Summary
held a hearing on Jun 24, 2025 at 10:00 AM in Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2167. 4 witnesses appeared.
Record
The meeting has its video, its transcript, witnesses and documents on the record.
Video
The proceedings, as the committee streamed them.
Transcript
The transcript runs to 5,767 lines and 330,230 characters, as the Government Publishing Office printed it.
1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34 AMERICA BUILDS: THE ROLE OF INNOVATION5 AND TECHNOLOGY IN RAIL MODERNIZATION67=======================================================================89 (119-25)1011 HEARING1213 BEFORE THE1415 SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES,16 AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS1718 OF THE1920 COMMITTEE ON21 TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE22 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2324 ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2526 FIRST SESSION2728 __________2930 JUNE 24, 20253132 __________3334 Printed for the use of the35 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure3637[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3839 Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-40 transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/41 transportation4243 __________4445 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4662-293 PDF WASHINGTON : 20254748-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4950 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE5152 Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman53 Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking54 Member55Eleanor Holmes Norton, Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,56 District of Columbia Arkansas,57Jerrold Nadler, New York Vice Chairman58Steve Cohen, Tennessee Daniel Webster, Florida59John Garamendi, California Thomas Massie, Kentucky60Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaott Perry, Pennsylvania61Andre Carson, Indiana Brian Babin, Texas62Dina Titus, Nevada David Rouzer, North Carolina63Jared Huffman, California Mike Bost, Illinois64Julia Brownley, California Doug LaMalfa, California65Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Bruce Westerman, Arkansas66Mark DeSaulnier, California Brian J. Mast, Florida67Salud O. Carbajal, California Pete Stauber, Minnesota68Greg Stanton, Arizona Tim Burchett, Tennessee69Sharice Davids, Kansas Dusty Johnson, South Dakota70Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey71Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Troy E. Nehls, Texas72Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Tracey Mann, Kansas73Marilyn Strickland, Washington Burgess Owens, Utah74Patrick Ryan, New York Eric Burlison, Missouri75Val T. Hoyle, Oregon Mike Collins, Georgia76Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio, Mike Ezell, Mississippi77 Vice Ranking Member Kevin Kiley, California78Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan Vince Fong, California79Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina Tony Wied, Wisconsin80Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Tom Barrett, Michigan81Robert Garcia, California Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska82Nellie Pou, New Jersey Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,83Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan Pennsylvania84Laura Friedman, California Jeff Hurd, Colorado85Laura Gillen, New York Jefferson Shreve, Indiana86Shomari Figures, Alabama Addison P. McDowell, North87 Carolina88 David J. Taylor, Ohio89 Brad Knott, North Carolina90 Kimberlyn King-Hinds,91 Northern Mariana Islands92 Mike Kennedy, Utah93 Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri94 Jimmy Patronis, Florida9596 Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials9798 Daniel Webster, Florida, Chairman99Dina Titus, Nevada, Ranking Member100Andre Carson, Indiana David Rouzer, North Carolina101Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Mike Bost, Illinois102Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina Doug LaMalfa, California103Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania,Bruce Westerman, Arkansas104 Vice Ranking Member Pete Stauber, Minnesota105Jerrold Nadler, New York Tim Burchett, Tennessee106Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Dusty Johnson, South Dakota107Steve Cohen, Tennessee Troy E. Nehls, Texas108Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaacey Mann, Kansas109Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Burgess Owens, Utah110Patrick Ryan, New York Eric Burlison, Missouri111Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio Vince Fong, California112Laura Friedman, California Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska,113Mark DeSaulnier, California Vice Chairman114Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Jefferson Shreve, Indiana115 David J. Taylor, Ohio116 Mike Kennedy, Utah117 Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)118119 CONTENTS120121 Page122123Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii124125 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE126127Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress from the State128 of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines,129 and Hazardous Materials, opening statement..................... 1130 Prepared statement........................................... 2131Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of132 Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads,133 Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, opening statement.......... 3134 Prepared statement........................................... 4135136 WITNESSES137138David L. Shannon, General Manager, RailPulse, LLC, oral statement 10139 Prepared statement........................................... 11140Brigham A. McCown, Founder and Chairman of the Board of141 Directors, Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure, oral142 statement...................................................... 16143 Prepared statement........................................... 17144Eric Gebhardt, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology145 Officer, Wabtec, on behalf of the Railway Supply Institute,146 oral statement................................................. 20147 Prepared statement........................................... 21148Tony Cardwell, President, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way149 Employes Division, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, oral150 statement...................................................... 25151 Prepared statement........................................... 26152153 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD154155Submissions for the Record by Hon. Dina Titus:156 Letter of June 17, 2025, from Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking157 Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and158 Hon. Dina Titus, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads,159 Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, to Hon. Sean Duffy,160 Secretary, Department of Transportation.................... 5161 Letter of June 24, 2025, from Michael S. Baldwin, President,162 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, to Hon. Sam Graves,163 Chairman, and Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee164 on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Hon. Daniel165 Webster, Chairman, and Hon. Dina Titus, Ranking Member,166 Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous167 Materials.................................................. 6168Letter of March 27, 2024, from L. Ed Dowell, President, American169 Train Dispatchers Association, to Hon. Amit Bose,170 Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, Submitted for171 the Record by Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia.................... 52172Submissions for the Record by Hon. Daniel Webster:173 Statement of Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive174 Officer, Association of American Railroads................. 67175 Letter of June 24, 2025, from John Schmitter, Co-Founder,176 Chief Commercial Officer, RailState LLC, to Hon. Sam177 Graves, Chairman, and Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member,178 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Hon.179 Daniel Webster, Chairman, and Hon. Dina Titus, Ranking180 Member, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous181 Materials.................................................. 71182183 APPENDIX184185Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Brigham A. McCown, Founder186 and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Alliance for Innovation187 and Infrastructure............................................. 73188Questions to Eric Gebhardt, Executive Vice President and Chief189 Technology Officer, Wabtec, on behalf of the Railway Supply190 Institute, from:191 Hon. Daniel Webster.......................................... 76192 Hon. Rick Larsen............................................. 77193Questions to Tony Cardwell, President, Brotherhood of Maintenance194 of Way Employes Division, International Brotherhood of195 Teamsters, from:196 Hon. Rick Larsen............................................. 78197 Hon. Dina Titus.............................................. 