replicating, what a human
worker can do. While technology and innovation can be a force for
positive change, they cannot come at the expense of safety, and there
must be regulations around the technology to ensure it functions
properly. Gutting our long-standing safety regulations just because a
delusive piece of new technology comes along is a recipe for disaster.
Unfortunately, BMWED is going through that exact fight with the
Class I railroads now in their attempt to reduce visual track
inspections by upwards of 75 percent from twice a week to twice a month
and rely solely on a form of technology known as Track Geometry
Measurement Systems (TGMS), which the railroads refer to as Automated
Track Inspection or ATI. ATI cannot replace what a human track
inspector does because it only inspects track alignment, elevation, and
gauge. It does not inspect for track defects that cause a majority of
track-caused derailments.
As background, the Federal Railroad Administration requires
railroads to inspect their railroad tracks through visual track
inspections twice a week for 23 different track defects, which is much
more than the ATI can detect. Track defects are the second leading
cause of rail derailments after human error, so it is essential to
ensure that railroad tracks are free from defects. The worker who
usually performs these visual track inspections is called a track
inspector, and track inspectors are part of the BMWED union.
ATI is a technology that has been around since the 1970s. ATI is a
machine run over railroad tracks that detect one type of track defect:
track geometry defects. Track geometry refers to the geometric
properties of the track, including how wide the track is (track gauge)
and any curvature of the track. These track geometry defects account
for just six of the 23 defects FRA requires railroads to inspect. ATI
cannot detect defects like broken rails, rotten ties, washouts where
the track has washed away, or obstructions in the right of way. ATI can
only detect 26 percent of what a human track inspector can detect and,
therefore, cannot replace human inspections. Moreover, ATI only detects
defects, while track inspectors identify problems before they become
defects.
Nothing in federal law or federal regulations also prevents the
railroads from running any form of ATI, including TGMS, as much as they
want. The railroads run ATI right now, and BMWED members operate some
ATI machines.
Since the railroads have spread false information about this, BMWED
supports using Automated Track Inspection technology, including TGMS,
because it can detect certain track geometry defects better than the
human eye. However, BMWED supports using ATI technology on top of the
existing level of visual inspections, NOT as a replacement for those
visual inspections.
The Association of American Railroads is seeking a safety waiver
from the FRA on behalf of its Class I railroads to reduce visual
inspections by 75 percent to twice a month and solely rely on ATI as a
replacement for track inspections.
Last year, the FRA proposed a rule requiring railroads to run ATI a
few times yearly while keeping the same level of visual track
inspections (twice weekly). BMWED supported this proposed rule,
including the proposed ATI requirement. BMWED would still like to see
the FRA finalize this proposed rule.
AAR and the Short lines (ASLRRA) opposed the proposed rule,
claiming that running ATI 3-4 times a year was ``too onerous,'' even
though AAR has falsely claimed for years that they could not run ATI on
the railroads. From BMWED's perspective, AAR's comments in opposition
to the proposed rule show that this fight is not about ATI if the
railroads are opposing a requirement to run ATI at specific intervals,
but rather about the railroad's attempts to reduce visual track
inspections because they want to cut back on costs, no matter the cost
to safety.
As Maintenance of Way workers, we take track defects extremely
seriously. In AAR's requested safety waiver, the industry wants to wait
up to 72 hours to take corrective action for track geometry track
defects found by ATI machines for upwards of 72 hours. This delay is in
comparison to the current federal requirements that a track defect
found by a human track inspector must be corrected immediately,
including if it is a defect that an ATI machine can also find. What AAR
seeks in their safety waiver would effectively result in passenger
trains carrying people or freight trains carrying hazardous materials
running over defective tracks. The consequences of allowing a defect to
go unaddressed for up to three days could be yet another derailment
that kills or severely injures people and causes irreparable damage to
communities near railroad tracks. That raises significant safety
concerns.
Comments are due July 9th to the FRA about AAR's proposed safety
waiver to reduce visual track inspections by 75 percent. Now is not the
time to be going backward on rail safety when there are hundreds of
train derailments and accidents every year, any of which could be the
next East Palestine. BMWED urges Congress to oppose AAR's proposed
waiver because it is unsafe and will expose workers and communities to
more train derailments, more deaths and injuries, and more property
damage. We are grateful to Ranking Members Larsen and Titus for their
support on this issue and ask every Member of Congress for their
support on this issue as well.
``Innovation'' and ``Deregulation'' are the Industry's Buzzwords for
Cutting Costs and Lowering Safety Standards
One of the other reasons we need to get innovation and technology
right in the railroad industry is that safety in the railroad industry
has stagnated and even gotten worse in many key safety metrics over the
last decade. The Class Is' rate of total train accidents per million
miles was 14.78 percent higher in 2024 than a decade ago in 2015,
according to FRA data released in March of 2025. Even if you exclude
highway-rail crossings, the rate of accidents was 8.25 percent higher
in 2024 than in 2015. That increase in the incident rate is occurring
even though Class Is ran 23 percent fewer train miles in 2024 than in
2015 (447 million vs 582 million). Using AAR's baseline, between 2005
and 2025, the railroads ran 31 percent fewer train miles. The
industry's rate has increased despite running fewer trains with less
frequency. So, the railroads are running way fewer trains, and safety
is getting worse, not better.
Additionally, the number of employee-on-duty fatalities has
remained constant over the last decade. There were seven fatalities in
2024 compared to eight in 2015, despite the number of employee hours
decreasing 30.7 percent from 2015 to 2024. There are now significantly
fewer employees in the industry, yet fatalities have not meaningfully
improved compared to ten years ago.
More than 12,000 cities, small towns, and villages across our
country have railroad tracks running through their communities. In
2024, approximately 500 cars carrying hazardous materials derailed or
were damaged. Each accident risks the train workers and the communities
that host railroad tracks. We expect better for an industry that has
earned over $160 billion in profits over the last decade.
The East Palestine, Ohio derailment in 2023 showed the importance
of human inspections in preventing derailments before they happen.
Routine inspections of the different elements of the railroad system,
including track, brake, rail car, and locomotives, are vital to
ensuring there are no defects in any of those aspects of the rail
system that could cause a derailment. The NTSB investigation found that
the East Palestine derailment was caused by a wheel bearing on a rail
car that overheated and was not caught in time. In a post-incident
inspection, the FRA found that one out of four railcars in the East
Palestine derailment had defects. The defects would have been
identified and addressed if trained workers had thoroughly and
physically inspected the railcars.
That inspection did not happen because Norfolk Southern (NS) and
other Class I railroads are cutting back on the number of qualified
Carmen, the craft that does these rail car inspections, by 40 percent
since 2015. Additionally, NS and other Class I in recent years have
limited the time that Carmen must inspect rail cars to 30 seconds per
side of each rail car, and a train can hundreds of rail cars to inspect
at one time. That time pressure prevents qualified and skilled workers
from being able to do their jobs.
Even though NS had installed some technology called defect
detectors that are supposed to detect defects before they happen, NS
did not install enough defect detectors on the route that the East
Palestine train was traveling on, so they were spaced too far about,
and some of them were not working properly. Hence, the technology
failed to do what it was supposed to do, which is another example of
how technology cannot replace qualified workers in terms of safety.
Had NS had the proper level of Carmen and given them the time to do
their job and inspect the East Palestine train when it was combined
from different trains outside of St. Louis, Missouri, the odds are high
that the defective wheel bearing on that train would have been caught
and fixed and East Palestine would never have happened. The East
Palestine derailment was entirely preventable with the proper workforce
levels, regulations, and safety procedures in place. Instead, a
community and its residents are traumatized for a lifetime. That fact
is unacceptable and should infuriate everyone.
While East Palestine was not a track derailment, if the railroads
successfully get this waiver and reduce visual track inspections by
upwards of 75 percent, there will be many more track missed defects and
potentially many more derailments along the scale of East Palestine.
In its investigation of a September 2021 Amtrak Empire Train
derailment on BNSF track in Joplin, Montana, caused by bad track
conditions that killed three passengers and injured 49 other passenger
and crew members, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found
that ATI should be used as a supplement to human track inspections, and
should not replace humans (emphasis added): For example, automated
track inspections by geometry cars or railcar-attached devices provide
detailed information on specific track parameters, but they do not
capture the diverse array of unique track hazards detectable to human
inspectors. They are intended to supplement an inspection program and
should not be used to supplant an inspector physically examining a
track (Page 35).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Transportation Safety Board Final Report of September
2025, 2021, Joplin, Montana BNSF Derailment. ``Derailment of Amtrak
Passenger Train 7 on BNSF Railway Track.'' Published July 5, 2023.
Accessible at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/
Reports/RIR2308.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety will decline dramatically if we do not fix the current
problems with how railroads do inspections across the board, including
protecting the visual track inspections that the railroads actively
seek to reduce by 75 percent. More preventable derailments like the one
in East Palestine will happen because of increased defects. Congress
must prevent these derailments by adopting common-sense safety
regulations, especially around inspections.
Conclusion
BMWED has navigated 138 years of technological change in the
railroad industry and plans to navigate the next 138 years. We must
survive as a union. While there is no way to predict what the future
looks like, it will be different from today, and part of charting a
path for the upcoming changes will involve successfully adapting to and
embracing innovation and technological advancement. At the same time,
these innovations should enhance the safety of workers and our rail
system and make workers' lives easier. Too often, railroads and private
companies first think about innovation and how to justify reducing
their workforce, even when technology cannot fully replace human
beings, which would decrease safety and put the public at risk. Labor
unions and workers push back against unproven technology because
companies misuse it for the wrong reasons.
My message to companies and railroads is simple: partner with the
BMWED on technology so we can get it right. The BMWED is not scared of
innovation or technological change but does want to ensure it is done
correctly for the safety of our members and communities across our
great country.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you all for your testimony.
We will now turn to questions from the panel. I will recognize
myself for 5 minutes.
So, Mr. McCown, your organization recently issued a report
highlighting how, under the Biden administration, the waiver
process broke down. How do politics such as this conflict with
the Federal Railroad Administration's stated mission of
enabling the safe, reliable, and efficient moving of people and
goods?
Mr. McCown. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
The report focuses on the fact that technology continues to
evolve, and the regulatory framework hasn't kept pace. And you
are referring to limiting political whiplash, which is one of
the five recommendations. And in technical safety decisions, we
need to ensure that regulatory outcomes are based on data, and
that they are consistent with standards, not shifting political
priorities.
When you don't know what the rules of the game are from the
regulator, it's hard to comply, number one. And number two,
it's impossible to deploy capital.
Mr. Webster of Florida. So, can you describe the importance
of, kind of, a transparent regulatory process to achieve FRA's
mission?
Mr. McCown. I'm sorry. Was that to me, sir?
Mr. Webster of Florida. Yes.
Mr. McCown. Yes. Yes, it's critical. It's impossible to
comply with the rules if you don't know what the rules are. And
it's impossible to plan when decisions appear haphazard or
decisions change. This should be nonpartisan, not something
where the rules change depending on who's in the White House.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Okay, so when railroads ask for an
automated track inspection manual inspection--seek a waiver
there, these waivers are about using technologies to
proactively and strategically address potential track safety
issues, not simply eliminate manual inspections. Is that right?
Mr. McCown. Yes.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Okay. So let me just get this
straight, okay? There is technology, and some of it is pretty
advanced, makes some great things done. Does it have 100
percent reliability?
Anybody?
Mr. McCown. I will answer. You need people to interpret the
data, that's clear. But the technology in many cases is more
accurate than the people. The technology is better than my
eyeball. That's just fact. If that weren't the case, we
wouldn't take x rays when we go to the doctor's office.
Mr. Webster of Florida. But on the other hand, there is a
manual inspection that takes a person. What do they do? What do
they look for?
Anybody can answer that question. Tell me about a manual
inspection.
Mr. Cardwell. The manual inspections are the visual
inspections that are done. They are able to catch a lot of
defects that can't be caught by the track geometry machines,
which is ATI. And so the visual inspections can catch all kinds
of defects and preventative defects in advance of the defects
becoming worse. But there are numerous defects that the ATI
track geometry can't catch, such as just as simple as a broken
rail. The track geometry machines do not pick up a broken rail,
and that is just a basic track defect. It happens all the time,
every night across the country.
Mr. Webster of Florida. So there is also an automated track
inspection, and so, is that quicker? Does it look at less
things than a manual inspection does? What's the difference?
Mr. Cardwell. Is that a question for me?
Mr. Webster of Florida. Anybody.
Mr. Cardwell. The ATI machine does catch track geometry
defects, and it is efficient at catching track geometry
defects. We love the work that the ATI does on the tracks. Our
track inspectors appreciate the track geometry machines that
come through and catch those defects. But what they don't catch
is what the visual eye can catch, and that is a lot of the
basic defects that are out there. It catches about six. There
are 23 codes in the FRA, and it catches about 6 of those
defects, and they are all track geometry, the measurements of
the track, track surface, track gauge, things of that nature.
Mr. Webster of Florida. So, is it better, the same, faster?
What's the difference?
Mr. Cardwell. For track geometry, I would argue that it
does a better job for track geometry, but it doesn't catch a
large percentage of the defects that are out there. It only
catches about 26 or 27 percent of the defects on the track.
Mr. Webster of Florida. So, is it checking the track or the
vehicle's mechanical parts, or both?
Mr. Cardwell. I'm sorry, what was the question?
Mr. Webster of Florida. Is it checking the track itself or
the mechanical parts on the car itself? Wheels, axles, things
like that. What does----
Mr. McCown [interrupting]. I believe you are referring to--
the geometry tool detects the track. That's a different
technology from, say, hot bearings or other aspects on the cars
themselves.
Mr. Webster of Florida. So, okay, so there is the hot
bearing. Does that show up in a manual inspection, or does it
take a rolling automated inspection?
Mr. Cardwell. What was the question?
[Pause.]
Mr. Cardwell. Yes, on the hot bearing detectors, they are
different. We represent the track inspectors that do the work,
but I would say that hot bearing detectors, the best thing that
can be done to detect those is a strong visual inspection, and
that was what was said by the STB, as well, after the East
Palestine derailment. There is technology that catches it, but
the technology doesn't relay the information as quickly as it
should, obviously, as seen, and the technology isn't as
prevalent out there as it should be.
The detectors were too far apart in the East Palestine
derailment is what was decided by the STB. There should be more
of them out there. There wasn't enough, and that was the
determination from the STB report.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Okay, I am way over, sorry about
that, but thank you for your answers. I appreciate that.
So Ms. Titus, you are recognized.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. Well, I would like to continue this
conversation, because I said in my opening remarks, I think
there were 17 defects that couldn't be found by this geometry
technology that needs the eye to see them.
And, Mr. McCown, I think you need a different analogy from
the eye and the x-ray machine, because every time you have an x
ray, then you have to have a person come in and read that x
ray. It doesn't read itself and find the problem and take care
of it.
So, maybe we can go back to you, Mr. Cardwell. Talk again
about some of these defects that a person can see if they are
out there inspecting that this technology can't find. And tell
us how many of these you might find in a week or a month. How
prevalent are they? And how trained do you have to be to find
these things? I mean, it's not just somebody walking down the
track. These are experts who are looking for these kinds of
things just in case, because they are such safety problems.
Mr. Cardwell. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman
Titus.
It takes an immense amount of time to become a track
inspector, and a lot of studies and research and testing that
is done before you can become a qualified track inspector. So,
yes, they are very skilled workers, and they are able to find
defects that no technology can find.
And they are also able to rationally deal with the defects
as they come. For example, when you run into a track defect, it
is not always just a defect that is caused by some random
thing. It is usually a multitude of issues that are causing
that defect. So, for example, there could be water issues in
the area that are causing a surface level issue. The ATI
machines are unable to determine that there is a water problem.
