In recent years, freight trains in the United States have grown significantly longer, with some stretching over two miles in length. While these longer trains offer operational efficiencies and economic advantages, a recent report by the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) highlights a critical downside: an increased risk of derailments. The report, released on Tuesday, calls on federal regulators, Congress, and the railroad industry to reexamine the safety risks associated with these lengthy trains.
Rising Concerns Over Long Trains
As train lengths have expanded, so too have the concerns about their safety. The NAS report notes a disturbing trend of derailments, many of which are linked to the unique dynamics of longer trains. Specifically, the report points to a type of derailment caused by “in-train forces,” the result of railcars pushing and pulling against each other. These forces, often exacerbated by uneven terrain or sudden braking, can cause cars to derail in a way that may not occur with shorter trains.The report comes at a time when the U.S. rail industry is under increased scrutiny, following high-profile derailments that have raised alarms about the adequacy of current safety standards. Long trains, while providing fuel and labor cost savings for rail operators, introduce new operational challenges that the current safety regulations may not fully address.Regulatory and
Legislative Gaps
The NAS study recommends that federal regulators take a closer look at how longer trains are managed. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which oversees rail safety in the U.S., has yet to implement specific regulations governing the safe operation of these extended trains. The current regulatory framework is largely based on practices developed for shorter trains, leaving a gap in safety measures that could prevent incidents related to the specific risks posed by longer trains.
The report calls for new research into the behavior of longer trains, particularly in areas like train handling and braking performance, and for Congress to consider legislation that would give the FRA more authority to impose safety standards specific to long trains.
The Role of Railroads
The rail industry, for its part, has been reluctant to place strict limits on train length, arguing that longer trains help reduce the number of trips required to transport goods, thereby lowering fuel consumption and emissions. However, the NAS report emphasizes that the potential environmental and economic benefits must be weighed against the safety risks.
Railroads have been investing in advanced technologies, such as distributed power systems, which place locomotives throughout a train to reduce the forces that contribute to derailments. While these technologies can mitigate some risks, the report suggests that they are not a complete solution, and that operational changes, such as limiting train length under certain conditions, may still be necessary.
Looking Ahead
The NAS report is likely to fuel ongoing debates in Washington over rail safety regulations. Advocacy groups and labor unions have long pushed for stricter limits on train lengths, arguing that the trend toward longer trains has outpaced the development of adequate safety measures. Meanwhile, the rail industry continues to lobby against tighter regulations, warning that they could increase costs and reduce efficiency.
Ultimately, the NAS report underscores the need for a balanced approach, one that ensures the safety of rail workers, communities near rail lines, and the environment, while still allowing railroads to remain economically viable. The report calls for immediate action from both regulators and industry leaders to address the emerging safety risks posed by longer trains, before the problem becomes more severe.
With the U.S. rail network playing a critical role in the economy, moving forward on these safety concerns will require cooperation from all stakeholders. Congress, regulators, and the railroad industry must work together to ensure that the benefits of long trains do not come at the expense of public safety.
Leave a Comment