79198199[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]200201 June 20, 2025202203 SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER204205 TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines,206and Hazardous Materials207 FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and208Hazardous Materials209 RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``America Builds: The210Role of Innovation and Technology in Rail Modernization''211_______________________________________________________________________212213 I. PURPOSE214215 The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous216Materials of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure217will meet on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167218of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony at a219hearing entitled, ``America Builds: The Role of Innovation and220Technology in Rail Modernization.'' Witnesses will discuss how221technology and process improvements can contribute to safer and222more efficient freight and passenger rail transportation. The223hearing will also cover the regulatory and market-based224environment for rail. Members will receive testimony from David225Shannon, General Manager, RailPulse; Brigham McCown, Chairman226of the Board, Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure; Eric227Gebhardt, Chief Technology Officer, Wabtec Corporation; and228Tony Cardwell, President, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way229Employes Division--International Brotherhood of Teamsters.230231 II. BACKGROUND232233 America's freight and intercity passenger railroad networks234are essential for the movement of goods and people across the235country. America's freight rail network consists of almost236140,000 miles of track.\1\ Six Class I freight rail carriers237and approximately 600 Class II and III (short line and238regional) railroads move roughly 1.6 billion tons of goods each239year.\2\240---------------------------------------------------------------------------241 \1\ Ass'n of American Railroads, State Fact Sheets, available at242https://www.aar.org/243data-center/railroads-states/#: :text=in%20Your%20State-,Freight%20Rail244%20in%20Your%20State,nearly%20140%2C000%20miles%20of%20track.245 \2\ Id.246---------------------------------------------------------------------------247 Amtrak is the Nation's primary intercity passenger rail248service and operates over roughly 21,000 miles of track in 46249states, serving over 500 destinations.\3\ In addition, there250are 30 commuter railroads in the United States, many operated251by state or regional governmental authorities.\4\252---------------------------------------------------------------------------253 \3\ Amtrak, Amtrak Facts, available at https://www.amtrak.com/254amtrak-facts#: :text=With255%2021%2C000%20route%20miles%20in,to%20more%20than%20500%20destinations.256 \4\ American Pub. Transp. Ass'n, How many commuter railroads are in257the United States, available at https://www.apta.com/faq-items/how-258many-commuter-railroads-are-in-the-united-states/.259---------------------------------------------------------------------------260 Innovation is widely recognized within the economic261sciences as a fundamental driver of long-term economic growth,262prosperity, and overall societal welfare.\5\ The private sector263is responsible for approximately 75 percent of economy-wide264research and development.\6\ A return on investment in research265and development serves as a necessary incentive to justify the266inherent economic risk.\7\267---------------------------------------------------------------------------268 \5\ Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney, A Dozen Facts About269Innovation, The Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution (Aug.2702011), at 1, available at https://www.hamiltonproject.org/publication/271economic-fact/a-dozen-economic-facts-about-innovation/.272 \6\ Nat'l Science Foundation, Nat'l Center for Science and273Engineering Statistics, U.S. R&D Totaled $892 Billion in 2022; Estimate274for 2023 Indicates Further Increase to $940 Billion, (Feb. 27, 2025),275available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf25327.276 \7\ McKinsey & Company, What is Innovation?, available at https://277www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-278innovation.279---------------------------------------------------------------------------280 Like other sectors of the economy, the freight rail281industry and its associated sectors invest in the research and282development of new technologies and processes to enhance283safety, improve efficiency, and drive overall productivity.284These innovations include advancements that support internal285management, enhance customer service, address regulatory286requirements, and optimize the use and management of system287assets.\8\ This memorandum provides a brief overview of these288technologies and systems.289---------------------------------------------------------------------------290 \8\ Ass'n of American Railroads, Freight Rail: How Decades of291Technological Progress Makes Railroads Safer, available at https://292www.aar.org/issue/decades-of-tech-progress/.293---------------------------------------------------------------------------294295 III. RAILROAD SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES296297 The freight railroad industry has invested in a range of298technologies designed to enhance safety while also improving299operational efficiencies. Some of these technologies have been300mandated by statute or regulations, such as Positive Train301Control, while others have been voluntarily developed and302implemented by the industry, including systems for railcar303bearing monitoring and defect detection systems.304305POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL306307 Positive Train Control (PTC) describes technologies308designed to automatically stop or slow train-to-train309collisions, derailments caused by excessive speed, unauthorized310incursions by trains onto sections of track where maintenance311activities are taking place, and movement of a train through a312track switch left in the wrong position.\9\ A fully functional313PTC system must be able to precisely determine the location and314speed of trains; warn train operators of potential problems;315and act if the operator does not respond to a warning. For316example, if a train operator fails to stop a train at a stop317signal, the PTC system applies the brakes automatically.318---------------------------------------------------------------------------319 \9\ FRA, Positive Train Control, available at https://320railroads.dot.gov/research-development/program-areas/train-control/ptc/321positive-train-control-ptc.322---------------------------------------------------------------------------323 The requirement that certain freight, passenger, and324commuter rail lines use PTC was mandated in the Rail Safety325Improvements Act of 2008.\10\ Operators were initially given326until December 21, 2015, to install these systems.\11\ Actual327implementation took longer than expected and the deadline was328extended in subsequent legislation to December 31, 2020.\12\329The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) reported on December33029, 2020, that PTC was in operation on all required lines.\13\331---------------------------------------------------------------------------332 \10\ Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-432, 122333Stat. 4848.334 \11\ Id.335 \12\ Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-73,336129 Stat. 576.337 \13\ FRA, Positive Train Control: Overview, available at https://338railroads.dot.gov/339research-development/program-areas/train-control/ptc/positive-train-340control-ptc#: :text=On341%20December%2029%2C%202020%2C%20FRA,deadline%20set%20forth%20by%20Congre342ss.343---------------------------------------------------------------------------344345RAILCAR WHEEL AND BEARING MONITORING AND DETECTION SYSTEMS346347 The railroad industry has voluntarily deployed a range of348monitoring systems to detect and assess the condition of349railcar wheel bearings in an effort to prevent failures that350could lead to derailments. According to one analysis, defects351in railcar wheels or axles are the second leading cause of352derailments.\14\ For example, the National Transportation353Safety Board (NTSB), found that the Norfolk Southern derailment354in East Palestine, Ohio, was due to an overheated wheel bearing355that was not detected in time by trackside sensors.\15\356However, from 2023 to 2024, FRA safety data showed incidents357attributed to overheated bearings declined by 55.5 percent.\16\358---------------------------------------------------------------------------359 \14\ Brandon Z. Wang, et. al., Quantitative Analysis of Changes in360Freight Train Derailment Causes and Rates, Journal of Transp.361Engineering, Part A: Systems, Vol. 146, No. 11, (2020) [hereinafter362``Quantitative Analysis''], available at https://railtec.illinois.edu/363wp/wp-content/uploads/Wang-et-al-2020-Quantitative-Analysis-of-Changes-364in-Freight-Train-Derailment-Causes-and-Rates.pdf.365 \15\ NTSB, Norfolk Southern Railway Derailment and Hazardous366Materials Release, RIR-24-05, (June 25, 2024), available at https://367www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/368RIR2405%20CORRECTED.pdf.369 \16\ Dep't of Transp., Train Accident (not at Highway-Rail370Crossings) Summary, available at https://data.transportation.gov/371stories/s/2ju5-8zxb.372---------------------------------------------------------------------------373 There are several types of wheel bearing monitors and374detection systems. One of the most widely used is the thermal375wayside detector, commonly referred to as a ``Hot Box376Detector'' \17\ which uses infrared sensors placed alongside377the tracks to measure the temperature of wheel bearings as378trains pass.