The visual inspections, you are able to see that there is a
water problem, where there is a drainage issue, where there is
a lot of mud or issue in that track which is causing a surface
issue which causes the railcars to tip off the rail and cause
derailment.
When we come up to those defects as a visual track
inspection is being done, we can look at the different--the
environment that we are in, and we can make determinations on
what can fix the issue. And we can also prevent the track
defect, which is most important. There is no preventative
maintenance being done by ATI. The human inspections are what
do preventative maintenance before the defect is caused.
Remember, we want to find defects before----
Ms. Titus [interrupting]. Accidents.
Mr. Cardwell [continuing]. It happens, not after, because
defects are what cause derailments.
Ms. Titus. Under the current regulations, if you find one
of these defects, don't you have to report it and have it
addressed immediately, or else there are some kind of fines or
issues that arise if you don't?
Mr. Cardwell. I am sorry. What was the question, again?
Ms. Titus. Don't you have to report this and have it
addressed immediately, or else there are some fines imposed on
the railroad if that doesn't happen, or on the inspector?
Mr. Cardwell. Yes. The waiver is asking for a 72-hour--3
days before the defect has to be corrected.
Ms. Titus. I want to ask about that, too. I think Mr.
McCown.
In the waiver, even though it's 72 hours, if you don't
inspect it, there is no fine or anything, any consequences.
Isn't that a part of the waiver, too?
Mr. McCown. There is no fine, but I think you have to put
this in context, that if----
Ms. Titus [interrupting]. Well, that seems to be a pretty
big context, if you are not--if you are taking away the fine,
if you are not going to address the problem.
Mr. McCown. Well, is it a problem? This is so specific, it
finds----
Ms. Titus [interrupting]. We don't know, with your
technology, if we don't have a person out there looking at it.
Mr. McCown. Well, just like in other modes, this technology
finds things that are so minimal they may be a ``wait and
see.'' They may not need to be addressed right away. If BNSF's
testing says you find 200 times more defects with this tool
than a visual inspection, it is depicting very minute issues
that may not require immediate action. And so, I think it has
to be ranked according to safety.
And the Congress can--you all can decide what timeline is
appropriate, but not everything is an overnight problem.
Ms. Titus. Well, who determines that ``wait and see''? I am
not sure I want to be on a train on a track that is a ``wait
and see.'' Who makes that decision if it is too minute to
address immediately?
Mr. McCown. It's a safety risk management decision that
operators make every single day of the week in every mode of
transportation. That's what we do. We are professional risk
mitigation experts.
Ms. Titus. Bean counters?
Mr. McCown. I'm sorry?
Ms. Titus. I just said bean counters.
That's all right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Rouzer, you are recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate each of
you being here today to share your wisdom and testimony.
Mr. Gebhardt, I am going to start with you. When a rail
infrastructure project is undertaken, whether it is upgrading a
corridor, modernizing a yard, or deploying new technologies, is
it just the businesses and communities in the immediate
vicinity that see the benefit, or do these projects tend to
generate broader regional or even national economic impact?
Mr. Gebhardt. Well, I think, as any of these projects would
be done, there is broader impact that would come----
Mr. Rouzer [interrupting]. Can you bring that microphone a
little closer to you?
Mr. Gebhardt. Yes.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you.
Mr. Gebhardt. There is broader impact that would come from
this.
If we think about--if there is new railway equipment that
has to be utilized there, there is a broad network across the
country with RSI--or Wabtec in particular here--that may
provide that equipment there. It could also open up
opportunities to move more freight by rail, which is the safest
and cleanest way to move a ton-mile, which could also open up
some of the interstates and such there from what would have
been truck traffic along those ways there. So there are a lot
of benefits that come from this.
Mr. Rouzer. So another strong interest of the committee is
how Federal grant programs can help drive innovation.
Specifically, the CRISI program is first and foremost shaped to
improve rail infrastructure safety and performance. But you
noted much of the industry, from short lines to suppliers, have
looked to use these grants as a way to deploy and scale
promising technologies.
Has Wabtec directly utilized CRISI funding to advance or
deploy new technologies?
Mr. Gebhardt. So Wabtec tends to work with others for some
of these grants here, where someone else may be the prime
recipient of it, and we'll work with them or could also provide
the technologies.
One of the keys is that we have been working very, very
diligently on both Tier 4 technology, which reduces NOx by 76
percent and particulate matter by 70 percent, and also been
working on modernizations where we take older technology, we
upgrade them, take them from DC to AC technology, and really
bring new life to them. And by doing that, we can improve
efficiency by 30 percent and improve haulage ability, how much
you can actually pull, tractive effort, by 50 percent. And now,
with the IIJA Act, it opened up these opportunities to the
short lines, where they could utilize those fundings to upgrade
to Tier 4 technology and also modernize their locomotives. So
it has been very beneficial.
Mr. Rouzer. So would you rate the CRISI program an
essential program or nonessential program?
Mr. Gebhardt. Oh, I would say we would recommend keeping it
at its current levels that are in the IIJA. And then we would
even think of even increasing the amount of grants for FRA to
do more R&D, because we really do need to be developing this
future technology that is out there a little bit further.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Shannon, I am going to come to you next.
Federal regulations and implementation always seem to lag
behind the pace of technological innovation, making it
difficult to create the most efficient system possible in many
cases.
So we have freight railroads that deploy increasingly
advanced diagnostics and real-time data tools to help monitor
car and track conditions, yet many of the ways we evaluate rail
safety operations and equipment date back decades, some even to
the steam locomotive era. Mr. Shannon, if Congress were to
mandate the use of thermal wayside detectors, what impact would
that have on you and the efforts of your customers to invest in
railcar telematics and similar monitoring technologies?
Mr. Shannon. I think the concern that that comes to for us
is that the outcome is what we would like to see focused on,
which is identifying hot bearings, failing bearings, wheel
defects, et cetera, before they become emergency conditions. If
we regulate a specific solution--say, more wayside detectors--
that is going to sort of remove the motivation for both the car
owners and the technology developers to invest their time and
energy to create the technologies for the railcars themselves
that you put on the railcars themselves that show the promise
and have done in other industries extremely effectively of
giving early detection before this becomes a critical failure
mode so that the car owner has the opportunity to replace
wheels, to do the maintenance activities ahead of failure,
where wayside detectors tend to be more closer to time of
failure when they detect the ultimate issue.
Mr. Rouzer. Yes. Well, as they say, prevention is always
the best cure, no matter what we are talking about.
I yield back.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Moulton, you are recognized for
5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to actually pick up where my colleague, Mr. Rouzer, just
left off.
I agree, Mr. Rouzer, that prevention is better. But I would
add that, if you have telematics that can be simultaneously or
constantly monitored by the engineer, then you would also know
the instant that a hot bearing is detected on a car, regardless
of whether you are near a hot bearing detector. Am I right, Mr.
Shannon?
Mr. Shannon. That would be correct. Telematics on the
railcar is going to give whoever is the recipient of the data
the most immediate insights as to the condition of the wheel.
But again, I think the thing that we need to consider is
the best use of this technology is to prevent the railcar from
reaching the point where the bearing does----
Mr. Moulton [interrupting]. Well, maybe that is the case--
--
Mr. Shannon [continuing]. Get so hot it is going to fail.
Mr. Moulton [continuing]. But if it improves safety to also
have it----
Mr. Shannon [interposing]. Absolutely.
Mr. Moulton [continuing]. Available, I mean, why would we
not do that, as well?
And my point is the same as Mr. Rouzer's, which is that if
we have modern technology that can bring the accident rate down
to zero, then that is what we should be using, not installing
more 1960s technology which is the hot bearing detectors that
the railroads have.
I mean, I assume you care about transportation and you are
not buying an awful lot of fax machines because that was the
communications technology in the 1960s, right?
Mr. Shannon. Yes, I think I agree with----
Mr. Moulton [interrupting]. You are hesitating on that,
which makes me----
Mr. Shannon [interrupting]. I had to make sure I
understand----
Mr. Moulton [continuing]. Worried that you are still in the
market for fax machines.
Mr. Shannon. No, I don't want more fax machines. Definitely
not.
Mr. Moulton. Okay, well, that's the point.
Mr. Shannon. More technology on railcars.
Mr. Moulton. So there is a lot of agreement here that we
have got to get into the 21st century.
Mr. Shannon. Absolutely.
Mr. Moulton. And we have technology available today.
I mean, the fact that I can order something for $1.99 on
Amazon and know exactly where that package is on the way to my
house, and yet I can spend $15,000 or $20,000 to ship a railcar
across the United States and have no idea where it is, no idea
when it will arrive, is a little absurd.
Mr. Shannon. That is a great concern, and it is one of the
key reasons RailPulse exists is to provide a single source of
truth for the location, condition, and health of the railcars
using advanced telematics technologies on the railcars
themselves.
Mr. Moulton. Right. So there are improvements in customer
service because you know where your car is.
Mr. Shannon. Absolutely.
Mr. Moulton. And there are, obviously, improvements in
safety that we have detailed.
And you also made the point that the more freight that we
get off of trucks and onto rail is good for the national
interest. Those are your words. In 2023, there were 22,543
hazardous material incidents on highways compared to 297
freight rail hazmat incidents. It is a pretty stark statistic.
Railroads have approximately 10 percent of the hazmat accidents
trucks have, despite roughly equal hazmat ton-mileage, 10
percent. So we would be saving a lot of lives, a lot of money
if more hazmat--just to take hazmat as an example, let alone
broader freight--were transported by rail instead of truck.
From 2012 to 2023, there were 82 fatalities on highways due to
hazmat accidents; zero railway deaths.
But Mr. Cardwell made a very good point, which is that the
railroads, especially in the last 10 or so years, have a
history of taking every cost-saving measure and not putting it
into expanding their traffic to actually getting more trucks
off the highways. They put it into cutting service, cutting
employees, and just improving profits for Wall Street. So how
do we square this circle, where we want rail traffic to
increase, we want technology to help us get there, but we don't
want the companies to just give all the profits to Wall Street
and none of the benefits to the American people?
Mr. Cardwell, please.
Mr. Cardwell. I would say that we are more than willing to
have the ATI machinery operated, and technology. We actually
have pushed for more of it. We believe that they should use the
ATI regularly.
The last proposal that was given from the FRA was for three
times a year, and the railroad spoke against ATI, and now they
are saying they want to do it 12 times a year and get rid of
all the visual--75 percent of the visual inspections.
Mr. Moulton. So here is my point.
Mr. Cardwell. We think they should work in tandem together.
Mr. Moulton. Look, I have only got 20 seconds left, but
here is my point. I agree with what you are saying.
Mr. Shannon, I agree with what you are saying. Why can't we
get on the same page here? Why won't you invite the rail unions
into discussion, into the coalition? You don't even have all
the Class I's yet. Let's involve some of the rail unions in
this debate.
Mr. Shannon. The answer to that question is fairly simple.
RailPulse is chartered and owned by railcar owners. And it
would be--we don't own the data that is in RailPulse, and so
how the data is used within the railroads when they get access
to it is really--is a railroad thing.
Mr. Moulton. That has nothing to do with inviting the likes
of Mr. Cardwell to the table. We all should share the same
goals, which is increasing traffic by rail. You are part of the
solution. But his workers are part of the solution, too, and
they have a pretty good perspective. So I just hope you can
work more together in the future.
Voice. We would agree with that.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.
Mr. LaMalfa, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, it is
interesting the debate going here seems to boil down to, does
advancing technology mean we have less workers? And I don't
necessarily think that that is what needs to happen, having
less workers or also standing in the way of improved
technology.
So, I guess, Mr. Cardwell, let me ask you quickly. Do you
see that what is advancing here on the bottom line means that
there will be less workers on the rail because it will be
replaced by technology and it will be replaced by self-
regulation, et cetera?
Mr. Cardwell. We have seen a mass reduction, 30 percent--up
to 30 percent reduction since 2016 in our workforce.
Mr. LaMalfa. Because of technology?
Mr. Cardwell. As expected with some technology, yes. We
understand that technology is going to eliminate some jobs. In
fact, from 138 years ago, we have seen thousands of railroading
jobs lost because of technology.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, I have read your outline on that. Tampers
and all the way through, that labor saving made it easier on
the workers, but has resulted in less workers.
But I guess what you are looking at here, do you believe
what we are talking about here with this advanced telemetry and
such, if that is implemented, does that mean less workers?
Mr. Cardwell. I am sorry, what was the question one more
time?
Mr. LaMalfa. With this additional telemetry and more
advanced technology, does that mean less workers to you?
Mr. Cardwell. I can't hear.
[Pause.]
Mr. Cardwell. Yes, the waiver is asking for a 75-percent
reduction in human inspection, visual inspection.
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay, let me throw it to Mr. McCown or Mr.
Shannon on that.
Is that your goal here, is that you will have actually less
online workers because the technology makes that possible?
Mr. McCown. Well, I think, from the think tank's
perspective, we are agnostic on that solution. But I think what
it does is the people who are the finders are also the fixers.
It allows you to redeploy your assets to where they are needed
most.
As I mentioned during my opening, technology often makes
more work to be done, not less work. And I think we are getting
stuck between this either/or, and it's not.
Mr. LaMalfa. That's what I am wondering.
Mr. Shannon.
Mr. Shannon. Yes, I would agree with what Mr. McCown said.
The technology is not designed to eliminate work. It is
actually designed to make the work more effective, more
productive by highlighting and identifying issues. And those
issues then need to be worked on by somebody. They need to be
evaluated and verified, and then, as appropriate, any repairs
and other actions need to be taken. There is nothing at what
RailPulse is advocating for to eliminate jobs.
Mr. LaMalfa. All right. Mr. McCown, a bit earlier there was
a discussion about the technology at a more microlevel,
confined, maybe more flaws. Maybe you are talking about a piece
of rail where you can find a very microcrack or something, for
example, that maybe a visual inspection would easily pass over.
So now we know about that microcrack, and you are talking about
like, well, does it rise to the level of repair right now?
I mean, if my pickup has a dent in it, it doesn't keep me
from going out in my fields. But if I have a bent frame or a
leaking axle or something, then that does. So can you comment a
little bit more on the action level of what your technology
finds as to--you kind of talked about a risk tradeoff. Like, a
slight crack in a rail that visually wouldn't be seen wouldn't
even be known about. Does that mean you have got to repair the
rail, that type of thinking?
Mr. McCown. Thank you for the question, sir. That is a very
good point.
And if you think about it, we have preventive tests. It's
to make a holistic assessment of the infrastructure asset over
its entire lifetime. If you can find things early, you can
watch them to see if it's getting worse, if a defect is
propagating or it's not. It's crucial for the risk management,
and it's integral in an SMS type of approach, which is about
continually raising the bar. But not every defect requires
immediate action. That's the analysis part that takes people.
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Mr. Shannon, is the FRA standing in the
way of the advancing technology? My notes are saying there
seems to be some holdup, that FRA wants to just stick with the
old technology and is kind of not embracing the ability to
integrate new in its regulation.
Mr. Shannon. To date, FRA has been supportive of what we
are trying to do at RailPulse, so I don't know that they are
necessarily standing in the way. However, if they advocate for
specific technologies and sort of shut down innovation in the
process, that would stand in the way.
Mr. LaMalfa. They may be seeking to lock in technologies is
what I am kind of hearing. But are they open enough to look at
what we are talking about here to let it be approved?
Mr. Shannon. I would say they have been open to RailPulse--
--
Mr. LaMalfa [interposing]. All right.
Mr. Shannon [continuing]. For sure.
Mr. LaMalfa. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Shannon. They have been supportive of what we are
trying to do.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Sykes.
Mrs. Sykes. I am down here. Thank you so much, Chairman.
And thank you, Ranking Member Titus, for holding this hearing
today. To our guests and witnesses, thank you for being here,
as well.
I have many times in this committee raised the issue of
rail safety, and I think today's hearing on how our Nation can
modernize our rail system is a perfect place to address it
again.
As you all know, and as we have discussed today, on
February 3, 2023, a Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous
chemicals derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, which is right next
door to my district in northeast Ohio, causing many issues and
long-term issues for folks in not only Ohio, but our
neighboring State of Pennsylvania.
Certainly, no one should have to deal with the horror and
fallout of what occurred from this disastrous derailment. But
what is even more upsetting is that this entire derailment
originated from a wheel bearing that failed and a wayside
detector that failed to identify the issue in time. Because
these detectors are placed over 20 miles apart, this overheated
bearing was only noticed after any effective action could be
taken to save the bearing and prevent the catastrophe that we
saw that day.
In my time as a State legislator, I have kept with me this
advice from our public safety director, who reminded us that if
something is predictable, it is preventable. And it is
maddening, because this incident was predictable and
preventable. And because neither of those things happened, an
entire community has been upended, with little done to rectify
their safety and their concerns.
So to ensure that this kind of disaster doesn't happen
again, I introduced the RAIL Act. It is a bipartisan,
commonsense piece of legislation. Among other things, it
includes policies that specifically address the issues of
failing wayside detectors. If the RAIL Act were signed into
law, wayside detectors and hot boxes would be required every 10
miles of track, rather than 20. Were this policy back in place
in February of 2023, this tragedy could have been prevented
altogether, and we would not be worrying about the long-term
health effects of a controlled burn in eastern Ohio.
But during the investigation of the disaster, it was also
reported that railcars were being dispatched after giving an
inspector only 30 seconds to inspect each side of the railcar.
Thirty seconds is hardly enough time to get around and walk
around the railcar, let alone check one to confirm that it is
safe to transport potentially hazardous cargo. And some of
these trains, as you know, are double stacked and miles long.
So I am happy to report that, after working with various labor
groups, the RAIL Act also required the Department of
Transportation to update railcar inspection regulations and
audit related inspection programs. And this will prevent
limiting the time for employees to do these complete railcar
and locomotive checks.
So Mr. Cardwell, if you could please speak to the
importance of ensuring that these safety inspections, whether
for tracks or railcars, aren't rushed. Because one thing I have
noticed in this conversation--and other colleagues have
mentioned--technology and the rail workers should go hand in
hand and be complementary to one another. But if you are
shortchanged with even your ability to do the work, then what
good is the technology?
Mr. Cardwell. The answer is ``Yes.'' All of us, all the
crafts are fine with the technology that is coming in, and we
want to work with them to develop this technology and make sure
that it works well. So we do want to work in tandem with these
different technologies.
I will remind you and the rest of the committee that the
railroads have the ability to use this technology as much as
they want to. The key factor is they are trying to eliminate
the human factor, the human inspections to cut cost and then
bring this technology in when it is simply unproven and can't
catch the defects the way the human inspections can.
So on the railcar issues, I am not a carman and I don't
represent the carmen, but I can tell you and assure you that
they do want more thorough inspections done of cars. And we
also want an adoption of the technology that helps catch some
of these other defects that the human eye can't catch. So yes,
we can work together and achieve a much safer railroad if we
are willing to do that.
Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Cardwell.
And Mr. Shannon, I know one of my colleagues talked to you
about bringing labor to the table. I have about 30 seconds
left, and so this is about the amount of time someone would
have to inspect one of these train railcars. But in the time
remaining, maybe you can give a full answer to my question
about how and what are some of the best ways to include labor
in these conversations so that employees are able to help you
institute technology and make sure our communities are safe?
Mr. Shannon. From a RailPulse perspective, I would say our
members would bring labor in as appropriate into the
discussions about how to use the data that comes out of
RailPulse. Our goal as RailPulse is to ensure that data is made
available, that it is timely, it is secure, and that all of the
right people that need to have access to it get access to it.
But since we don't have a direct relationship with the labor, I
would say that would be through our member companies that do
use the data, including the railroads.
Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am over time by 30
seconds, and it just goes to show he couldn't even answer the
question in the amount of time it takes for folks who are given
that time to inspect brakes in railcars. I yield back.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stauber, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are witnessing a technology boom in the rail industry
that is poised to make freight and passenger rail safer and
more efficient than ever before. During my time as a law
enforcement officer, I saw similar technology advance. At first
we officers sometimes met these changes with resistance.
However, we often came to realize the great benefits that the
technology provided us, whether it helped track down a criminal
or improve our response time to a concerned citizen or kept us
safe.
Importantly, we were brought into the conversation. We were
brought into the conversation. I think it is equally important
that our rail workers are brought into the conversation about
rail technology, as my colleague just mentioned.
Rail workers are the first and last line of defense for
safety in the rail industry. But technology can supplement
their efforts and enhance their processes, and we should take
advantage of American ingenuity. Mr. Cardwell, in your
testimony, you mentioned that you want to work with the
railroads and private companies to develop the next generation
of technology. What are some of the technologies that you and
your members are excited about?
Mr. Cardwell. I have recently done a couple of agreements
with the railroads that have allowed snow removal with these
amazing machines that they are using in the high parts of
California, and they are doing snow removal much faster,
eliminating quite a few snow removal jobs, for example, and we
negotiate those agreements. We are excited about them. Our guys
do operate them, but it did take away a lot of jobs in the snow
removal area of the work that we do. We have negotiated
agreements for car plate--where they lay the plates on the
rail, where it is a very safety-sensitive job, and they use a
plate machine now, and it eliminated two or three jobs on each
gang.
So we have negotiated technology and are excited for
technology that doesn't eliminate safety. In this case, we wish
they would use the technology every day of the week on the
railroad tracks. We wish ATI would run regularly, at least once
a week. It would be great. It is a good supplement to the work
that our track inspectors do. We are not opposed to it, and I
want to emphasize that over and over again. We simply don't
think there should be a reduction of 75 percent in the human
inspections. It is unsafe.
Mr. Stauber. So how can rail technology companies
collaborate with unions such as BMWED to achieve the goal of
safety?
Mr. Cardwell. What was the question again?
Mr. Stauber. How can rail technology companies collaborate
with the unions to achieve the goal of safety?
Mr. Cardwell. Well, we have the professionals that know
this work. They understand it, and they are the best people to
come in with the technological groups and talk to them about
how these machines could operate, or what would be better, or
better refine them. And we are more than willing to take that
time to sit with them as a union, and even bringing in members
from the field, the professionals, the people that do this
work, to help explain and work with these technological groups
to figure out what is the best way to do it, the safest way to
do it. That is the important thing, is safety. So we are more
than willing and have spent time and money doing that.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
Mr. Shannon, can you highlight how the current regulatory
process at FRA has stifled innovation?
Mr. Shannon. I would say the concerns that we might have
would be where any kind of regulatory process specified a
solution and sort of shut down the motivation for our car
owner-members and the technology companies we work with to
innovate to chase an outcome, as opposed to build something
that has been prespecified.
It is important that we focus on the outcomes and the
performance we want out of the system, and use the innovation
engine that is embodied in the North American technology sector
to come up with the best solutions to address those challenges,
as opposed to having the solution mandated for us.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Gebhardt, same question: Can you highlight
how the current regulatory process at FRA has stifled
innovation?
Mr. Gebhardt. We work within the frameworks that the FRA
has. On some of these, if we had more outcome-based metrics for
success to go ahead and move forward so that we can move
forward on the waiver process and then move forward into actual
adoption, that could help the process overall.
Mr. Stauber. So outcome-based, not mandating.
Mr. Gebhardt. Well, outcome-based, meaning we state what
the outcome would be for this technology to be accepted. So it
might have to have 98 percent accuracy, or it might have to
last a certain amount of time. Being more outcome-based on that
could help us through the process.
Mr. Stauber. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I am out of time, and I yield back.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.
Mr. Deluzio, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Deluzio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, everyone. I
am particularly glad to see a western Pennsylvania company,
Wabtec, represented here.
Mr. Gebhardt, I will start with you. I know the company is
doing quite a bit of innovation around locomotive and rail
technologies, making lots of products for Amtrak and others
across the rail industry.
I will note the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, I think, was
a really important investment that helped support the
development of those technologies for Amtrak in particular and
others, but I think there is ripple effect, right, helping
other manufacturers and workers.
Tell me about some of the work you guys are doing on
locomotive technology. What are the opportunities and some
alternative energies? What can the Congress be doing? What
should we be thinking about to help stimulate some of that
development?
Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, thank you, Congressman, for the
question.
When I look at the technologies we are really working on,
we are working a lot with our Tier 4 locomotives.
Mr. Deluzio. You lost your mic, Mr. Gebhardt.
Mr. Gebhardt. Yes. Okay, with our Tier 4 locomotives and
also with our modernizations. We are taking, with the Tier 4,
78 percent reduction in NOx, 70 percent reduction in
particulate matter, with our modernizations taking older
locomotives and bringing them up to modern standards when we do
that. The IIJA really helps with that because it opens this up
to the short lines, allows them to step into this, and really
helps with the funding of that.
On the development side, some of the R&D grants that are
coming through are helping with the alternative fuels that you
had mentioned there. We are working with biofuels, renewable
fuels to make sure that those are capable technologies there.
We have also been working with LNG. We have a number of liquid
natural gas units that are operating right now as an
alternative fuel, and these were a lot of things that were
developed under some grants that were done.
So we are very supportive of continuing with these types of
grants to really bring this technology forward.
Mr. Deluzio. Well, it seems to me there is a business
benefit if you can get your fuel and energy costs down. I think
there is an air quality benefit for all of us. And so I think
this is a good opportunity that Congress should pay attention
to here, as well.
Mr. Cardwell, I want to come to you, as well. I picked up
on some of the discussion about automated track inspections and
your point is a good one to me, as I hear it, that you and your
members are all about better technology, helping the railroads
implement this stuff, but you need humans in the mix, you need
humans involved. Tell me what this looks like to one of your
members. How this technology--how they use it, how you see this
being implemented in a way that is safest and that brings to
bear the expertise your members have.
Mr. Cardwell. Let's just take the ATI machines, for
example, the one that was the primary discussion today
concerning track inspections. Our track inspectors are happy
when the ATI machine comes through the territory because it
catches certain defects that the human eye can't. And so they
are glad to see it come through the territory because it
catches geometry measurements that the human eye can't catch,
and that is always helpful. So they like when that comes
through.
But there are many things that these machines can't catch
that the human eye can. There is a whole list, in fact. The
large majority, 73 percent of the track defects, can only be
caught by the human eye. And so they like working with that
technology, they are glad when it comes to their region or
territory. There are many others.
The machinery that is being used today on the railroad is
much more technologically advanced, and they love operating
that equipment. It has cut jobs, but we are happy with the
machinery because it is more efficient and safer.
Mr. Deluzio. And some of the things that you just
mentioned, a big percentage--I think 70 or so percent, you are
saying--that the human eye can only capture, give me some
examples of what that might be.
Mr. Cardwell. Sure. So for example, just a broken rail
cannot be caught by the ATI machinery. The rail, what happens
when it heats up and it cools, it expands and contracts. And so
that rail breaks, and it happens all the time. There are
literally probably several hundred broken rails a day across
the railroads, and those broken rails can cause derailment, for
obvious reasons.
Mr. Deluzio. Is that the number-one cause of derailment,
track issues like that?
Mr. Cardwell. Track issues are the number-one cause of
derailment. I think 50-plus percent of track derailments are
caused by rail defects and, most importantly, in switches. And
this ATI machinery does not pick up most of the defects inside
of a switch. Most derailments are caused within a switch when
one train goes to another track, it goes from one track to
another. And in that switch, there is a lot of defects that
cannot be detected by any technology right now.
Mr. Deluzio. Very good, Mr. Cardwell. My time is up. Thank
you both.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nehls, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as we talk about
this ATI, you talk about 73 percent, I am just going to make a
comment.
I believe that, East Palestine a couple of years ago, a
little over 2 years ago, February of 2023, I think ATI is a
good thing. I think it really, really is. That technology is
available today, and I believe it improves safety. I don't
believe the Class I's really want to go out there and have
derailments. I mean, it just doesn't make sense. So they are
spending an enormous amount of money with this ATI because they
want to continue to have what I would say is a very good record
on moving goods and services across our country, and doing it
very safely. I applaud them for that.
I don't believe ATI was really ever created to completely
eliminate visual inspections. I don't think that was the intent
here. I believe it is an augment. They will augment the visual
inspections. Now, whether the FRA is saying 75 percent,
whatever, I don't know about that. But I do not believe--when
the Class I's are investing in this technology, it is costing
money. I have been around, I have seen these machines that
travel to and fro, and it is costing them an enormous amount of
money. I believe it is all in the name of safety, and they are
deploying these things along the network.
And at some point in time, this technology may justify
reducing the workforce. I mean, it just makes sense. You
mentioned 73 percent. With this evolving technology, let's say
ATI identifies six, or whatever the number is. Everybody is
going to have a number of these flaws, these deficiencies. What
happens when the technology is so good it can identify all of
it that we don't--maybe don't need any of you to do it? Would
you support that, then, or would you say, well, I just don't
believe that that's--no.
Mr. Cardwell. If the data safety--if the--first of all,
Congressman Nehls, we thank you for your leadership----
Mr. Nehls [interposing]. Sure.
Mr. Cardwell [continuing]. And your work for us.
I would say that if the technology proves safer, then the
unions have to adapt to it.
Mr. Nehls. Yes.
Mr. Cardwell. And we have.
Mr. Nehls. Yes.
Mr. Cardwell. Historically, across all levels of machinery,
we have been more than willing to allow that technology in as
it is proven safe. In this case----
Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. I guess I just want to--I got a
couple of minutes, I want to talk about, really, the
modernization act. But the point I am trying to make is
management and labor, you have got to get together to talk
about--we are all concerned about safety. When I was the
chairman of this subcommittee, we had all the unions in there,
we were trying to get some good legislation in on improving
safety. But let's understand that I don't believe the Class I's
are out there and they want to see derailments today.
And I have to say, for the last couple of years, it has
been pretty good. We haven't any mushroom clouds over any of
our communities in the past 2-plus years, and thank goodness we
haven't. So I applaud the Class I's and everybody else that is
working hard to keep our rail as safe as possible.
I am sure you all may be familiar with the bipartisan bill.
It is the H.R. 2515, the American Tank Car Modernization Act.
That's my bill, and I led it with Seth Moulton, Congressman
Moulton. This bill will provide Department of Transportation
grants through the FRA directly to railcar owners for the
purchase and installation of telematics devices, with the
achievable goal of greatly speeding up the adoption of
telematics on the 1.6 million railcars.
I mean, this is just common sense. This is the heartbeat of
the car. Why wouldn't we do this if the technology is there?
Having telematics on an increasing number of freight railcars
will significantly provide upgraded supply chain visibility,
safety enhancements, create maintenance efficiencies, and
enable comprehensive telematics solutions for the shippers and
the stakeholders in the rail system. That is just common sense,
you guys, it is common sense.
For far too long, we have talked about increasing the use
of freight rail and bringing the rail system into the modern
ages when the solution, it's right in front of us and has been
effectively used by trucking--it has been used by the trucking
industry for decades. We just don't use it in the rail.
Mr. Shannon, please illustrate the position of RailPulse on
H.R. 2515, and how the legislation would impact the entire rail
industry.
Mr. Shannon. First, we are very supportive. Thank you very
much.
How it would influence the industry, I think, is it changes
the economics. That----
Mr. Nehls [interposing]. Sure.
Mr. Shannon. Our biggest challenge right now, with the
adoption of telematics on railcars, is the justification of the
initial expense of equipping a railcar.
Mr. Nehls. Sure.
Mr. Shannon. And through the lens today of a car owner,
they need to do an ROI equation for themselves based on the
direct benefits. Those direct benefits may or may not be equal
to----
Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. Thank you.