\18\ Another type employs acoustic sensors mounted379trackside to detect sounds that may indicate bearing defects.380There are currently no Federal regulations governing how these381detectors are used or which reports are sent to monitoring382centers and which are sent directly to rail crews.\19\ The383Association of American Railroads (AAR), however, released384updated industry standards increasing the frequency of385detectors along key routes, and established a new standard for386stopping and inspecting trains when detector readings exceed387170 degrees, among other initiatives.\20\ Other systems under388development are designed to be mounted directly on railcars,389enabling real-time monitoring and reporting of wheel and390bearing conditions throughout a train's journey.\21\391---------------------------------------------------------------------------392 \17\ Ass'n of American Railroads, Freight Rail: How Decades of393Technological Progress Makes Railroads Safer, available at https://394www.aar.org/issue/decades-of-tech-progress/.395 \18\ Id.396 \19\ See e.g. Rachel Premack, There are no federal regulations on397key rail sensors, Freight Waves, (Mar. 9, 2023), available at https://398www.freightwaves.com/news/there-are-no-federal-regulations-on-key-rail-399sensors.400 \20\ Ass'n of American Railroads, Railroads Addressed NTSB East401Palestine Initial Findings, Await Final Report, available at https://402www.aar.org/news/railroads-addressed-ntsb-east-palestine-initial-403findings-await-final-report/.404 \21\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Advanced On-Board Condition Monitoring405System for Freight Railcar Applications: Abstract, available at https:/406/www.transportation.gov/utc/advanced-board-condition-monitoring-system-407freight-railcar-applications; see also, Bill Stephens, Wheel bearing408expert: To prevent derailments, railroads should equip cars with409sensors, Trains, (Mar. 6, 2023), available at https://www.trains.com/410trn/news-reviews/news-wire/wheel-bearing-expert-to-prevent-411derailments-railroads-should-equip-freight-cars-with-sensors/412#: :text=The%20Rail%20Safety413%20Act%20of,detectors%2C%20according%20to%20the%20FRA.414---------------------------------------------------------------------------415416TRACK CONDITION MONITORING TECHNOLOGIES417418 While defective wheel bearings are the second leading cause419of derailments, the primary cause is defective track.\22\ These420defects can include issues with the rail itself, such as421cracks, shelling, or steel flaking from the rail head, as well422as problems with track geometry (e.g., misalignments, cutting423failures, ballast degradation), and flaws at joints and424switches, among others.\23\425---------------------------------------------------------------------------426 \22\ Quantitative Analysis, supra note 12.427 \23\ FRA, Track Inspector Rail Defect Reference Manual--July 2015428Revision 2, available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/429files/fra_net/15669/Final%20FRA%20Rail%20Manual430%20July%2029%202015_031716.pdf.431---------------------------------------------------------------------------432 Automated Track Inspection (ATI) technology, uses a suite433of sensors mounted on locomotives or railcars to scan track434conditions and identify defects, particularly in track435geometry, at earlier stages than traditional methods.\24\ While436FRA regulations do not generally require freight railroads to437inspect track geometry using automated track geometry438measurement systems, voluntary use of this technology to439prevent derailments has been increasing since its inception in440the 1970s.\25\ FRA has noted in proposed rulemaking that it441``acknowledges the safety benefits of this technology,442specifically its ability to quickly and accurately detect small443changes in track geometry.'' \26\ Advances in camera technology444allow for images of track conditions to be captured and445analyzed by artificial intelligence (AI).\27\ This predictive446capability supports more informed decisions about when and447where to prioritize repairs.\28\448---------------------------------------------------------------------------449 \24\ Gary A. Carr, et. al., Autonomous Track Inspection Systems--450Today and Tomorrow, presented to American Railway Eng'g and451Maintenance-of-Way Ass'n, [hereinafter ``ATI Report to AREMA''],452available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tLl5SXggjI3zPMY5bxarGa-453adTHvmYRO/view?usp=sharing.454 \25\ DOT, FRA, Report to Congress: Automatic Track Geometry455Measurement System Technology Test Programs, available at https://456railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/457files/2021-11/FRA%20Report%20to%20Congress-458Track%20Inspection%20Test%20Program459%2011.23.21.pdf.460 \26\ Track Geometry Measurement System (TGMS) Inspections, 89 Fed.461Reg. 84845, 84846 (Oct. 24, 2024).462 \27\ Carly Bowling, Right on track: Researchers use new tech to463improve railroad safety, University of New Mexico News, (Feb. 14,4642025), available at https://news.unm.edu/news/465right-on-track-researchers-use-new-tech-to-improve-railroad-466safety#: :text=The%20cameras467%20attach%20to%20railcars,the%20FRA%20in%20the%20past.468 \28\ Id.469---------------------------------------------------------------------------470 ATI is associated with improved operational efficiency. For471example, it allows for more frequent data collection without472occupying valuable track time because it can be conducted473during revenue service.\29\ FRA noted that the industry could474reasonably expect a 30 to 50 percent reduction in per-mile475survey costs compared to traditional inspection methods.\30\476FRA has stated that Autonomous Track Geometry Measurement477System (ATGMS) technology is designed to enhance, not replace,478traditional inspection methods.\31\479---------------------------------------------------------------------------480 \29\ ATI Report to AREMA, supra note 24.481 \30\ Letter from Thomas Hermann, Director, Office of Tech.482Oversight, Office of Railroad Safety, to Jerry C. Boles, President,483Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, and Freddie Simpson, President,484Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division of the IBT (Feb. 8,4852019), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/486fra_net/18300/Signed%20Final%20Response487%20to%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration%20(FRA-2018-4880091)%20with%20exhibits.pdf.489 \31\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Autonomous Track Geometry Measurement490System, at 4, available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/491files/fra_net/17766/Autonomous%20Track492%20Geometry%20Measurement%20System_presentation.pdf.493---------------------------------------------------------------------------494495 IV. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND RAIL496497 The railroad industry, and its customers, have increasingly498adopted information technology to enhance both safety and499operational efficiency. These technologies include data500analytics, Internet of Things (IoT) integration, and predictive501maintenance systems.\32\ While not exhaustive, the following502examples illustrate several key innovations in this space.503---------------------------------------------------------------------------504 \32\ Ass'n of American Railroads, Freight Rail: How Decades of505Technological Progress Makes Railroads Safer, available at https://506www.aar.org/issue/decades-of-tech-progress/.507---------------------------------------------------------------------------508509RAILCAR TELEMATICS510511 Railcar telematics is an emerging technology with potential512safety and efficiency implications. The term broadly describes513a suite of sensors that collect and transmit real-time data on514a railcar's location, condition, and performance, to car owners515or operators.\33\ Potential benefits to railcar owners include516improved asset utilization (e.g., identifying under, or over-517used railcars), enhanced scheduling and deployment, and518proactive maintenance planning.\34\ Testing is currently519underway for telematics-equipped railcars to, in real time,520detect, collect and report additional data including whether a521handbrake has been applied, a door is left open or closed,522whether the car is empty or loaded, or assess wear levels to523inform maintenance scheduling.524---------------------------------------------------------------------------525 \33\ ZTR, Telematics for Railcars--Introduction, available at526https://www.ztr.com/527blog/telematics-railcars-528introduction#: :text=In%20the%20context%20of%20railcars,this529%20information%20to%20remote%20users.530 \34\ Id.531---------------------------------------------------------------------------532533THE INTERNET OF THINGS534535 The Internet of Things (IoT) refers to a network of536embedded sensors, software, and other technologies that connect537and exchange data over the internet.