Mr. Gebhardt, how do you feel? How is Wabtec? Good deal?
Mr. Gebhardt. We are very supportive----
Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Gebhardt [continuing]. Of telematics.
Mr. Nehls. I've got 10 seconds. I am going to finish here.
We have talked to hundreds of people in the rail industry
over the past few years. Commonsense themes of using freight
rail keep coming up. Using rail is complex, it is inconsistent,
and could be more costly than other modes. And I want freight
rail to be used more. We want it to be used more, not less, and
it is a safe way to transport the goods that America needs to
thrive and grow. The entire operational system needs to be
averse to the modern solutions we give shippers more of a
reason to use it [sic].
So let's get this done. It's bipartisan. I am looking
forward to working with industry and labor on how we can make
rail the safest possible mode of transportation in the country.
Thank you. I yield.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much. Mrs. Foushee,
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Chairman Webster and Ranking
Member Titus, for holding this hearing. And thank you to the
witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Cardwell, under current regulations, if a track
inspector finds a track defect, they are required to
immediately do one of two things: either take the track out of
service or place a speed restriction on the track until the
defect is fixed.
Alternatively, under AAR's recently submitted waiver, if a
railroad is using automated track inspection technology, or
ATI, they would have 72 hours to send out an inspector to check
the defect, but there aren't currently any requirements to take
the track out of service or reduce train speeds until the
defect is fixed.
As we are all acutely aware, safety regulations often have
to play catchup as new technologies like ATI are developed or
deployed. And it seems obvious to me that this is an area that
needs to be seriously looked at by the DOT. Can you speak a
little about the way in which this loophole in Federal
regulation can lead to increased risks in rail safety, and why
it is important for automated track inspection technology to be
subject to the same safety protocols as human inspectors?
Mr. Cardwell. It is pretty hard to understand why they
would ask for such an exception. It is a serious safety concern
that we have, a 72-hour delay of putting a remedy on a defect.
Just for a quick explanation, when a track inspector finds
a defect, he stops or slows down that track. He can slow the
speed down so it is safer to travel across. He can stop any
trains from going over it. He may fix the defect itself, but
there is a remedy immediately taken. And in this case, they are
asking for 72 hours. I don't know that anyone wants to be
around a railroad track where a defect is on that track for up
to 72 hours without being corrected. I know I wouldn't go
anywhere near it, and it is a danger. It is an extreme danger.
I think the waiver is extreme.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you for sharing that perspective.
I think we all recognize the potential that developing
technologies like automated track inspection and AI have to
help improve rail safety outcomes and protect our communities
from accident. That said, I also firmly believe that it is of
paramount importance that these new and exciting technologies
are used in conjunction with and under the supervision of human
inspectors and other trained rail safety workers, not as a
substitute for them.
Mr. Cardwell, I am curious, from your experience, how you
have seen new technologies assist the critical role that human
inspectors play in interpreting this influx of tech-generated
data, and why you think it is important to have humans, not
computers, making rail safety decisions.
[Pause.]
Mr. Cardwell. The question--we can work together--makes it
better is because our people that do the work know it best.
They do the work. We have an average of, I think, 29 years of
seniority in the rail industry. Those folks know this work
inside and out, and they can work with the people that do this
work in conjunction with them, and help them make a safer
railroad.
We believe that we can take the derailment, which--the
derailments that are happening right now per million rail-miles
traveled are as high as they have ever been. We did
measurements clear back to 2015, and we still have the same
amount of derailments today as we did in 2015 per rail-mile
traveled. We think working together we can lower that
derailment, those derailments in America by using this
technology, but also working with the human inspectors and
human workers that do this work--and they are professionals--
and work in conjunction with them, and we can build a better
railroad.
Mrs. Foushee. And one final question. It is critically
important that innovations in railcar inspection technology are
used to support and supplement in-person inspections performed
by qualified mechanical inspectors. So how can automated track
inspection technology be used to support the vital safety work
that our BMWED members perform every day?
[Pause.]
Mr. Cardwell. The ATI machinery catches measurements, it
measures the track constantly. And in doing so, a human
inspector can't do that so it works well for what it does. And
we believe that they should continue to use it. In fact, we
proposed they should use it more often, not less, because it
does catch those measurements that the human eye can't. It
works well. In the areas that it has been used it works well.
We are not opposed to it at all.
We just--the current FRA proposal that we had from a year
ago is still sitting on the table that can be picked up and
used, and it proposes that we use it more often, not less
often. And we support that bill.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you for that.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mann, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing, and thank you all for being here this morning.
I represent the Big First district of Kansas, which is
roughly two-thirds of the State, most of the western and some
of the eastern part, as well. Kansas, my State, is served by
more than 4,600 miles of active rail, owned and operated by 14
individual freight railroads that connect our manufacturers,
farmers, producers, and natural resources to domestic and
foreign customers. These railroads move nearly 40 million tons
of freight across Kansas annually, and serve as a huge economic
driver for the economy.
Our freight railroad operations must focus on keeping our
communities, consumers, and workforce safe while ensuring our
Nation's supply chains remain efficient. Overburdensome rules
and regulations can greatly hinder these efforts to move goods
and people across the network, and I look forward to hearing
from you all today on how Congress can help alleviate some of
these burdens.
A handful of questions. First for you, Mr. Gebhardt, what
are some of the challenges that businesses like yours face when
Government rules and regulations are inconsistently applied?
Mr. Gebhardt. Well, consistency, of course, is important
there, and making sure that they can be applied, because we
don't want to have a locomotive for every State in order to
meet requirements.
Also, we don't want to have different varying degrees
there, so we try to have consistency. We would like to try to
build [inaudible] as much as possible. Our Tier 4 locomotive,
we like to build those. We like them to have constant standards
for that.
Mr. Mann. Can you elaborate on how a more comprehensive
regulatory reform such as moving to a performance-based
framework could provide greater certainty to railroads and to
rail suppliers?
Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, and this is something that is important
to us also. So we have been monitoring our locomotives for a
long time now. We talk about telematics. Since 1998, we have
been pulling data back on our locomotives. And right now, we
have 18,000 locomotives that we pull the data back on. We get
10 million data messages a day. We can analyze all of that to
understand how can we extend intervals, how do we work
differently, how do we make sure that we improve the product so
that it can be a condition-based maintenance, condition-based
inspections, and condition-based intervals.
Mr. Mann. It is important, in my view. Last question, and
again for you, Mr. Gebhardt. We often associate regulations
with safety, but ignore the positive role that deregulation may
have in promoting the exact same outcomes. In the railroad
industry, how important have past deregulations been in
improving safety outcomes?
Mr. Gebhardt. I would say--I will talk more generally about
what we do around safety on this. Safety is paramount to all
that we do, and we focus very tightly on that. We think about
Positive Train Control and such around this. Positive Train
Control, we do--1 million miles a day of data we get back. And
so we understand exactly how the trains are operating such
there. We then put our TO, our trip optimizer, which is the
adaptive cruise control, to help the engineers and conductors
operate the trains through the terrain to drive down the fuel
usage on that, but also drive up the safety, the train handling
as part of what it does there.
We gather all this data, we learn from the data, we make it
better. And I think that is what--a lot of this big data that
people are talking about, we have been doing it now for 30
years, almost 30 years now, pulling all this data back. We
learn a lot from it. We are starting to apply AI, but most of
what we do is deterministic right now. And whenever we do use
AI, we put a human in the loop just to make sure that the right
answers are going back on that.
Mr. Mann. Great. Well, thank you all for being here. Thanks
for your time.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.
Mr. Garcia, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member, and to all the witnesses here today.
Mr. Gebhardt, your company develops and maintains software
used by train dispatchers. For instance, train dispatchers
employed by a major commuter railroad continue to experience
issues with their dispatching system developed and maintained
by Wabtec. These issues include the system glitching and
incorrectly showing train locations. The only solution Wabtec
has offered to these train dispatchers is to turn off and
restart their computers.
While the computers were turned off, no backup system was
in place, and the train dispatcher had no way of knowing the
location of trains or monitoring on-track worker safety. In
other words, the train dispatcher was completely in the dark
until the computer restarted. Dispatchers had to restart their
computers several times a day, and the issue persisted for
years.
Mr. Chair, I would like to request unanimous consent to
submit a letter for the record from the American Train
Dispatchers Association dated March 27, 2024, to the FRA,
outlining dangerous flaws where the dispatch system provided
inaccurate information and failed to display the position of
the power-operated switches controlled by the train dispatcher.
This issue occurred at BNSF, which also uses a dispatch system
developed and maintained by Wabtec.
[The information follows:]
Letter of March 27, 2024, from L. Ed Dowell, President, American Train
Dispatchers Association, to Hon. Amit Bose, Administrator, Federal
Railroad Administration, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Jesus G.
``Chuy'' Garcia
March 27, 2024.
The Honorable Amit Bose,
Administrator,
Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Via email
Re: March 26, 2024 BNSF Train Dispatcher Software Taken Out of Service
Due To Safety Concerns
Dear Administrator Bose:
Please consider this letter as a formal complaint and a request for
a complete investigation and audit of the BNSF's ``Auto Router'',
``Movement Planner'' and ``Train Management Dispatch System'' (TMDS).
On March 26, 2024, BNSF Manager Dispatching Practice and Rules issued
BNSF Railway Control System Notice No. 75 stating, ``A TMDS defect was
discovered where incorrect data is being communicated from TMDS to
Movement Planner. As a result of the TMDS data defect, effective March
26, 2024, the Auto Router function is being temporarily disabled. It
will be disabled at the system level on CTC territory. This will allow
time for Wabtec to develop and test an enhanced TMDS version that
addresses the TMDS data defect.''
When Auto Router is on, TMDS has a defect that Auto Router
triggers. Basically, TMDS pulls a past switch position from archived
data and subsequently throws the switch in the field and does not
properly display the position of the switch in TMDS to the dispatcher.
This was first reported to BNSF last year. Fall of 2023 a BNSF Train
Dispatcher reported a potential safety defect to BNSF Safety Hotline
(the dispatcher has all supporting data). After a short investigation
BNSF stated that they were unable to replicate the defect and advised
the train dispatchers on that desk to take Auto Router offline at that
location only. A few months later, the same defect occurred on a
different desk. Now on March 26, 2024, the BNSF has taken Auto Router
down on their entire system. This significant action should demonstrate
the seriousness of this defect. Even more concerning, is that at least
one other Class-1 Railroad uses Auto Router.
ATDA believes strongly that all software used by train dispatchers
that affects the safe movement of trains and on-track equipment should
be required to be tested and certified safe by the FRA. The current
practice by railroads to implement and utilize these safety critical
technologies without being thoroughly vetted is unacceptable. We cannot
continue to allow the safety of our communities to be left in the hands
of railroads.
The primary ATDA contact on the property is:
Kevin Porter, Vice President
[email protected]
(817) 733-7664
We look forward to working with you to investigate and resolve this
serious safety issue.
Respectfully submitted,
L. Ed Dowell,
President, American Train Dispatchers Association.
Enclosure: BNSF Railway Control System Notice No. 75
cc: Karl Alexy, Associate Administrator & Chief Safety Officer, FRA
Andrea Wohleber, Senior Advisor, FRA
Kevin Porter, Vice President, ATDA
Eddie Hall, President, BLE/T
Tony Cardwell, President, BMWED
Mike Baldwin, President, BRS
Jeremy Ferguson, President, SMART-TD
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Mr. Gebhardt, I am very concerned
about the flaws reported by the ATDA and the workers on the
ground. What is the average time that it takes for your company
to resolve safety concerns that are reported by workers such as
train dispatchers?
Mr. Gebhardt. Well, I am not aware of the specific issue
that you brought up there, but we are more than happy to get
back to you on that.
For safety issues, we take those very seriously. In fact,
we typically get back within hours, rather than within days. So
I would like to learn more about the case that you brought up
there, and make sure that I can understand it better and take
whatever actions are necessary on that.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. And to my question?
Mr. Gebhardt. How long----
Mr. Garcia of Illinois [interrupting]. The time that it
takes to resolve safety concerns that are reported by workers
such as train dispatchers.
Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, so once a safety case comes into Wabtec,
we immediately start taking action there. We try to work
through a triage process, where we decide what the severity of
the safety issue is, and then decide what the short-term
containment plan would be, and then what the long-term
corrective action is.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Is there an average time on those
reports?
Mr. Gebhardt. I don't have that available.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. And what steps do you commit to
take to ensure that technology used by train dispatchers is
fixed?
Mr. Gebhardt. I missed the last word.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. What commitments will you take to
ensure that technology used by train dispatchers is fixed?
Mr. Gebhardt. So we have a rigorous safety process
internal. We also work with the FRA, the TSA, and others to
make sure we meet all the applicable safety standards. And
typically, our internal safety standards are higher.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.
Mr. Gebhardt. So I----
Mr. Garcia of Illinois [interrupting]. Mr. Cardwell, I
understand the flaws with the dispatcher software can pose
severe safety risks to workers on the train tracks and the
general public. Should new technologies such as dispatch
systems be overseen by the Federal Railroad Administration?
Mr. Cardwell. Thank you for the question. The answer is
``Yes.''
When we have workers out on the tracks and the dispatchers
are watching our back, they are the ones that keep the trains
from coming in on our work groups. And if there is a glitch or
there are problems, that puts our workers in peril. And I would
argue that it should be regulated. If it is not, and there is
an incident or there is a glitch like that, it would be
devastating. So the answer is ``Yes.''
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Well, thank you, Mr. Cardwell. And
of course, thank you and all the witnesses for being here
today.
I yield back.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you so much.
Mr. Westerman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the witnesses for being here today.
As we talk about innovation and construction and all the
things we would like to see not only in our rail system but,
really, in the infrastructure across our country, an issue that
comes up often is permitting and permitting reform.
And as you are aware, in a recent 8-to-0 Supreme Court
ruling that involved the railroad in the Uinta Basin out in
Utah, the Supreme Court said something that we have been saying
for a long time, that NEPA is a process to review permitting,
it is not something that produces an outcome. But I think this
is a major decision by the court. And as Justice Kavanaugh
said, Congress did not design NEPA for judges to hamstring new
infrastructure and construction projects. So I would just like
to maybe start with Mr. Shannon, and go down the dais or the
table and tell me how important permitting reform is in your
area.
Mr. Shannon. I will confess, permitting reform is out of
scope, really, for RailPulse. We are the car owners, so we
don't get involved in permitting for railroad, new track or
anything like that. So I would have to----
Mr. Westerman [interrupting]. So building more rails
wouldn't help your business?
Mr. Shannon. It certainly could, but it is outside of the
scope of what we do. It would be more of our members' focus.
Mr. McCown. Congressman Westerman, thank you for the
question.
Permitting reform is crucial. We used to be an America of
builders. We built things. It is next to impossible to get
anything built. And whether you are on the left or you are on
the right, these permitting regulations affect us all. And NEPA
was never meant to be a bedrock environmental law. It is a
process law. And as you know, at the end of NEPA, you can go
ahead and build it, even if it says there are going to be
significant adverse consequences.
We have to reform it because it is being used by the loser
to hold up projects. Our infrastructure is deteriorating, and
it has got to be fixed.
Mr. Westerman. Mr. Gebhardt.
Mr. Gebhardt. We are not directly involved in the
permitting process, as a technology company. But anything that
helps move more freight by rail and allows more infrastructure
to be built would be positive for the industry.
Mr. Westerman. See, I would argue that you are impacted by
NEPA because you can't implement your technology if people
can't get a permit to----
Mr. Gebhardt [interposing]. Correct.
Mr. Westerman [continuing]. Build new infrastructure. And I
think that is one of the disconnects that we have, that we
don't realize just how impactful the permitting process is in
the way it has been weaponized to stop things from happening.
It is also easy to stop something from happening. The difficult
work is in actually building something and making things
happen.
Mr. Cardwell.
Mr. Cardwell. Yes, we support the NEPA reforms on
Brightline and a lot of the railroad that is coming. We think
it is important.
Mr. Westerman. All right, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nadler, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cardwell, by law, safety waivers may only be granted if
they are in the public interest and enhance safety. Both the
National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Railroad
Administration have stated that automated track geometry
systems should supplement, not replace, visual inspections. In
your view, what rationale have the railroads provided for
continuing to pursue the safety waiver, and how does that align
with the existing safety guidance?
Mr. Cardwell. Obviously, I think they are cost-cutting
measures. I am not entirely sure, because they are not safe,
that is for sure. I believe they are cost-cutting measures. I
believe they are job elimination attempts.
Mr. Nadler. You believe what?
Mr. Cardwell. Because we were----
Mr. Nadler [interrupting]. I couldn't hear you. You believe
the cost-cutting measures----
Mr. Cardwell [interrupting]. I am sorry.
Mr. Nadler. Finish your statement. I couldn't hear you. You
believe the cost-cutting measures----
Mr. Cardwell [interrupting]. Yes, that is why we are----
Mr. Nadler [continuing]. You believe the cost-cutting
measures what? I didn't--I couldn't hear you.
[Pause.]
Mr. Cardwell. Oh, I apologize. We believe that they are
cost-cutting measures. That's it. They are definitely not
providing a safer railroad, so we believe the attempts are just
cost-cutting measures.
Mr. Nadler. Okay, thank you. As you know, automated track
inspection systems can detect only one category of track
defect: geometry. But inspectors are trained to identify 17
additional types of defects that ATI cannot detect. Why is it
so important to search for all potential hazards, not just
those related to track geometry?
[Pause.]
Mr. Cardwell. There are 23 defect codes under the FRA, and
there are subsets of those defect codes. And it only finds six.
So ATI technology can only find 6 of the 23 different defects.
That is extremely dangerous. That means a large percentage of
the defects won't be detected by the ATI. So if we reduce the
human inspection, visual inspection, then those defects won't
be able to be found. That is a dangerous, dangerous situation.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. And what would be the safety impact of
reducing inspection frequency for those 17 other types of
defects from twice weekly to just twice monthly?
Mr. Cardwell. That means that we would be going
approximately 14 to 15 days between inspections on those
tracks. That is dangerous. If there is a track defect down on
that track that can't be found by ATI and it sits there for 14
days with millions of pounds of chemicals and passengers going
over those rails, I think that is just unacceptable. It is
dangerous.
Mr. Nadler. And can you share how recent technological
innovations have helped track inspectors do their jobs better?
Mr. Cardwell. Yes, there are all kinds of technological
advances that help us do our jobs better. There is new
technology coming regularly in the industry, new machinery that
helps--the physical labor that our workers do is being enhanced
by the machinery that is coming in. And I say it keeps--it
helps--it keeps the injuries down, it keeps potential death
down because the machinery has new technology in it that avoids
collisions and things of that nature. So there is great
technology out there that is doing great things for our members
and keeping them safer. We are willing to adopt those.
And we are willing to work with ATI technology, as well. We
have asked for the data, the information. We have insisted on
wanting to know and speak with the people that developed this
technology and the people that are overseeing this technology
to understand how it works and what it does, and we continue to
be kept away from the technology from the railroads.
Mr. Nadler. Okay, thank you. And a moment ago, I asked for
the--what would be the safety impact of reducing inspection
frequency for those 17 other types of defects from twice weekly
to twice monthly. You answered the question. My last question
is, what are the railroads doing? Are they, in fact, reducing
inspection from twice weekly to twice monthly?
Mr. Cardwell. Yes, they are not only asking for a reduction
in inspections, they are asking for a 72-hour period, up to 72
hours, before they correct the defects.
Mr. Nadler. And I assume you think that either the National
Transportation Safety Board or Congress should remedy that.
Mr. Cardwell. Yes. That is just so dangerous. Remedying the
defect after 72 hours is completely--if any railroader that has
done railroad work were in this room, we would just laugh at
it.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. My time is expired, I yield back.
Mr. Begich [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. I
recognize Representative Taylor for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member Titus,
for holding this hearing today, and thank you to all of our
witnesses for your testimony and insight and the sacrifices I
am sure you all made to be here.
Ohio has 44 operating railroads and over 5,000 miles of
track, making Ohio the third largest rail infrastructure State
in the Nation. With Ohio's presence in the rail industry,
adopting and implementing new technologies could result in huge
growth for southern Ohio.
Mr. McCown, in your testimony, you highlighted how the
United States regulatory process has hindered technological
growth in the rail industry. I am proud that the first bill I
introduced in Congress, the Regulation Decimation Act, would
remove burdensome, unnecessary, and counterproductive
regulations that prevent innovation and growth.
Mr. McCown, as this committee works on drafting the
upcoming surface transportation reauthorization bill, what
regulations and/or processes within the Federal Railroad
Administration should we be examining to remove regulatory
bottlenecks?
Mr. McCown. Mr. Taylor, thank you for the question. And as
a native Ohioan, I appreciate your comments there, as well.
We need to move from prescription to performance-based
policies to make sure that, A, nobody can take advantage of
shortcuts, no one is going to be self-regulated, but we are
hitting performance metrics. We need to be outcome-based
instead of prescriptive. The goal is transparency and
incentivizing innovation. Let's be agnostic on the technology
that is used to meet and exceed its target.
The goal of continuous improvement is to constantly drive
down the number of incidents, to make them less severe, to
occur less often. By doing this, we are unleashing innovation,
and we will see cottage industries further develop and innovate
in this area. But by telling somebody, you have to do it this
way, we are already losing.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. The implementation of new
technologies in our rail industry could help make our track
safer, reduce delays, and improve product delivery. It is
imperative that the development of new technologies and
American innovation is encouraged.
As one example, Mr. Shannon, I was glad to hear that
RailPulse is being utilized throughout Ohio, keeping our
communities safe. However, as a small business owner, I
understand the difficulties that smaller companies may have in
adopting new technologies. Mr. Shannon, from an industry
perspective, what can be done to help encourage the adoption of
new technologies?
Mr. Shannon. I think that is a great observation. The
technology that we are talking about on railcars is not
horribly expensive. But at the same time, for small businesses,
small railcar owners, we are talking about a significant
investment. And so one thing that can be done and should be
done would be providing incentives to encourage the adoption of
this technology, financial incentives through CRISI grant or
similar public-private kind of incentives.
Mr. Taylor. I heard at one point that it is sort of cheaper
to get it on a new car than it is to put onto an existing car.
Is that true?
Mr. Shannon. It can be cheaper to put it on a new car. The
core technology is very similar, regardless of whether it is a
new car or an existing car. But capturing a car in service and
getting to that car, locking it down, if you will, so that you
can safely install the equipment can cost more, for sure. So--
--
Mr. Taylor [interrupting]. Would you say it is a bigger
challenge for, like, short line railroads or smaller
operations?
Mr. Shannon. It would be a bigger challenge for short line
railroads, it can be a bigger challenge for private car-owning
shippers.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
The benefit that new technologies can provide in preventing
accidents should be one of Congress' top priorities. With the
East Palestine derailment in my home State of Ohio, we are
keenly aware of how important it is to prevent tragedies before
they happen.
Mr. Gebhardt, your company, Wabtec, produces a couple of
different products that seek to prevent accidents. Can you go
into more detail about these two technologies that can detect
potential accidents and seek to prevent them?
Mr. Gebhardt. Well, we do a number of technologies that are
specifically focused on safety. We have a kinetics inspection
technologies platform that uses acoustic technology, thermal
technology, visual technology to look for defects, potential
issues that are going to be coming along there.
We also have technology for incoming inspection into yards,
and now we are developing technology that actually will go
under the trains to go ahead and inspect for the outgoing
inspections to augment the work that the yard workers are
already doing there.
So we are working to try to make rail safer, we are working
with the locomotives, of course, but then we are also working
with the railcars.
Mr. Taylor. Real quickly, is there anything big on the
horizon that we haven't heard about that is coming out as far
as this kind of safety technology?
Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, I would say probably the most exciting
one that we have is what we call our RailGhost. It is actually
something that is going to go under the trains, inside the
yards or in sidings, and can do a lot of the inspections there.
We are working on the visual inspections now. We will put
different measurands on there over time, but it is a very
exciting technology, and it will augment what the yard workers
are already doing.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, and thank you all very much.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Begich. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize Mr.
DeSaulnier for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Very nice pronunciation. It's like you took
French, high school French or something.
Well, I want to thank you and the ranking member for this
hearing. It is fascinating. I represent a district in the East
Bay of the bay area. I have dealt with innovators and the
innovation economy for a long time because I am old. And a long
time ago, I was admonished by somebody in that field, ``Do not
let the technology seduce you.'' So we want to take the value
of all this wonderful technology, but make sure it also works
in the real world.
So, Mr. Cardwell, I will start with you. As a former
Teamster member, I have my withdrawal card from many years ago
from Local 170 in Worcester, Massachusetts, where I worked for
trucking companies, starting as a warehouseman and then later
working as a dispatcher. So I know something about--a long time
ago--logistics from those two perspectives, working graveyard
shifts when I was going to college.
So, to your point, I think sometimes us who are in the
labor field--and I am a senior member of the Education and
Labor Committee--we get accused of being modern-day Luddites
and we are against innovation. But my experience is we have
evolved to where we see the value, but we want to make sure
that the human part of it is connected. And we deal with this
on the Aviation Subcommittee, of which some of us are on--is
when the technology and the procurement process gets ahead of
the human beings, then we have disasters or mistakes which
affect everybody and, I would argue, sets innovation back.
So, trying to get that right balance, how are we doing
that, particularly in goods movement? All this benefit, which--
and I love your comments, Mr. McCown, about performance-based
and outcome-based driven. This should be an example, I think,
in goods movement and how we move product. But we have to have
humans involved in that.
So, could you speak to that? How do you engage with
management not just to protect your workers, which I want to be
part of, but do it in a way that is thoughtful, that--and I
know you do this already. If humans aren't involved, there is
nobody to check, as you have already said, to make sure that
the technology is working properly. And if the humans don't
understand the technology, and we haven't provided the
infrastructure in workforce development the way other
industrialized countries like the Germans do, it doesn't work.
And it just becomes this battle over profit motive and where
the money goes to.
So, how do we fit that balance, and how have you engaged to
make sure that you are part of that?
Mr. Cardwell. Sure, we want a partner with us, and we are
excited about the CRISI grants. We ourselves are going to apply
for a bunch of them, and have, so we can train our members with
this new technology, as well. And that funding that comes in is
helpful. We want to partner with anybody who is willing,
including the gentlemen here, to work on these issues to make
sure that our workers are part of this change and evolution in
technology. We are more than willing to do that. But what we
cannot do and will not do is compromise the safety aspect of
it.
The technology is not proven. And where it is proven, it
works well. And we are willing to adopt those technological
changes for safety alone. What we cannot do is accept this
technology if it is not proven to be safe, and if it doesn't
catch certain things.
It was testified to in the Senate hearings that 90 percent
more defects are found by ATI, which is not true. It can only
find up to 6 out of the 23 defect codes within the FRA. So
there is no way that it has increased that much. If there were
that much increase in defect finds from this technology, then
there would be a huge workload increase, as well. And that
workload hasn't gone up. It has maintained the same.
I would argue that we are for this technology and want to
continue working with these different groups.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. McCown, I want to ask you--thank you
for that--a question in the short time I have left.
Representing an area that is the fifth wealthiest district
in the country, but also having a lot of goods movement in
there, it is this urban-industrial interface in the bay area.
We have got four refineries, hazardous material, and then we
have got the Port of Oakland. So trying to manage that has
always been a struggle. We have had some pretty good success
when the industrial partners have worked with us. But
unfortunately, there are some people in the private sector who
drive to lots of short-term investment returns. So shortly, how
do we balance all of this in an area like that?
Mr. McCown. Yes, thank you so much, sir. Yes, I first came
to Washington, DC, working for a South Bay gentleman whose
portrait hangs to your left, and so I understand that very
much.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I am aware of him.
Mr. McCown. It's a balancing process. And oftentimes, the
truth is in the middle.
Mr. Begich. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize Mr.
Fong for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Fong. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Certainly, I echo the
comments made that there is certainly value to technology
innovation. It is transforming the transportation industry. But
we need to see that it moves forward in the rail space.
Mr. Gebhardt, the research that Wabtec has been doing
sounds very promising when it comes to supply chain
improvements. I wanted to get your take on how the Federal
Government can better support the development and commercial
deployment of innovative railroad telematics?
Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, this is an important topic, and I would
break it down into a couple of areas, the first being helping
with the development phase with some R&D funding, public-
private partnerships around that because some of these
technologies might be 8, 10 years away. Making investments on
that, on a moving target, is something that some Government
encouragement can definitely help with that.
And then providing waivers so we can actually get some of
the technology out on the track to go ahead and test it.
And of course, a safe manner. We always want to make sure
we are doing everything in a safe manner there.
And then making sure that there is outcome-based approvals
for things. I will give one quick example on this. Zero-to-zero
is one of our technologies. We have had trip optimizer in
operations since 2009, but it kicks in at about 9 miles an hour
on the way up and about 12 miles an hour on the way back down
again. We have worked technology to go from start to finish,
from zero to zero on the other side there, and this is an
adaptive cruise control. It helps with having better fuel,
better train handling and such around this technology. And that
is something where some help in moving that forward would be
demonstrated. We have proven that it is safe; now we just need
to get some test time on that one.
Mr. Fong. I appreciate that. I think, if we have learned
anything from 2020 and the pandemic, we need to be investing
more in supply chain to ensure that we reduce delays and ensure
that essential goods are moving to the market.
To Mr. Shannon, I wanted to ask, how are small, the
regional railroads, short line railroads, how are they being
brought into the modernization effort? Are there integration
barriers that we need to be cognizant of, cost barriers?
Mr. Shannon. Well, first I would say the small, regional
railroads we are actively working with as much as possible,
including within our ownership. The short line railroads are
represented as a class of owners within RailPulse so that we
get their insights and opinions in terms of driving RailPulse
forward.
I would also add that I think the small, regional railroads
are very important to driving the adoption of this technology,
because they have such a tight affinity working with the
shippers and their customers, and helping them get the benefits
out of this technology.
That being said, a comment that was made earlier about they
are small, they are not as cash rich, and those that have
fleets of railcars that they would like to see instrumented,
any help that can be done to help accelerate the adoption of
the technology on their behalf or for them would be valuable.
Mr. Fong. Sure. Well, certainly, from someone who
represents the Central Valley of California, rail is very
important for us in moving our products, whether it's
agriculture or manufacturing or energy, oil and natural gas,
too, to where it needs to go.
Building off of your answer, what are the biggest policy or
bureaucratic obstacles? What are they to deploying sensor-based
monitoring and automated track inspection?
Mr. Shannon. Did you say track inspection?
Mr. Fong. Automated--well, ATI, yes.
Mr. Shannon. Yes. Well, RailPulse is not involved in track
inspection, so we are telematics on railcars. That information
can be used to improve the safety, the health of the railcars.
The--and it is sort of--in answer to your question, I will
comment on----
Mr. Fong [interrupting]. Maybe Mr. McCown can----
Mr. Shannon [continuing]. Focusing on outcomes----
Mr. Fong [interposing]. Yes.
Mr. Shannon [continuing]. Is probably the single biggest
thing, performance metrics, so that we stay--we don't hamstring
the innovation in the industry.
Mr. Fong. Thank you.
Maybe that question was better addressed to you, Mr.