\35\ In the rail context,538IoT technologies allow operators to collect large volumes of539operational data, which can be analyzed to improve efficiency,540better manage logistics, and identify new business541opportunities.\36\542---------------------------------------------------------------------------543 \35\ Oracle, What is IoT?, available at https://www.oracle.com/544internet-of-things/545#: :text=What%20is%20IoT?,objects%20to%20sophisticated%20industrial%20to546ols.547 \36\ The Internet of Things: A world of opportunity for railroads,548Progressive Railroading, (Mar. 2016), available at https://549www.progressiverailroading.com/rail_industry_trends/550article/The-Internet-of-Things-A-world-of-opportunity-for-railroads--55147507.552---------------------------------------------------------------------------553554FUEL USE555556 Diesel fuel use is a significant cost for railroads.557Wabtec's ``Trip Optimizer'' is locomotive software that558generates a fuel-use operating plan based on train559characteristics, including weight, length, terrain, and routing560data.\37\ Currently, approximately 11,000 units are in use561across 17 railroads. On average, the system delivers a 10562percent reduction in fuel usage, though results vary depending563upon train type, terrain, and operational conditions.\38\564---------------------------------------------------------------------------565 \37\ Id.566 \38\ Wabtec, Trip Optimizer, available at https://567www.wabteccorp.com/TripOptimizer-brochure.pdf?inline.568---------------------------------------------------------------------------569570 V. OTHER RAILROAD TECHNOLOGIES571572LOWER EMISSIONS AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL LOCOMOTIVES573574 The railroad industry invests in locomotives to reduce575emissions of harmful air pollutants and operate with576alternative fuels. Certain railroads are piloting battery-577electric and hydrogen fuel cell locomotives, testing hybrid578consist models, and incorporating renewable fuels to further579lower emissions. Some railroads have deployed zero and low-580emission equipment to transload and move goods, to improve581operational efficiency and reduce emissions.\39\582---------------------------------------------------------------------------583 \39\ Ass'n of American Railroads, Freight Rail: Climate Change,584available at https://www.aar.org/issue/freight-rail-climate-change/.585---------------------------------------------------------------------------586 One such technology includes Tier 4 compliant locomotives,587which are diesel-powered but engineered to significantly reduce588emissions of particulate matter nitrogen oxides compared to589older models.\40\ These locomotives may operate solely on590diesel or be designed to accommodate alternative fuels,591offering greater flexibility while contributing to emissions592reductions.\41\ As of 2023, 6.7 percent of Class I locomotives593were Tier 4 compliant.\42\594---------------------------------------------------------------------------595 \40\ BNSF, Tier 4 Locomotives Pulling for a Cleaner Future, (Apr.59622, 2024), available at https://www.bnsf.com/news-media/railtalk/597community/tier-four.html#: :text=Tier%204s%2C%20the598%20latest%20of,its%20first%20locomotive%20emissions%20standards (Tier 4599refers to the EPA emissions standards for new and newly remanufactured600locomotive engines, see also 40 C.F.R. Chapter 1, Subpart U, Part6011033.101.602 \41\ Wabtec, Freight Rail's Bridge to a Net-Zeo Future: Wabtec's603Evolution Series Tier 4 Locomotive, available at https://604www.wabteccorp.com/trains-of-thought/freight-rail-s-bridge-to-a-net-605zero-future-wabtec-s-evolution-series-tier-4-606locomotive#: :text=One%20of%20the%20beauties607%20of,and%20total%20cost%20of%20ownership.608 \42\ Email from Ass'n of American Railroads to Comm. Staff (on file609with the Comm.).610---------------------------------------------------------------------------611 Similarly, the industry is developing and deploying612battery-powered locomotives and locomotives that utilize liquid613hydrogen. As part of its fiscal year (FY) 2023-2024614Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements615Program Selections, the FRA awarded $36.5 million to the616California Air Resources Board to procure nine battery-electric617locomotives and one hydrogen fuel cell locomotive to operate on618the Pacific Harbor Line, an Anacostia Rail Holdings Company619railroad, in and near the Ports of Los Angeles and Long620Beach.\43\621---------------------------------------------------------------------------622 \43\ FRA, FY 2023-2024 Consolidated Rail Infrastructure623Improvements (CRISI) Grants Program: Project Summaries, (Oct. 29,6242024), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/fy-2023-24-625crisi-program-project-summaries.626---------------------------------------------------------------------------627628AUTONOMOUS RAILCARS629630 Autonomous battery-electric railcars travel independent of631locomotives and can couple with other cars to form up to 50-car632autonomous trains.\44\ Parallel Systems received approval from633the FRA in January of 2025 to test its first system in634partnership with Genesee & Wyoming across a 160-mile span of635two Georgia railroads, which connect with the Port of636Savannah.\45\637---------------------------------------------------------------------------638 \44\ Ed Garsten, A `Parallel' Path To Autonomous-Electric Rail639Freight Travel, Forbes, (Sept. 12, 2023), available at https://640www.forbes.com/sites/edgarsten/2023/09/12/a-parallel-path-to-641autonomous-electric-rail-freight-travel/.642 \45\ FRA, Program Approval: Georgia Central Railway, L.P. and Heart643of Georgia Railroad, Inc., available at https://railroads.dot.gov/644regulations/federal-register-documents/2025-02252; see also FRA645approves testing of first autonomous freight-rail system, Progressive646Railroading, (Apr. 15, 2025), available at https://647www.progressiverailroading.com/rail_industry_trends/news/FRA-648approves-testing-of-first-autonomous-freight-rail-system--64974325#: :text=Parallel's%20aim%20is650%20to%20deliver,with%20U.S.%20and%20Australian%20railroads.651---------------------------------------------------------------------------652653 VI. CHALLENGES TO THE DEPLOYMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES IN RAIL654655 Railroads and their customers may face a series of656challenges in utilizing and deploying new technology. These657barriers can be regulatory and market-based or both, as658described below.659660REGULATORY CHALLENGES661662 The primary agency that oversees railroad safety and rail663grant programs is the FRA, which exists within the Department664of Transportation (DOT). The FRA has the authority to issue665regulations and orders pertaining to rail safety and to issue666civil and criminal penalties to enforce those regulations and667orders.\46\668---------------------------------------------------------------------------669 \46\ The Internet of Things: A world of opportunity for railroads,670Progressive Railroading, (Mar. 2016), available at https://671www.progressiverailroading.com/rail_industry_trends/article/672The-Internet-of-Things-A-world-of-opportunity-for-railroads--47507.673---------------------------------------------------------------------------674 The FRA's Office of Railroad Safety (ORS) promotes and675regulates safety through the Nation's railroad industry.\47\676Its safety and compliance program is executed through various677skilled staff focused in six technical disciplines focusing on678compliance and enforcement in: 1) Grade Crossings; 2) Hazardous679Materials; 3) Motive Power and Equipment; 4) Operating680Practices; 5) Signal and Train Control; and 6) Track.\48\ These681regulatory activities are carried out in Title 49, Subtitle B682of Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations.683---------------------------------------------------------------------------684 \47\ FRA, Railroad Safety, available at https://railroads.dot.gov/685railroad-safety.686 \48\ Id.687---------------------------------------------------------------------------688 FRA regulations specify how railroads will achieve689regulatory compliance. For example, FRA Track Safety Standards690for Class I and Class II railroads requires tracks be canvassed691by qualified inspectors twice every week.\49\ The regulations692further specify how the inspection is to be conducted, such as693requiring inspections to be made on foot or by vehicle and694establishes the maximum speed of a vehicle.\50\ Technology may695be used to supplement required visual inspections.\51\696---------------------------------------------------------------------------697 \49\ 49 C.F.R. Sec. 213.233.698 \50\ Id. at Sec. 2133(b).699 \51\ Id.700---------------------------------------------------------------------------701 In recognition of evolving practices and technologies,702Federal law does provide FRA discretionary authority to issue703non-emergency safety waivers that waive or suspend safety704requirements upon a finding that doing so ``is in the public705interest and consistent with railroad safety.'' \52\ Industry706waiver requests can seek to implement a new practices and/or707technology on discrete segments of a railroad's network that708achieves an equal or greater safety outcome.709---------------------------------------------------------------------------710 \52\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20103(d).711---------------------------------------------------------------------------712 Operator safety waiver applications are submitted to, and713reviewed by, FRA's Rail Safety Board. To receive a waiver,714operators are required to: 1) identify the rule, regulation or715standard that the petition seeks to have waived; 2) explain the716nature and extent of the relief sought and identify and717describe the persons, equipment, installations, and locations718to be covered by the waiver; and 3) contain sufficient719supporting information, including an analysis of costs and720benefits of the request and relevant safety data.\53\ As in721Notice and Comment Rulemaking, FRA is statutorily required to722notice waiver petitions and provide the opportunity for public723comment.\54\724---------------------------------------------------------------------------725 \53\ 49 C.F.R. Sec. 211.9.726 \54\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20103(d)(2).727---------------------------------------------------------------------------728 Each waiver request is considered fact specific and unique,729taking into consideration the information and data the730petitioner presents, public comments received, FRA's own731technical analysis, and field investigation, if732appropriate.\55\ FRA conducts its waiver reviews concurrent733with the public comment period.\56\ After considering all data734and relevant information, FRA authorizes the Railroad Safety735Board to issue a decision on the request, either approving or736denying the request.\57\ Regulations specify that such a737decision should be rendered not later than nine months after738receipt.\58\739---------------------------------------------------------------------------740 \55\ FRA, Guidance on Submitting Requests for Waivers, Block Signal741Applications, and other Approval Requests to FRA, at 1, (Dec. 2022),742available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/743fra.dot.gov/files/2022-12/744Guidance%20on%20Submitting%20Waiver%20Special%20Approval745%20Other%20Requests%20for%20Approval%20to%20FRA%20%28Dec%202022%29%20fin746al.pdf.747 \56\ Id. at 5.748 \57\ Id. (interested parties may also petition FRA to reconsider749its approval or denial of a waiver petition); See, 49 CFR Sec.750211.41(f) & 211.57.751 \58\ 49 CFR Sec. 211.41(a).752---------------------------------------------------------------------------753 Railroad track inspection safety waiver applications often754seek to use ATI in combination with reduced visual inspections755as a means of increasing efficiency.\59\ As a discretionary756process, FRA has rejected previous railroad safety waiver757petitions to combine the use of ATI with reduced frequency of758manual inspections and/or to vary repair times. These759applicants contend the waivers can produce enhanced operational760and economic efficiencies.\60\ Some organizations have761expressed concerns about these waiver petitions.\61\762---------------------------------------------------------------------------763 \59\ Ass'n of American of Railroads, Freight Rail and Automated764Track Inspections, available at https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/7652022/06/AAR-Automated-Track-Inspections-Fact-Sheet.pdf.766 \60\ Ass'n of American Railroads, Rail Industry Challenges FRA's767Inaction on Waivers, (Nov. 8, 2024), available at https://www.aar.org/768news/rail-industry-challenges-fras-inaction-on-waivers/.769 \61\ See e.g. Policy Statement, TTD, Transportation Labor Calls for770Worker Protections Amidst the Development of Autonomous & Automated771Rail Technologies, (Nov. 21, 2024), available at https://ttd.org/772policy/policy-statements/transportation-labor-calls-for-worker-773protections-amidst-774the-development-of-autonomous-automated-rail-technologies/.775---------------------------------------------------------------------------776777MARKET CHALLENGES778779 As in other industries, the railroad industry seeks to780attain economic benefits to justify investment in technology781improvements. Railcar telematics can help railcar owners and782shippers optimize and achieve greater efficiencies in the use783of their railcars. According to a 2023 report, initial adoption784by high-value cars, such as refrigerated cars carrying785perishable goods, where information on railcar condition and786health is critical would be beneficial.\62\787---------------------------------------------------------------------------788 \62\ David Schaar, et. al., Freight Rail's Digital Future is Just789Around the Bend, Boston Consulting Group, (January 6, 2023), available790at https://www.bcg.com/publications/2023/benefits-of-applying-advanced-791technologies-to-rail-freight-shipping.792---------------------------------------------------------------------------793 System interoperability and standardization may also serve794as a barrier. For example, interoperability of the railroads'795PTC systems contributed to implementation delays.\63\ RailPulse796seeks to create a common telematics technology platform that797can be utilized by all stakeholders in the rail ecosystem,798shippers, railroads, and railcar lessors and owners, to better799ensure interoperability.\64\ According to RailPulse, there are800approximately 1.6 million railcars with 16,000 currently801outfitted with the geographic information system location802technology.\65\ Among its goals is helping freight recapture803and expand market share lost to trucks and improve railroads804customer service.\66\805---------------------------------------------------------------------------806 \63\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, Positive Train Control, As807Implementation Progresses, Focus Turns to the Complexities of Achieving808System Interoperability, GAO-19-693T (July 31, 2019), available at809https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-693t.pdf.810 \64\ RailPulse, Improving Rails Future Competitiveness, available811at https://railpulse.com/news-updates/improving-rails-future-812competitiveness/#: :text=The%20Challenges%20of%20Today813%27s%20Rail%20Telematics&text=These%20solutions%20often%20lack%20interop814erability,and815%20resulting%20in%20customer%20frustration.816 \65\ May 2025 RailPulse update to Committee Staff (on file with817Comm.).818 \66\ RailPulse, Improving Rails Future Competitiveness, available819at https://railpulse.com/news-updates/improving-rails-future-820competitiveness/#: :text=RailPulse%20Facilitates%20Next821%20Generation%20Technology,rail%20shipping%20for%20the%20future.822---------------------------------------------------------------------------823824 VII. WITNESSES825826 LMr. David Shannon, General Manager, RailPulse827 LMr. Brigham McCown, Founder and Chairman of the828Board of Directors, Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure829 LMr. Eric Gebhardt, Executive Vice President and830Chief Technology Officer, Wabtec, on behalf of Railway Supply831Institute832 LMr. Tony Cardwell, President, Brotherhood of833Maintenance of Way Employes Division, International Brotherhood834of Teamsters835836 AMERICA BUILDS: THE ROLE OF INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY IN RAIL837 MODERNIZATION838839 ----------840841 TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2025842843 House of Representatives,844Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous845 Materials,846 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,847 Washington, DC.848 The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m. in Room8492167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Daniel Webster850(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.851 Mr. Webster of Florida. The Subcommittee on Railroads,852Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials will come to order.853 I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to854declare a recess at any time.855 Without objection, show that ordered.856 I ask unanimous consent that Members who are not on the857subcommittee be permitted to sit on the subcommittee and ask858questions.859 Without objection, show that ordered.860 As a reminder to Members, if you wish to insert a document861into the record, please also email it to862DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov.863 I recognize myself for the purpose of an opening statement864for 5 minutes.865866OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL WEBSTER OF FLORIDA, CHAIRMAN,867 SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS868869 Mr. Webster of Florida. The free enterprise system is870responsible for generating the most efficient and innovative871technologies of our modern world. In the global economy,872technology advancements are some of our Nation's greatest873competitive achievements.874 Our national freight and passenger rail networks are no875different from other sectors of the economy. Innovation and876technology are vital to improving the rail industry's growth877and safety outcomes. Ensuring that technology advancements and878innovations continue to flourish will require a combination of879the right policies, particularly regulatory policies, to880incentivize current and future research, development, and881deployment of new technology.882 