McCown, in terms of how----
Mr. McCown [interrupting]. Sure, so----
Mr. Fong [continuing]. What are the biggest obstacles to
employing new technologies?
Mr. McCown. Yes, thank you so much for the question.
The truth is that it's not one size fits all. And a rail
track over here is not the same as a rail track over there, yet
we are treating them all the same. What we need to be able to
do is manage the risk appropriately and then deploy assets,
human and technology, to where they are needed.
But right now, the FRA is set up where everything is
monolithic, it is all the same. And that is just not the best
way to evaluate risk. And so, these performance-based metrics
allow operators to concentrate where the risks are. And they
are held accountable if they don't do that.
Mr. Fong. I appreciate that. I have run out of time.
I yield back.
Mr. Begich. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize Mr.
Burlison for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gebhardt, artificial intelligence has the potential to
revolutionize the world, but also the rail industry, as well.
From predictive maintenance to infrastructure for optimizing
train operations, AI has the capability to not only enhance
efficiency, but reliability and safety. And I think that is
important to note. Can you shed light on how AI is going to
impact the rail industry in a positive way?
Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, we have been working very closely with
AI and developing that, but we are pacing it based on the real
capabilities. We are making sure it is being tested.
As I had mentioned earlier, we pull in about 10 million
data messages a day from our locomotives around the world, and
we process all of that. We have really been working over the
last several years, the last decade or so, with deterministic
rules that are if-then type statements, let's put it that way.
Now we are starting to do more and more with AI. But as we
understand AI, we always have a human in the loop as that goes
back. So we have automated rules that are deterministic. The
AI, there is a human in the loop on that.
When we look at condition-based maintenance and those types
of things, we are using the AI to really pull forward that data
so we know where can we extend intervals, where do we need to
shorten intervals. And then, even within the engineering side,
how do we improve the components to make sure we can continue
to extend that and focus on safety? We make sure we focus very
much on how do we make our products safer and safer.
But AI is a fantastic tool at this point. We are really
doing a lot of things with a human in the loop. The only place
that we are doing full AI is really around visual tools, where
we have a new rail spiker that we are doing, where we can
actually use AI in order to shoot the spikes in automatically,
those types of things that are nonsafety-related and things
that really take a lot of the visual technology. That is where
we are using a lot of AI.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you. You had mentioned earlier about
RailGhosts. Is that right?
Mr. Gebhardt. Yes.
Mr. Burlison. Can you describe that? So, this is a robotic
device?
Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, this is a robotic device. And the goal
is that longer term, it will be robotics and visual AI. So, it
has about 16, 18 wheels on the sides there, and it actually
flows under the train. And each of the wheels snaps back as it
goes under the train. And what we are doing now is, we are
putting cameras, thermal guns, other things on this platform,
and therefore, we will be able to augment the inspections as it
goes through. And we are very excited about it. And we can move
it at about 12 miles an hour, so it can move very quickly
through there, be able to put the data right in the hands of
the yard workers to go ahead and see exactly what is going on
there, maybe follow up with an inspection afterwards on those
types of things.
And then what is also pretty cool about it is how we put it
in what is called turtle mode, where it can actually drop down
inside the rails, and then the train can just pull right over
it and just go right out on the outgoing side of things. So we
are really excited about the technology, working with a couple
of the Class I's on this at this point to make sure that we can
meet all their needs that they are looking for.
Mr. Burlison. And Mr. Gebhardt, is there anything that is
holding you back in that regard? Are there any regulations or
laws that we need to evaluate that are going to hold your
industry back from innovating here?
Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, so on that particular case of
RailGhosts, there is not much holding us back on that one.
I had mentioned the zero-to-zero, trying to get the waivers
for zero-to-zero to go ahead and move forward with that, which
is the extension of our trip optimizer, adaptive cruise control
product. That's one that we are working to try to move that one
along.
Mr. Burlison. Okay, thank you.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Begich. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
myself for 5 minutes of questions.
My first question, Mr. Cardwell, you mentioned that the
average employee in the industry has been active for 29 years,
in earlier testimony. A good blend of youth and experience
helps to foster responsible innovation adoption. Do you have
any concerns about an aging workforce in your industry?
And if so, what needs to happen, in your opinion, in order
for this to be addressed?
Mr. Cardwell. I have no concerns about the age. The average
time that they spend in seniority in the classification is 29
years. We have a lot of young employees right now, too. It's a
good job, it's a good-paying job, and it's a career. These guys
love what they do, so they stay for a long time. They typically
don't go out into other jobs. They are interested in the
technology, and they want to participate in it, as all the
young people are these days. And they want to participate and
operate this new machinery and technology, as well. They are
excited about it.
We believe there is a good relationship that can be formed
there, but we can't compromise safety when we do it.
Mr. Begich. Thank you.
Next question, Mr. McCown, in your role as former president
of Alyeska Pipeline, you oversaw critical infrastructure
operations in some of the harshest and most remote conditions
in the United States. How do you assess the applicability of
advanced safety and inspection technologies such as automated
track inspection or acoustic monitoring in similarly rugged and
isolated environments like the Alaska Railroad?
Mr. McCown. Chairman Begich, thank you very much for your
question. I thoroughly enjoyed my time in Alaska, and my wife
would still like to move back there permanently.
Pipeline safety regulations have evolved over the years
into more performance-based. We also use different tools to
measure different aspects of the pipeline. And in the pipeline
industry, that has changed dramatically over the last 30-plus
years. Your pipeline is almost 50 years old now, with an
enviable safety record.
So it can be done. It is a combination of deploying
technology, also people, and determining where your risks are.
If you take that holistic system, there is no reason why we
should be up here trying to drag rail into the 21st century. We
need these tools and the pace of technology. And what is
available today is different than it was just a couple of years
ago.
Mr. Begich. And to follow up on that, from your experience,
what Federal policies or regulatory flexibilities would best
support the deployment of remote sensing and predictive
maintenance systems in frontier State infrastructure?
Mr. McCown. Yes. Well, as I mentioned earlier, no two sets
of track are alike, different operating conditions. And
fortunately or unfortunately, regulations are set up for a one
size fits all, which is again why I would like to see more
performance-based.
But at the same time, when a waiver gets held up--and I
hate that term ``waiver.'' It is an equivalency. We are not
waiving anything. We are meeting the standard a different way.
That is what encourages innovation. And so at the Department,
not just in FRA, these get held up for far too long. And in
some cases, the standard they want you to meet is actually
higher than the regulations. And the well-meaning DOT career
folks pile things on. We need more flexibility, not less. And
once you have a waiver that is being done over and over again,
it is time to change the regulation.
And for Alaska, Alaska is a different operating
environment, and people need to understand that and, quite
frankly, defer to folks who know best.
Mr. Begich. I so appreciate that you mentioned that, Mr.
McCown. You understand better than perhaps anyone in this room
just how different Alaska can be as an operating environment,
and we do need to make sure our regulations are flexible with
respect to the environments in which they apply.
One question. I am going to open this up for any of the
witnesses here. One of the challenges that we have in rail is
the deployment cost of new rail. A lot of the conversation
today focused on operations and innovations within the existing
operating infrastructure. What technologies or opportunities
for new technologies are on the horizon that can lower the cost
for new rail deployments?
Mr. McCown. I will go ahead and take a quick stab at it.
Regulatory certainty is required to deploy capital. Where you
have risk, right, in any business, you are not going to invest
into something. So, we need a stable regulatory environment
where the rules aren't going to change depending on who is in
the White House or what bureaucrat is in charge 2 years from
now.
So, by laying those rules down and by removing rules that
no longer make sense, we can lessen the cost to build new
things, to build new rail tracks, to build new highways that
are safer and better than the existing ones that are out there.
Mr. Begich. I appreciate that, and I would just encourage
the industry generally, as we are looking at innovations across
the industry, let's also be sure we are looking at innovations
that will drive down the cost and accelerate the deployment of
new rail.
Certainly, in my home State of Alaska, we have had a
longstanding dream to connect to the lower 48 States through
Canada to Alaska. We would like to do that in a capital-
efficient manner, and we would like to do that in an
expeditious manner. And I think innovation is going to be one
of the ways that we actually make that dream achievable.
With that, my time has expired. I would like to thank the
witnesses and ask if there are any further questions from any
members of the subcommittee who have not been recognized.
Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today. Thank
you again to the witnesses for your testimony. The subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Statement of Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Association of American Railroads, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Daniel Webster
Introduction
On behalf of the members of the Association of American Railroads,
thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record.
AAR freight railroad members account for the vast majority of railroad
mileage, employees, and freight traffic in Canada, Mexico, and the
United States. In addition, AAR maintains two wholly-owned subsidiaries
on the cutting edge of rail technology. MxV Rail in Pueblo, Colorado,
is the industry's research, testing, and training epicenter, developing
science-based solutions to make North America's rail network safer,
more efficient, and more reliable. Railinc in Cary, North Carolina, is
the industry's digital backbone, providing essential data, tracking,
maintenance, and messaging services to power safe and efficient rail
service around the country.
At first glance, today's freight railroads may appear unchanged:
locomotives pulling a string of rail cars across steel rails and wooden
ties. But beneath that familiar exterior lies a remarkable
technological evolution. Billions of dollars in reinvestment by the
railroads have transformed the systems that support, operate, and
optimize freight railroads over the last few decades, and advances in
digital technologies, automation, data analytics, and safety systems
have revolutionized the industry. As a result, railroads are safer,
more reliable, and more cost-effective than ever before, and the
industry is continuing to develop and deploy new technology to continue
that trajectory. Safety has always been, and will continue to be, at
the forefront of everything the railroads do, and the industry will
continue to invest in new technology that improves the safety of rail
operations for our employees, customers, and communities. Railroads
have identified a path to take the industry into the future that
combines the power of innovative technology with the grit and expertise
of our workers. That path will only come to fruition in a regulatory
environment that supports innovation.
Freight Cars and Defect Detection
Over the last 50 years, railroads have invested billions of dollars
in developing and deploying technology to help identify potential
problems with railcars before they cause safety concerns like
derailments. Research, data, and years of experience show safety
outcomes improve with a layered approach combining visual inspections
with technology that identifies problems invisible to the naked eye.
For example, several decades ago, railroads began voluntarily
deploying detectors along tracks to identify defects on passing rail
cars before structural failure. These trackside systems measure the
temperature or the ``acoustic signatures'' of freight car wheel
bearings as they pass, identifying bearings that are nearing failure
and alerting train crews to respond when necessary. Over time, the
industry has worked together to improve the performance of these
detectors and conduct trend analysis to identify at-risk bearings
sooner.
While wayside detection has dramatically improved safety on the
mainline, railroads are continuing to invest in new, more advanced
technologies for identifying problems faster and more consistently.
That investment includes onboard condition monitoring systems that
continuously collect and report data on wheel bearing health to
identify problems and alert train crews earlier than ever. Norfolk
Southern has also deployed specialized detection portals to generate
detailed three-dimensional images of each locomotive and railcar as it
moves through the portal. Using artificial intelligence (AI), ultra-
high-resolution cameras, laser scanning, and digitized imaging,
railroads can now identify potential issues--including misaligned
components and structural defects--and pull cars for repairs before
safety concerns arise.
Track and Other Infrastructure
Railroads are continuing to improve the safety of their track,
bridges, signals, and other infrastructure through new technology that
inspects, maintains, and predicts issues with more accuracy and
efficiency than ever before. These tools reduce the risk of derailments
and service disruptions, lower maintenance costs, and improve the
overall resilience of the rail network.
Defect detector vehicles are a key component of these systems.
Advanced track geometry cars use sophisticated electronic and optical
instruments to inspect track alignment, gauge, curvature, and other
track conditions. On-board computer systems provide sophisticated
analyses of track geometry and predict the response of freight cars to
track deviations to help railroads determine when tracks need
maintenance. New methods for detecting rail flaws are constantly under
review. Recently, MxV Rail developed and tested a prototype of the
world's first laser-based rail inspection system. A new in-motion
ultrasonic rail joint inspection system, also developed by MxV Rail,
has undergone real-world tests on a major railroad.
Several railroads have adopted LiDAR and AI-driven technologies to
enhance track inspection and asset management.\1\ Norfolk Southern, for
example, uses railcar-mounted LiDAR and sophisticated AI models to
create intricate three-dimensional maps of its network, complete with
the location and dimensions of switches, crossings, and other assets.
This precise, up-to-date digital map streamlines route planning and
maintenance, helping to proactively prevent collisions, derailments,
and other safety risks. BNSF has integrated LiDAR technology into its
operations by deploying hi-rail vehicles--specialized trucks equipped
with rail wheels--that use advanced sensors to collect three-
dimensional data for precise measurements of track geometry, bridge
clearances, and other critical infrastructure. CSX owns and operates
several LiDAR systems that continuously scan the railroad's entire
21,000+ mile network, collecting detailed 3D data to support safety
protocols and infrastructure planning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ LiDAR stands for Light Detection and Ranging, a remote sensing
technology that uses laser light to measure distances and create highly
detailed, three-dimensional representations of the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, ground-penetrating radar and terrain conductivity
sensors have been developed that identify problems underground--such as
excessive water penetration and deteriorated ballast--that make track
less stable. Similarly, railroads inspect bridges for stability using
sonar technology to detect underwater erosion and structural
weaknesses. To improve employee safety and ensure safe operations,
railroads also use drones across the network to conduct aerial
inspections of tracks, bridges, and rail yards, providing real time
data and reducing the need for employees to enter dangerous areas.
Locomotives
Numerous railroads are testing alternative fuel locomotives to
reduce emissions and improve fuel efficiency, enhance performance and
sustainability, and support safer operations. While these locomotives
are not commercially viable for broad deployment on the vast rail
network, they hold significant promise for railroads to continue
providing safe, low-emission, and cost-effective service in the future.
For example, BNSF and Wabtec, a locomotive manufacturer, demonstrated a
10 percent reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions
through a demonstration project that combined a prototype battery-
electric locomotive with two traditionally powered locomotives on a
single train. Union Pacific, in partnership with rail technology
company ZTR, completed testing and proof-of-concept work on hybrid
battery-electric locomotives expected to reduce fuel consumption by up
to 80 percent and is moving towards field testing the locomotives in
active rail yard operations. Several railroads, including CSX and CPKC,
are undertaking pilot programs for hydrogen fuel cell locomotives, a
potentially promising zero-emission solution for yard switching, short-
haul, and line-haul operations.
This technology is still in the early stages of testing and
deployment, and these pilot programs are helping railroads assess
feasibility, safety, performance, and infrastructure requirements.
Considerable research and development, much of it funded through the
Department of Energy, is imperative to determine if non-diesel
locomotives can ultimately become a safe, reliable, and efficient
alternative to diesel.
Rail Operations
Railroads today rely on sophisticated technology to manage the flow
of traffic across vast networks, optimize train routing and scheduling,
and help ensure efficiency and safety. Many of these technologies have
been around for several years, including the Rail Corridor Risk
Management System (RCRMS), which identifies the most secure routes for
trains carrying hazardous materials, and Positive Train Control (PTC),
which automatically stops or slows trains before certain accidents can
occur using GPS, wireless radio, and onboard computer systems. These
systems use sophisticated algorithms and constant data collection to
prevent devastating accidents before they can occur, and railroads are
continually looking for ways to leverage this data to continue
increasing safety and improving operations along the network.
All major railroads also rely on advanced network optimization
systems to improve efficiency, reduce delays, and conserve fuel. These
systems calculate the most fuel-efficient speeds over specific routes;
determine optimal train spacing and timing; and minimize meet-and-pass
conflicts. Using real-time data, they provide dispatchers and rail
personnel with dynamic runtime forecasts and decision-support tools
that enable faster, more accurate adjustments to network conditions. At
Norfolk Southern, for example, the operating team uses its Operating
Plan Developer (OPD) to develop detailed operating plans and manage
assets in a virtual, data-rich environment. OPD helps coordinate
hundreds of train movements each day while enhancing safety,
reliability, and service quality--goals shared by the many other
railroads that deploy similar technologies.