Unfortunately, while our other Government agencies,883including those in the Department of Transportation, are884embracing the promise of innovation and developing the right885regulatory framework for its promotion, much of the Federal886Railroad Administration's regulatory framework remains a relic887of the past.888 For example, most FRA regulations are prescriptive in how889they require safety inspection and tasks to be conducted. They890determine the frequency and means used to achieve regulatory891compliance. Many of these regulations were written decades ago,892at a time when technology was limited and/or sometimes893nonexistent.894 However, we are here to examine technology's progress.895Technological progress moves on. Although the law allows896railroads to apply for waivers to test new processes and897technologies that can achieve safety objectives while improving898efficiency, this current waiver process is less than899transparent, and subject to political interference. This900regulatory uncertainty hinders both innovation and the rail901industry's ability to compete against other modes of freight902transportation.903 As Congress begins consideration of legislation904reauthorizing surface transportation programs and agencies, we905should look to promote policies that encourage innovation and906investment in our rail system, improving both its safety and907its ability to survive and thrive. This includes reforming the908antiquated regulatory structure that is inhibiting innovation.909 Today's witnesses will provide important insight into how910technologies have the potential to revolutionize freight and911passenger rail transportation. We are interested in learning912their views on what Congress can do to encourage innovation and913bring our railroads into the 21st century.914 [Mr. Webster of Florida's prepared statement follows:]915916Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress917 from the State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Railroads,918 Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials919 The free enterprise system is responsible for generating the most920efficient and innovative technologies of our modern world. In the921global economy, technological advancements are some of our nation's922greatest competitive advantages.923 Our national freight and passenger rail networks are no different924from other sectors of the economy. Innovation and technology are vital925to improving the rail industry's growth and safety outcomes. Ensuring926that technological advancements and innovations continue to flourish927will require a combination of the right policies, particularly928regulatory policies, to incentivize current and future research,929development, and deployment of new technology.930 Unfortunately, while other government agencies, including those in931the Department of Transportation (DOT), are embracing the promise of932innovation and developing the right regulatory frameworks for its933promotion, much of the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA's)934regulatory framework remains a relic of the past.935 For example, most FRA regulations are prescriptive in how they936require safety inspections and tasks to be conducted. They determine937the frequency and means used to achieve regulatory compliance. Many of938these regulations were written decades ago at a time when technology939was limited or non-existent.940 However, as we are here to examine, technological progress moves941on. Although the law allows railroads to apply for waivers to test new942processes and technologies that can achieve safety objectives while943improving efficiency, this current waiver process is less than944transparent and subject to political interference. This regulatory945uncertainty hinders both innovation and the rail industry's ability to946compete against other modes of freight.947 As Congress begins consideration of legislation reauthorizing948surface transportation programs and agencies, we should look to promote949policies that encourage innovation and investment in our rail system,950improving both its safety and its ability to survive and thrive. This951includes reforming the antiquated regulatory structure that is952inhibiting innovation.953 Today's witnesses will provide important insight into how954technologies have the potential to revolutionize freight and passenger955rail transportation.956 We are also interested in learning their views on what Congress can957do to encourage innovation and bring our railroads into the 21st958century.959960 Mr. Webster of Florida. Now I would recognize961Representative Titus, the ranking member, for 5 minutes.962963OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DINA TITUS OF NEVADA, RANKING MEMBER,964 SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS965966 Ms. Titus. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for967holding this hearing and for our witnesses for testifying.968 As you mentioned, we are here today to discuss rail969innovation. In the United States, our innovative spirit is one970of our greatest strengths, and we should be harnessing this971spirit to improve our transportation networks.972 Innovation has transformed both passenger and freight rail973since the 19th century. This includes how locomotives are974powered, as we have moved from steam to diesel to electric. And975now Brightline, which is going to be in my district, running976from Las Vegas to southern California, is bringing zero-977emission, all-electric high-speed rail to the forefront. This978will create good union jobs, it will reduce greenhouse gas979emissions, and it will make it easier, more convenient, and980quicker for people to travel between Las Vegas and Los Angeles.981And once that is established, we think it will go far beyond.982 I am interested in exploring today and hearing from the983witnesses how we can use emerging technologies to combat cargo984theft. This costs our economy between $15 and $30 billion each985year. I held a roundtable to explore this issue earlier in the986year, and co-led a bipartisan bill that would create a Federal987task force to help address the issue. In addition to improving988Federal enforcement, technology can help shippers track989railcars and packages in real time, and that could be immensely990helpful to combating this growing issue and make it safer for991communities and people working on the rail lines.992 And speaking of real-time tracking, I am also very993interested in how innovation can make the shipping of hazardous994materials safer. Hazardous material runs right through the995heart of my district in Las Vegas, goes right by train right996down through the heart of town. And I want to be sure that my997constituents and first responders are equipped with the998information they need to respond to any incidents that might999occur involving hazmat.1000 Now, any conversation about innovation in the rail1001industry, like I mentioned or others that may come up, have to1002include discussions of rail safety. We have a duty to ensure1003that advancements in technology do not come at the expense of1004the safety of workers, passengers, and the communities that1005trains pass through.1006 That brings me to my next topic, which is track1007inspections. Automated track inspection, ATI--let me get all1008these acronyms straight--technology such as track geometry1009measurement systems, TGMS, can play an important role in1010identifying rail track defaults and in keeping passengers safe.1011These systems were first deployed in the 1970s, and they have1012been a good supplemental tool for inspecting the 140,000 miles1013of track we have across the United States. There are not any1014regulations that prohibit any railroad from using these track1015geometry measurement systems or any other automated track1016inspection technology.1017 I want to say, though, that ATI should not--should not--1018replace visual, in-person track inspections. The National1019Transportation Safety Board--another acronym, NTSB--has1020cautioned against replacing visual track inspections with ATI.1021This is because ATI cannot look for 17--17--different types of1022track defects that a human inspector can identify. This1023includes broken rails, drainage issues, track obstructions,1024trespassers, vandalism, and washouts.1025 I sent a letter with Ranking Member Larsen to Secretary1026Duffy urging the Federal Railroad Administration to not grant a1027safety waiver that would allow Class I railroads to reduce1028visual track safety inspections from twice a week to twice a1029month. That is a big difference, and that is what they are1030asking for. The safety waiver request also asks the FRA to give1031the largest railroads 72 hours to address defects instead of1032immediately addressing them, as current regulations require.1033 I would also ask, Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent that a1034letter be included in today's record, that letter.1035 Mr. Webster of Florida. Without objection.1036 [The information follows Ms. Titus' prepared statement.]1037 Ms. Titus. Okay, thank you very much.1038 As the subcommittee works on surface transportation1039reauthorization, I look forward to working with you, Mr.1040Chairman, and the chairs of the committee on provisions that1041will push us into the next generation of rail with robust and1042dedicated investment while improving and