Railroads have also developed advanced applications that help
trucks get in and out of yards quickly at intermodal terminals, which
reduces fuel consumption and emissions and improves supply chain
fluidity. BNSF is implementing its Automated Yard Check (AYC) system, a
cutting-edge solution that combines drones with advanced algorithms to
collect real-time data on container locations and significantly
streamline terminal operations and inventory accuracy. Railroads have
also deployed mobile apps, like CPKC's CP Fast Pass, to help trucking
partners with ingate, outgate, on-terminal, and pre-gate procedures,
reducing wait times and improving overall efficiency. Many intermodal
yards also have biometric scanners that recognize truck drivers'
thumbprints; video portals that automatically read truck ID numbers;
and automatic receipts and digital paperwork as part of automated gate
systems.
Computers and Communication Systems
Railroads were among the first industries to use mainframe
computers. Today the legacy of using sophisticated communication
systems and computer-based tools continues to help coordinate
operations and communications across the nationwide rail network. For
example, CN uses an innovative virtual reality system to take potential
employees on a virtual tour of a rail yard and illustrate the intricate
operations and diverse jobs available on a railroad. The technology is
expected to be used at career fairs and recruitment events across CN's
network. Railroads also use augmented and virtual reality training that
allows workers to practice safety procedures, train handling, and
emergency responses in simulated environments. Union Pacific is using
3D printing in its training programs to create realistic models of key
rail components with which trainees can practice before entering an
active rail yard. 3D printing life-size knuckles and drawbars allows
for hands-on training to help new hires understand the switching
process and practice with replicas to build confidence and expertise
from the start.
Regulatory Environments that Foster Innovation Improve Safety
Railroads have invested billions of dollars in developing, testing,
and deploying new technology. When combined with the expertise of the
railroad workforce, this innovation has the potential to improve the
safety of railroad operations for employees, customers, and communities
around the country. To take the next great leap forward in safety,
federal regulators must move beyond a prescriptive regulatory framework
that stifles innovation and too often gets sidetracked by other
political issues. Railroads support a regulatory framework that
supports the effective systems in place today while encouraging and
supporting investments for the future.
Prior administrations have sidetracked the Federal Railroad
Administration's (FRA) waiver process by focusing on achieving
unrelated political goals. Refocusing that process on safety is one way
to build a more technology-focused regulatory environment. A clear
example of the need for updates to the waiver process is FRA's
treatment of Automated Track Inspection (ATI). One Class I railroad
secured a waiver from FRA to test ATI in conjunction with visual track
inspections. Based on clear safety improvements from these tests, the
railroad applied for a waiver to expand the use of ATI, and additional
Class I railroads applied to use similar technology on their tracks. In
2021 and 2022, the FRA, the agency whose core mission is preserving and
improving the safety of the railroad industry, denied these waiver
requests despite the demonstrated safety improvements. Eventually a
court found that FRA's decision was arbitrary and capricious and
directed the agency to grant the waiver. In 2024, FRA allowed expanded
use of ATI under a new regulatory framework that allows the use of ATI
without changes to existing visual inspection rules.
FRA's decision seemed to be linked to concerns from railroad
workers about the impact of technology on jobs. Railroads have been
clear that the best safety outcomes occur when our highly skilled
workforce operates in tandem with our advanced technology. BNSF
recognized that FRA was concerned about the impact of these waivers on
railroading jobs and worked directly with its local Brotherhood of
Railway Carmen (BRC) to develop and test a new Brake Health
Effectiveness (BHE) system. Not only did they see demonstratable safety
improvements, the BRC members reported additional work as BHE helped to
identify more brake issues for them to remediate. With the public
support of its local BRC, BNSF applied for a waiver to expand the use
of BHE. FRA sat on the request for nearly two years, and BNSF was
unable to expand the use of safety-improving technology and create
additional jobs for its highly compensated, highly skilled union
workforce.
FRA should act on waivers in a timely manner consistent with
statute; make decisions only based on transparent criteria and clear
science-based data demonstrating improved safety outcomes; consistently
renew or expand waivers as additional data becomes available; and
create clear expectations and pathways for adoption of new technology
and processes by the broader industry when the safety record is
established.
Railroads will continue to develop and implement new technologies
to improve safety and performance. Achieving the maximum benefits from
this technology will require a regulatory framework that supports
innovation and provides flexibility for achieving safety goals.
Technology mandates locking in specific tools or processes create
disincentives for railroads to invest in new technology. Relying on
sound science, clear data, and an articulated need will give railroads
discretion to innovate and create new ways to incorporate technology
that improves safety while maintaining strong FRA oversight.
Conclusion
By investing billions in infrastructure and innovation, railroads
are constantly modernizing operations to improve safety while meeting
rigorous global supply chain demands. Railroads look forward to working
with members of this committee and other policymakers to ensure that
these new technologies complement the expertise and ingenuity of the
rail workforce in making our workers, customers, and communities safe
while serving as the engine of America's economy.
Letter of June 24, 2025, from John Schmitter, Co-Founder, Chief
Commercial Officer, RailState LLC, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and
Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and Hon. Daniel Webster, Chairman, and Hon. Dina Titus,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Daniel Webster
June 24, 2025.
The Honorable Sam Graves, Chair,
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Daniel Webster, Chair,
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Sub.,
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 2251 Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member,
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
2164 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Dina Titus, Ranking Member,
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Sub.,
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 589 Ford House
Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Via email
Dear Chairs Graves and Webster, and Ranking Members Larsen and
Titus--
RailState thanks you for holding today's Railroads, Pipelines, and
Hazardous Materials Subcommittee Hearing, ``America Builds: The Role of
Innovation and Technology in Rail Modernization.''
As a part of this hearing, RailState asks that you submit this
letter for inclusion in the hearing record for use by the Committee as
it considers how to modernize our nation's rail transportation network
to enhance safety while facilitating more effective passenger and
freight movements resulting in increased capacity.
RailState's Rail Network Intelligence is the first data platform
providing in real-time comprehensive, unbiased data and powerful tools
for complete visibility into rail network operations. In an easy-to-
understand dashboard, subscribers including public stakeholders,
logistics teams and planners are provided previously hidden and
outdated data and insights fostering smarter decisions resulting in
lower costs, more accurate planning, mitigating challenges ahead of
time, and responding to issues faster.
Proprietary sensors, developed and assembled by RailState in
Quincy, Massachusetts, capture images of moving trains from outside the
railroad's right of way. The sensors use high resolution cameras,
lidar, infrared illumination and other hardware to capture information
about each car and locomotive on each train passing the sensor.
RailState software uses AI to interpret visible information on the side
of each car, compiles it into actionable data and makes that data
available to users through a web application and API less than 30
minutes after the train passes the sensor.
RailState has been providing this service for various public sector
entities for over five years with 250 sensors located throughout North
America. These sensors operate in all climate conditions from the
Canadian tundra to Death Valley. To date, they have tracked thousands
of trains each day identifying the fluidity of the network, providing
mobility trends, capturing rail movements at our nation's ports and
borders, showing train lengths and consists, and spotting cargo fraud
and railcar vandalism. Establishing and funding a Rail System
Performance Data Program would greatly assist the Federal government in
helping to modernize our nation's freight and passenger rail network,
thus, improving safety and not just improving but growing passenger and
freight rail capacity.
I am more than happy to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you for your continued leadership and consideration of this
most important effort.
Sincerely,
John Schmitter,
Co-Founder, Chief Commercial Officer, RailState LLC.
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Brigham A. McCown, Founder and
Chairman of the Board of Directors, Alliance for Innovation and
Infrastructure
Question 1. Please elaborate on how railroads would determine the
prioritization of repairs to track determined to be noncritical or
dangerous.
Answer. Railroads should consistently adopt a structured, risk-
based approach to establishing repair priorities. Conditions posing an
immediate threat, such as defects that could lead to derailments, must
be addressed and mitigated promptly. This protocol aligns with FRA
regulations. Defects not requiring immediate repair should be
prioritized based on severity. These considerations should, at minimum,
encompass the type of cargo, train tonnage on the segment, speed,
population density, and environmental factors. Furthermore, Automated
Track Inspection (ATI) data and predictive analytics increasingly
enhance repair prioritization through a likelihood/consequence safety
analysis, conforming to recognized risk-management standards.
Recommendation to Congress: Authorize and encourage the USDOT and
the FRA to pilot decision-support tools that integrate tonnage
exposure, defect type, and predictive modeling to enhance national
repair prioritization standards. Urge the USDOT to utilize existing
programs within other modal administrations to foster intermodal
collaboration.
Question 2. In his testimony, Mr. Cardwell claimed that the
American Railroad Waiver Request--FRA Docket #2025-0059--will
``significantly weaken'' railroad safety by reducing the frequency of
manual inspections and allow railroads ``up to 72 hours to address''
track defects exposing ``the American people to imminent danger.'' Is
this your understanding of the waiver request? How would the waiver
request, if granted, operate in practice?
Answer. My understanding of the matter is entirely different. It is
appropriate to assert that safety protocols and procedures should
incorporate science, technology, and data; otherwise, safety could be
compromised if decisions are influenced by subjective factors such as
workforce size. Such decisions are most appropriately managed through
collective bargaining between the railroads and unions. In practice,
waivers, such as the one referenced, would facilitate ATI serving as
the primary inspection instrument.
Manual follow-up inspections for anomalies would still need to be
conducted within the requested 72-hour response period. The proposed
72-hour window itself is part of a waiver petition for ATI
implementation filed by the AAR in May and has not yet received FRA
feedback or approval. This provision does not permit neglect; instead,
it formalizes a precise, data-driven process for verification and
remediation. ATI systems collect vast amounts of freight rail
operational data that must be processed into usable information and
analyzed--a task that takes time but yields insights far beyond what
human inspectors could achieve. The 72-hour window is a reasonable
timeframe for this process to be feasible, enabling railroads to detect
far more, and far smaller, defects sooner than traditional inspection
methods. Railroads would remain accountable for their decisions, and in
many instances, manual inspections would be conducted more promptly
than the maximum allowable time. Continuous ATI monitoring allows
earlier detection of issues and greater frequency compared to periodic
manual inspections, thereby enabling timely interventions.
As a former regulator myself, I recognize that such arbitrary
deadlines can be problematic, which is why my recommendation would only
include a final agency action. That said, in many cases, there is
simply no reason other than a lack of will within an agency as to why
the waiver review process cannot be completed within a reasonable
period, such as 90 days. Acting upon applications from regulated
entities is indeed a systemic issue across many parts of the Department
of Transportation. Congress should also ensure the Department of
Transportation avoids a belt-and-suspenders approach. By this, I mean
that for a waiver, special permit, or other parts of DOT, applicants
are often required to go far beyond the existing regulatory framework
to secure approval. This is not only counterintuitive; it undermines
innovation and only reinforces the outdated nature of many federal
regulations.
Recommendation to Congress: Establish statutory timelines (shot
clock) that cannot be stopped for the FRA waiver reviews, and require
that any waiver approval include measurable safety performance metrics
for oversight.
Question 3. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) waivers share
common elements with performance-based regulations. How does the waiver
process differ from a performance-based regulatory framework? Are
waivers a substitute for performance-based regulatory framework?
Answer. The waiver process offers temporary, case-specific
exemptions from prescriptive regulations when an applicant demonstrates
that an alternative approach meets or surpasses safety standards.
Conversely, a performance-based framework establishes defined safety
outcomes--such as detection rates or maximum repair times--and provides
regulated entities with flexibility in achieving these outcomes. While
waivers are reactive measures, performance-based regulation is
proactive and sustainable. Ideally, regulatory agencies should
progressively revise their regulations to shift away from prescriptive
measures in favor of performance-oriented approaches. This transition
would eliminate the regulatory delays associated with the current
rulemaking procedures and would promote more rapid investment in
innovative solutions by companies and inventors. Moreover, the agency
should prioritize waivers granted to specific entities and consider
regional or industry-wide waivers wherever feasible. These waivers
could subsequently serve as the foundation for a new performance space
framework, where applicable.
I believe there is a strong bipartisan consensus in favor of a
risk-based approach to regulations, as the standards often set are so
stringent that they function both as economic deterrents and dissuade
companies from investing in their assets. This is, of course, not to
suggest that regulation should be eliminated or that regulated entities
should be exempt from oversight. On the contrary, more effective
regulations serve to bring us closer to our objective of zero accidents
and zero incidents.
Recommendation to Congress: Require FRA to review and consider
permanent rule changes whenever three or more waivers are granted for
the same provision within five years, ensuring recurring operational
realities are reflected in regulation.
Question 4. Your organization's recent report, ``Driving Regulatory
Innovation for Safer Railroading,'' highlighted some very egregious
examples of the Biden Administration's manipulation of the FRA's waiver
process, most notably the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit ruling against FRA's rejection of a BNSF waiver.
Question 4.a. What are the implications of an agency acting in an
``arbitrary and capricious'' manner for innovations that improve
railroad safety and innovation?
Answer. The Fifth Circuit's ruling in BNSF Railroad Co. v. FRA
characterized the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) denial of
waivers as ``arbitrary and capricious'' due to its failure to consider
relevant safety data and the absence of a clear rationale for
prioritizing manual inspections. It is essential to recognize that such
a standard sets a relatively high threshold; agencies that act
reasonably--despite expert disagreements--or that are generally upheld
often meet this criterion. Nonetheless, when an agency considers
alternative measures to be more suitable, it likely exceeds its
statutory authority and extends its powers beyond those granted by
Congress. Cases of this nature are particularly regrettable, as they
are unnecessary. Frequently, governmental legal representatives are
aware of more appropriate options but are constrained by policy
directives or, in certain instances, by political decision-making
processes.
Unfortunately, such conduct erodes confidence by fostering
uncertainty, which discourages investment in both emerging and
established safety technologies. Ultimately, this is harmful to the
public, as it sacrifices the advantages of improved efficiency and
enhanced safety.
Question 4.b. Were FRA's actions during the Biden Administration
contrary to the agency's mission to ``enable the safe, reliable, and
efficient movement of people and goods?''
Answer. Rejecting data-supported innovations without a clear
justification contradicts the FRA's mission ``to enable the safe,
reliable, and efficient movement of people and goods.'' The primary
concern, if I may, in this context, pertains to employment, which is
entirely understandable. As briefly mentioned during the hearing,
employment considerations are always significant, and sound public
policy should duly account for this. An effective safety policy should
not hinder employment. Existing mechanisms are in place through which
the workforce and the railroads can negotiate compensation packages,
pensions, and overall security. As I have briefly indicated, history
shows that employment is not necessarily diminished due to
technological advancements. Instead, in this context, the workforce
responsible for locating and repairing defects remains essentially the
same.
It is reasonable to assume that if significantly more defects can
be identified using more automated technologies than the traditional
methods, such as the ``Mark 1 Mod 0 Eyeball'' as we would refer to it
in the military out of pure jest, it would constitute an improvement.
Recommendation to Congress: Require FRA to publish, in the Federal
Register, objective and data-driven rationales for waiver denials,
including any comparative safety analysis between proposed and existing
methods.
Question 5. In his testimony during the hearing, Mr. Cardwell
claimed that technologies like ATI are only 26-27 percent effective at
identifying defects. Could you explain why this figure may not be
accurate in describing how ATI works in conjunction with manual track
inspections?
Answer. I do not believe that the cited 26-27% figure accurately
represents ATI's capabilities. To clarify further, the allegation is
that ATI is specifically using Track Geometry Measurement Systems,
which can only identify six of the 23 defect types the FRA requires
railroads to check for during visual inspections--roughly 26 percent of
the total categories--meaning this figure reflects the targeted scope
of defect types ATI measures, not its accuracy within that range.
For its accuracy, both the FRA and MxV Rail pilot programs showed
that ATI reduced defects per 100 miles by 92.2% (from 3.08 to 0.24) \1\
and lowered derailments on monitored corridors by 72.7%.\2\ ATI shifts
manual inspection focus on defect types it cannot yet detect, such as
specific turnout issues, which account for 60-80% of non-geometry
defects.\3\ ATI also reduces worker exposure to on-track hazards and
expands inspection coverage without increasing track time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Association of American Railroads. (2025, April 24). TGMS
Waiver Petition to FRA (FRA-2025-0059), attachment detailing pilot-
program defect ratios [PDF letter]. https://www.trains.com/wpcontent/
uploads/2025/05/FRA-2025-0059-0001_attachment_1.pdf
\2\ Federal Railroad Administration. (2021, November 23). Track
Inspection Test Programs: Report to Congress [PDF]. U.S. Department of
Transportation. https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2021-
11/FRA%20Report%20to%20Congress-Track%20Inspection%20Test
%20Program%2011.23.21.pdf
\3\ Eruvuru, S. (2023). Railroad Wireless Communications Research
and Testing. Association of American Railroads. MxV Rail. Retrieved
from https://www.mxvrail.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/28th-Annual-
AAR-Research-Review-2023-All-Slides-1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation to Congress: Direct FRA to integrate validated ATI
performance data into its rulemaking and consider expanding its
authorized use for mainline inspections, paired with targeted manual
follow-ups.
Question 6. The hearing mostly focused on the benefits of
performance-based regulations on regulated entities. As a former
regulator at the Department of Transportation (DOT), what benefits are
the benefits of performance-based standards to Federal regulators?
Answer. For regulators, performance-based standards provide:
Flexibility to approve innovative solutions without the
necessity of frequent rule rewrites.
Clarity of Outcomes with measurable safety metrics;
Efficient Oversight by focusing on results rather than
method compliance; and
Continuous Improvement through feedback from performance
data.
The PHMSA Integrity Management Program, developed during my tenure
in federal service, has contributed to a reduction in hazardous liquid
pipeline incidents, which have decreased by 36% between 2014 and 2024,
despite an expansion in mileage and increased volumes transported. This
demonstrates that well-designed performance frameworks can enhance
safety while fostering innovation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. (2024).
Annual report: Hazardous liquid pipeline performance measures, 2010-
2024. U.S. Department of Transportation. Retrieved from https://
www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/hazardous-liquid-annual-
data
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation to Congress: Authorize FRA to implement a phased,
metrics-driven performance-based program--initially as voluntary
pilots--with periodic evaluation and potential codification if safety
improvements are verified.
Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Eric Gebhardt, Executive Vice
President and Chief Technology Officer, Wabtec, on behalf of the
Railway Supply Institute
Question 1. The technologies you are developing seek to leverage
vast amounts of data and data analysis to shift the paradigm of
railroad safety from a reactive approach to a proactive approach. In
your testimony, you also said it will take rail safety ``to the next
level.''
Question 1.a. How important is a consistent and transparent
regulatory process to enabling this paradigm shift?
Question 1.b. Would you agree that the goal of regulations should
be to achieve a safety outcome, rather than mandate a specific process
to achieve that outcome?
Question 1.c. How is data collected from ATI analyzed and utilized?
Question 1.d. How do railroads use this information to determine
and prioritize track maintenance and repair?
Answer to 1.a., 1.b., 1.c., & 1.d. A consistent and transparent
regulatory process is essential to the successful development,
demonstration, and adoption of rail safety technologies. When industry
can anticipate how data-driven solutions will be evaluated, it reduces
uncertainty and supports broader investment in safety-enhancing
technologies.
Wabtec agrees that the primary goal of regulation by the Federal
Railroad Administration should be to achieve measurable safety
outcomes. Prescriptive rules, while well intentioned, can constrain the
deployment of advanced technologies that may exceed legacy safety
benchmarks. A performance-based regulatory approach, focused on
outcomes, including defect detection and predictive maintenance
efficacy, can provide the flexibility needed for the industry to
continuously improve while maintaining rigorous safety standards.
Automated Track Inspection (ATI) systems collect geometry and high-
resolution imagery on critical safety components. The data is
immediately uploaded to secure servers. In near real-time, these tools
identify anomalies, trends, and potential defects, assigning a severity
rating and generating actionable alerts for rail operators. Historical
and trend-based analyses are also performed to detect degradation
patterns over time--enabling predictive maintenance and asset lifecycle
management.
Capturing and analyzing vast amounts of data allows railroads to
continuously monitor the state of the equipment and infrastructure,
spot degradation trends and catch failures before they occur. Many
failures will have early indications that degradations are in progress.
With these capabilities, railroads have the ability to catch and
address these before catastrophic failures occur.
Question 2. Some claim railroads use innovation solely as a means
of eliminating jobs or otherwise avoid safety regulations.
Question 2.a. How do technologies like ATI create new opportunities
for rail workers?
Question 2.b. In your opinion, does rail innovation necessarily
result in fewer rail worker jobs, or does it shift the composition of
the rail workforce?
Question 2.c. Can you describe other benefits technology can bring
to workers?
Answer to 2.a., 2.b., & 2.c. Our experience demonstrates that
technology, when deployed thoughtfully, can enhance both safety and
opportunity for rail workers. For example, inspection technologies
shift the focus of rail safety personnel from repetitive, manual, and
sometimes dangerous tasks to higher-value roles in data interpretation,
diagnostics, and preventative maintenance planning. The talented
railroad workforce is increasingly being trained to operate and
maintain advanced diagnostic tools, expanding their technical skill
sets and improving long-term career prospects in a modernized rail
industry.
We have, in the US, a very valuable rail infrastructure of over
140,000 miles of track handed down to us by earlier generations.
Unfortunately, this very desirable historical asset is under-utilized.
Advanced Technologies have the ability for us to significantly increase
traffic volume while improving safety. This would have the effect of
not only relieving pressure on our roads and highways, but for the rail
worker, it would mean more work to operate and maintain the increased
quantity of equipment and assets needed to move the increased volume of
freight.
Question 3. Should regulatory safety standards be solely based on
measurable and objective technical and engineering criteria? Can you
describe the negative consequences of introducing subjective factors to
evaluate regulations and what this means for innovators?
Answer. Regulatory safety standards should be grounded in
measurable, objective technical and engineering criteria. Objective
standards ensure that safety outcomes are consistent and rooted in
sound science. They also create a clear and level playing field for
industry participants, enabling investment, innovation, and continuous
improvement in rail safety technologies.
When subjective factors influence decision-making, similar
technologies may be treated differently across regions or time periods,
undermining confidence in the regulatory process. Ultimately, safety
should never be compromised. But when evaluation criteria are
objective, transparent, and measurable, the rail industry is better
positioned to bring forward innovative tools that can meaningfully
improve safety and performance.
Question 4. How do technologies like ATI facilitate a process that
promotes continual improvement in railroad safety management efforts?
Answer. Technologies, like ATI, transform railroad safety from a
static, compliance-based model, to a dynamic, data-driven process of
continual improvement. Rather than relying solely on periodic manual
inspections, inspection systems generate continuous streams of high-
resolution data on critical components such as wheels, bearings, and
brake systems, even while trains are operating at track speed. These
inspection technologies also reduce the potential for human error and
ensure more consistent safety objectives.
When these technologies leverage state of the art Machine Learning
or other Artificial Intelligence advancements, their models improve
over time and become more capable and precise. In the same manner as
humans learn, inspection models are trained and then as models are used
in the field, they gain observations based on exposure to new
situations. With this new knowledge, models are continually re-trained
based on experience. This new knowledge now becomes a permanent part of
the model, which continuously improves over time. However, unlike
humans, this knowledge base is consistent across each inspection.
Question 5. Would you agree that the best outcome for railroads,
their workers, their customers and the public is to allow the adoption
of new technologies to occur in a competitive market and avoid having
the government choose winners and losers? Can you briefly describe the
benefits of a competitive market for your industry?
Answer. The most effective and sustainable outcomes for railroads,
workers, customers, and the public are achieved when technology
adoption is guided by a competitive, innovation-driven marketplace. At
the same time, we support continued federal investments in rail
technology research, development, and deployment, such as the
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements grant program.
These investments play a critical role in de-risking early-stage
innovation, advancing foundational research and development, and
accelerating the adoption of next-generation technologies that enhance
safety and operational efficiency.
Looking ahead to the 2026 Surface Transportation Reauthorization,
Wabtec supports a suite of market-oriented initiatives that preserve
competition while speeding safe deployment. We recommend establishing a
SuperRail program at the Department of Transportation, in partnership
with the Department of Energy, to competitively fund next-generation
rail technologies across energy efficiency, network optimization,
advanced materials, and cybersecurity. We also support an FRA research,
development, and demonstration pilot focused on automated inspection
and a rail technology and innovation fast-track program to streamline
testing, evaluation, and approvals. None of these proposals choose
winners: they set clear outcomes and let rail technology providers
compete to meet them, while giving railroads practical pathways to
adopt what works at-scale.
Questions from Hon. Rick Larsen to Eric Gebhardt, Executive Vice
President and Chief Technology Officer, Wabtec, on behalf of the
Railway Supply Institute
Question 1. Have Railway Supply Institute members seen a benefit
from the robust and dedicated rail funding in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law?
Answer. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided five
years of predictable, rail-specific funding for critical industry
supporting programs, including the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure &
Safety Improvements (CRISI) program. As a result of this five-year
Surface Transportation Reauthorization, rail suppliers and operators
have greater certainty to invest in manufacturing facilities, product
development, and their workforce.
These programs, including but not limited to CRISI, have
accelerated the deployment of advanced safety and efficiency
technologies developed by RSI member companies, including Positive
Train Control, railcar telematics, and new and upgraded locomotives.
Each federal investment triggers follow-on orders for further equipment
and technology produced by RSI firms and suppliers.
Question 2. Why did Wabtec develop a Tier 4 locomotive? Why aren't
more railroads replacing their older locomotives with these cleaner
locomotives?
Answer. Wabtec invested over $250 million to develop the Tier 4
locomotive and comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Tier 4 emissions standards, which were first promulgated in 2008
and became effective in 2015. Wabtec's Tier 4 locomotive was designed
to meet these stringent emissions standards without aftertreatment,
offering a fuel-efficient, lower-emissions alternative to legacy
locomotives, while maintaining the high-performance demands of freight
operations. More than 1,100 Wabtec Tier 4 locomotives are in operation
today.
Widespread replacement of older locomotives with Tier 4 units has
been limited due to significant upfront investment, fleet utilization
strategies, and operational considerations. Additionally, many Class I
railroads have opted to modernize existing fleets of line-haul
locomotives due to their long life of up to 40 years. While not
achieving Tier 4 compliance, locomotive modernizations still drive
substantial fuel savings, improve reliability, and reduce emissions at
a lower cost.
Questions from Hon. Rick Larsen to Tony Cardwell, President,
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters
Question 1. Do you support railroads using better technology?
Answer. Yes. BMWED supports the use of any technology that improves
safety, helps identify defects earlier, or gives track inspectors
better information in the field. Automated inspection tools, drones,
sensors, and geometry systems all have value when they supplement, not
replace, the judgment and experience of qualified track inspectors.
Since 2018, BMWED has vigorously attempted to work with the freight
railroads to find a responsible and safe pathway for integrating new
technologies while preserving the level of visual oversight required to
keep the track structure safe. Those efforts have consistently
emphasized that technology should strengthen inspection programs, not
weaken them. These attempts were rejected, at every level.
Technology can enhance safety, but it cannot replicate the full
range of conditions inspectors evaluate, such as track components,
ballast conditions, drainage issues, ties, fasteners, switches, and
subgrade movement. Our position is simple: technology should make the
job safer, not serve as a justification for reducing human oversight
that FRA regulations still require.
Question 2. Does railroad management share information from their
track geometry measurement systems with track inspectors?
Answer. Not consistently. On some railroads, inspectors receive
partial or delayed TGMS information, or only limited categories of
exceptions. In many cases, inspectors report that they do not receive
full exception lists, historical trend data, GPS aligned records, or
the underlying strip charts that would allow them to fully verify or
understand an automated exception. Workers have also reported that
railroad managers sometimes discard or disregard TGMS runs that show
less favorable conditions, which prevents inspectors from seeing the
full picture of track health.
BMWED has repeatedly raised concerns when railroads use automated
data to justify reducing visual inspections while not providing
inspectors with the full set of information needed to properly verify
defects and protect track safety.
Question 3. Why have freight railroads cut their track inspection
staff over the last ten years? Are they operating over fewer miles of
track?
Answer. Freight railroads have reduced track inspection staffing
for reasons that have nothing to do with reductions in track miles. In
fact, many carriers still operate roughly the same mileage they did a
decade ago, and traffic density has increased on key corridors.
The staffing cuts occurred primarily because of cost reduction
strategies tied to Precision Scheduled Railroading. Railroads
consolidated territories, increased the geographic size of inspector
assignments, eliminated redundant positions, and allowed attrition to
shrink the workforce. These decisions were financial, not safety
driven. Over the same period, Class I carriers have reduced their
overall workforce by roughly 30 percent. This includes safety related
craft positions such as track inspectors and reflects a systemic
staffing issue, not a targeted or safety driven adjustment.
Despite maintaining similar mileage and in many cases higher
tonnage, railroads today have fewer inspectors per mile of track. BMWED
continues to warn that reducing human inspection capacity while
increasing reliance on automated systems creates gaps, diminishes local
expertise, and increases safety risk to both workers and the public.
Question from Hon. Dina Titus to Tony Cardwell, President, Brotherhood
of Maintenance of Way Employes Division, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters
Question 1. Can you describe the cooperation between your members
and the Federal Railroad Administration's 371 safety inspectors? Would
increasing the number of FRA safety inspectors and modernizing pay to
retain skilled FRA safety inspectors improve safety for communities,
passengers, and operations? If so, could you explain how?
Answer. Thank you for the question. BMWED members work closely with
FRA's safety inspectors and view them as essential partners in
protecting workers, communities, and the traveling public. Our members
interact with FRA inspectors during routine field inspections, joint
investigations, incident reviews, and compliance audits. These
interactions are professional, collaborative, and grounded in a shared
commitment to ensuring that the national rail network meets the
requirements of federal Track Safety Standards.
FRA's 371 inspectors are responsible for oversight of more than 140
thousand miles of track, thousands of bridges, and all freight and
passenger railroads in the country. Their ability to independently
verify conditions, follow up on reported hazards, and hold carriers
accountable is critical. However, the ratio of federal inspectors to
the size and complexity of the national rail system limits how often
FRA can visit properties and how deeply they can audit track
conditions, inspection records, and maintenance programs.
Increasing the number of FRA safety inspectors, and modernizing pay
so the agency can recruit and retain individuals with real field
experience, would improve safety in several ways. It would allow FRA to
conduct more frequent onsite inspections, verify automated inspection
data with independent measurements, and follow up more rapidly on
defects, slow orders, and derailment precursors. It would also
strengthen oversight of carrier compliance with Part 213 and ensure
that reductions in visual inspections do not occur without strong
evidence of safety.
Additional FRA capacity would reinforce the work of BMWED
inspectors on the ground. When FRA is present more often and able to
independently confirm conditions, it reduces pressure on railroad
employees to meet unrealistic productivity goals and helps ensure that
safety decisions are based on conditions, not company targets. That
improves safety for communities along rail corridors, for train crews
and maintenance employees, and for passengers who rely on safe track
infrastructure.
BMWED strongly supports increased staffing, improved pay, and
modernized hiring authorities for FRA's safety inspector corps.
[all]