upholding rail safety,1043always at the forefront.1044 I would now ask if we could submit a letter from the1045Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen to be entered into the record1046that addresses some of the safety issues I brought up.1047 Mr. Webster of Florida. Without objection.1048 [The information follows Ms. Titus' prepared statement.]1049 Ms. Titus. Well, thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding1050the hearing, and I look forward to having those questions1051addressed that I have mentioned. Thank you, and I yield back.1052 [Ms. Titus' prepared statement follows:]10531054 Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress1055 from the State of Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on1056 Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials1057 Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.1058 As you mentioned, we are here today to discuss rail innovation. In1059the United States, our innovative spirit is one of our greatest1060strengths, and we should be harnessing this spirit to improve our1061transportation networks.1062 Innovation has transformed both passenger and freight rail1063operations since the 19th century. This includes how locomotives are1064powered, as we have moved from steam to diesel to electric locomotives.1065Now, Brightline is bringing a zero-emission, all-electric high-speed1066train to my District in Las Vegas through the Brightline West project.1067This will create good jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and make1068it easier for people to travel between Las Vegas and the Los Angeles1069area.1070 I am interested in exploring today how we can use emerging1071technologies to combat cargo theft which costs the U.S. economy between1072$15 and $30 billion each year. I held a roundtable to explore this1073issue earlier this year and co-led a bipartisan bill that would create1074a federal task force to help address this issue. In addition to1075improving federal enforcement, technology to help shippers track rail1076cars and packages in real time could be immensely helpful to combat1077this growing issue.1078 Speaking of real-time tracking, I am also very interested in how1079innovation can make the shipping of hazardous materials safer.1080Hazardous material runs through the heart of my district in Las Vegas1081by train. I want to be sure that my constituents and first responders1082are equipped with the information they need to respond to any incidents1083involving hazmat.1084 Any conversation about innovation in the rail industry must include1085discussions about rail safety. We have a duty to ensure that1086advancements in technology do not come at the expense of the safety of1087workers, passengers, and the communities that trains pass through.1088 That brings me to my next topic: track inspections. ATI technology1089such as Track Geometry Measurement Systems (TGMS) can play an important1090role in identifying rail track defaults and keeping passengers safe.1091These systems were first deployed in the 1970s and have been a useful1092supplemental tool for inspecting the 140,000 miles of track across the1093United States. There are not any regulations that prohibit any railroad1094from using track geometry measurement systems, or any other automated1095track inspection technology.1096 ATI should not, however, replace visual, in-person track1097inspections. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has1098cautioned against replacing visual track inspections with ATI. This is1099because ATI cannot look for 17 types of track defects that a human1100inspector can identify, including broken rails, drainage issues or1101track obstructions, trespassers, vandalism and washouts.1102 I sent a letter with Ranking Member Larsen to Secretary Duffy1103urging the Federal Railroad Administration to not grant a safety waiver1104request that would allow Class I railroads to reduce visual track1105safety inspections from twice a week to twice a month. The safety1106waiver request also asks the FRA to give the largest railroads 72 hours1107to address defects instead of immediately, as current regulations1108require. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be included in1109today's record.1110 As this Subcommittee works on surface transportation1111reauthorization, I look forward to working with Chairman Graves,1112Ranking Member Larsen and Subcommittee Chairman Webster on provisions1113that support the next generation of rail, with robust and dedicated1114investment, while upholding and improving rail safety.1115 Thank you again to Chairman Webster for holding this hearing and to1116our witnesses for sharing your expertise on these matters.1117 With that, I yield back.11181119 Letter of June 17, 2025, from Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member,1120 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Hon. Dina Titus,1121 Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous1122Materials, to Hon. Sean Duffy, Secretary, Department of Transportation,1123 Submitted for the Record by Hon. Dina Titus1124 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,1125 U.S. House of Representatives,1126 Washington, DC 20515,1127 June 17, 2025.1128Honorable Sean Duffy,1129Secretary,1130Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington,1131 DC 20590.11321133Re: FRA Docket # 2025-005911341135 Dear Secretary Duffy:1136 We write to express our concern with the Association of American1137Railroads' (AAR) request to drastically reduce the number of visual1138track safety inspections currently required of Class I railroads under1139Part 213.233, title 49 Code of Federal Regulations from twice a week,1140to twice a month. The request also proposes to allow railroads to1141address track defects up to 72 hours after finding any defects rather1142than immediately addressing them, as current regulation requires \1\.1143We urge you to deny this waiver request in the interest of rail safety.1144---------------------------------------------------------------------------1145 \1\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2025-0059-0001 (last1146accessed May 27, 2025)1147---------------------------------------------------------------------------1148 We support the use of technology to improve rail safety and sustain1149railroad jobs. We do not believe that fewer visual inspections or1150waiting three days to address known problems is in the public interest1151nor is it consistent with railroad safety, as safety waivers are1152required to be by law.1153 Following the Norfolk Southern derailment in East Palestine, Ohio1154on February 3, 2023, that devastated the surrounding community, Class I1155railroads committed to joining the FRA's Confidential Close Call1156Reporting System (C3RS). This system allows rail workers to report1157unsafe events and conditions. It has been over two years since this1158pledge, however, and only two out of the six Class I railroads have1159joined C3RS on a pilot basis that covers just a subset of their1160employees.1161 There has also been bipartisan support for improving rail1162safety.\2\ Shortly after the derailment, rail safety legislation was1163endorsed by then President Biden, former President Trump, and Senator1164Vance. The FRA also committed to improving rail safety.\3\1165Unfortunately, rail safety legislation has yet to be enacted.1166---------------------------------------------------------------------------1167 \2\ See https://democrats-transportation.house.gov/news/press-1168releases/ranking-members-larsen-wilson-and-tandi-democrats-call-for-1169action-on-rail-safety-following-release-of-ntsb-report-on-east-1170palestine-derailment and1171 https://transportation.house.gov/news/1172documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=4077071173 \3\ https://www.transportation.gov/examining-state-rail-safety-1174aftermath-derailment-east-palestine-ohio1175---------------------------------------------------------------------------1176 The railroads have used Automated Track Inspection (ATI), including1177Track Geometry Measurement Systems (TGMS), since the 1970s. ATI is an1178effective measurement tool that can identify one type of track defect:1179anomalies in track geometry. ATI cannot look for the remaining 17 track1180defects that a human track inspector can identify, including broken1181rails, drainage issues, or washouts. There are no regulations that1182prevent railroads from continuing to use TGMS.1183 In September 2021, an Amtrak Empire Builder train derailed on BNSF-1184owned and maintained track in Joplin, Montana, that was caused by bad1185track conditions. That derailment killed three passengers and injured118649 other passenger and crew members. In its final report, the National1187Transportation Safety Board stated that ``automated track inspections1188by geometry cars or railcar-attached devices provide detailed1189information on specific track parameters, but they do not capture the1190diverse array of unique track hazards detectable to human inspectors.1191They are intended to supplement an inspection program and should not be1192used to supplant an inspector physically examining a track.'' \4\1193---------------------------------------------------------------------------1194 \4\ National Transportation Safety Board Final Report of September119525, 2021 Joplin, Montana BNSF Derailment. ``Derailment of Amtrak1196Passenger Train 7 on BNSF Railway Track''. Published July 5, 2023.1197https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/1198RIR2308.pdf, page 35.1199---------------------------------------------------------------------------1200 We urge you to reject the AAR's request, and we look forward to1201working with your Administration to raise the bar on rail safety. Thank1202you for your attention to this matter.1203 Sincerely,1204 Rick Larsen,1205 Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.1206 Dina Titus,1207 Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and1208 Hazardous Materials.12091210 Letter of June 24, 2025, from Michael S. Baldwin, President,1211 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and1212 Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and1213Infrastructure, and Hon. Daniel Webster, Chairman, and Hon. Dina Titus,1214 Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous1215 Materials, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Dina Titus1216 June 24, 2025.1217 Dear Chairman Graves, Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Larsen, and1218Ranking Member Titus:1219 On behalf of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS) and our1220members across the country, thank you for the opportunity to share our1221perspective on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's1222Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials hearing1223on ``The Role of Innovation and Technology in a Safe and Efficient Rail1224System.'' The BRS represents the skilled men and women responsible for1225the installation, maintenance, testing and inspection of the signal and1226train control systems that are the foundation of rail safety in the1227United States, and we are pleased to provide our input.1228 Rail Innovation Must Begin with Safety1229 As the national conversation on rail innovation advances, the BRS1230urges Congress to ensure that safety is not an afterthought, it must be1231the foundation of every technological development and deployment.1232Technology alone does not make railroads safer; it is the combination1233of a well-trained workforce and strong federal oversight that ensures1234technology is used in a way that advances safety. New technologies,1235which hold great promises, must function within the framework of1236existing laws and regulations that prioritize human life and public1237safety. Signalmen are the custodians of rail safety, as we maintain the1238systems that prevent accidents and ensure safe, efficient operations.1239If these systems are malfunctioning, trains cannot safely move to their1240destination because they need functioning signals to guide their1241movements. But innovation must do more than offer vague promises about1242performance; it must comply with our existing regulatory and statutory1243obligations that were created for a specific reason, oftentimes1244following preventable accidents and close calls. Each safety-critical1245innovation, whether in signaling, communications, or automation is1246subject to regulation by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and1247is often rooted in legislation that governs labor, equipment safety,1248and operational standards. Innovation in the rail industry should not1249be able to bypass these safeguards in the name of efficiency or1250modernization. These laws are not obstacles; they are the guardrails1251that ensure innovation serves the public good instead of undermining1252safety. Rail innovation must never outpace its regulatory1253responsibilities, but too often, regulation struggles to keep up with1254technological advancement, creating safety gaps that oversight is meant1255to prevent.1256 Human Oversight Is Not Obsolete1257 Technological tools are only as effective as the people who1258implement, maintain, and monitor them. From Positive Train Control1259(PTC) to remote diagnostics and automated defect detection, the newest1260generation of safety technologies still depends on qualified Signal1261employees for proper installation, validation, and maintenance. Our1262experience clearly shows that automation cannot and must not replace1263human judgment. These systems fail, degrade, or misread data, sometimes1264without warning, even when the technology has been around for decades1265like PTC. When they do, it is BRS members who step in, diagnose the1266issue, and ensure that service and safety are restored. For example,1267PTC systems regularly experience communication failures and can1268register false occupancy, indicating a train is in a certain location1269when it is not, due to environmental conditions, software bugs, or1270hardware faults. These scenarios require a Signalman to interpret fault1271logs, check components on the ground, and restore operations safely.1272Technology does not fix itself.1273 These kinds of failures are not rare occurrences in our field. Our1274members witness them every day across our nation's rail networks, and1275every time a Signalman responds correctly, they prevent accidents and1276delays on our rail networks. Innovation has not made the signal1277workforce obsolete; it has made it more essential. Today's Signalmen1278are responsible for troubleshooting microprocessor-based equipment,1279analyzing digital diagnostics, and ensuring that mechanical and digital1280subsystems function correctly. The job now requires more skill, more1281training, and more technical precision than ever before. Human1282oversight is not outdated, it is indispensable.1283 Despite this reality, the rail industry is now seeking to cut back1284on visual inspections performed by trained Signalmen. The railroads1285claim that with new microprocessor-based systems, the required tests1286are no longer necessary. The Association of American Railroads (AAR),1287in their May comments to the DOT, advocated for weakening existing1288signal inspection requirements. They stated that: ``FRA's current1289inspection requirements are framed around arbitrary time-, event-, and1290distance-based visual inspections that were the industry norm when1291first promulgated more than 50 years ago.'' AAR further argued that1292``railroads are continuously performing unnecessary inspections that do1293not benefit safety'' and that ``regulation, when necessary, should be1294data-driven and performance-based to enable maximum safety benefits and1295continued safety innovation.'' They also claimed that ``regulation1296imposes significant regulatory costs on the railroad industry that are1297not outweighed by public benefits,'' suggesting that ``railroads have1298had the technological capability to employ microprocessors, which are1299far more reliable than visual inspections, to assess signal health for1300some time now.'' Reducing or eliminating inspections overlooks the1301lived experience of Signalmen, who know firsthand that failures still1302occur, even in automated systems, and who are the ones who step in when1303technology fails. No matter how advanced the system becomes, the rail1304industry must not abandon the human expertise that ensures both the1305safety of the technology and the safety of the network itself.1306 We Embrace Innovation that Provide Redundancy and Safety1307 The BRS has clearly demonstrated our commitment to responsible1308innovation. Through our partnership in a federal Consolidated Rail1309Infrastructure and Safety Improvement (CRISI) grant alongside the1310University of Texas Rio Grande Valley and Hum Industrial Technologies,1311we are actively helping develop telematics tools that can enhance1312safety without displacing the workforce. This grant is a model of the1313labor-academia-industry partnerships that should happen as it relates1314to developing new technology. But we must be clear: reducing redundancy1315in the name of ``efficiency'' is a threat to safety. Railroads have a1316long history of removing critical safeguards as new technology is1317introduced. That practice must end. Redundancy is not a weakness, it is1318a necessary protection when technology fails, misreads, or1319malfunctions, which it will. Removing the human element from safety-1320critical systems is not innovation, it is exposure to preventable risk.1321 Signal systems have evolved from relay-based designs (solid state1322driven by electricity) to microprocessor-based control systems1323(computer chips). But the physical, labor-intensive component switch1324machines, crossing gates and lights, cantilevers, wayside signals,1325defect detectors, electric locks, and switch circuit controllers remain1326largely the same. These are the backbone of the rail network, and they1327still require hands-on, highly skilled testing and maintenance. FRA1328requires periodic, in person inspections for all these systems which1329signalmen do. These in-person inspections are vital to ensure that1330these components are working and maintained properly. The railroads are1331currently trying to reduce the frequency of in-person inspections for1332grade crossing and signal systems and just rely on diagnostic data from1333sensors. Rail-grade crossings are the most dangerous part of the rail1334system and members of the public and rail workers sadly die or get1335severely injured on a regular basis at grade crossings. These periodic,1336in-person inspections are vital to ensure that the grade crossing1337safety equipment, if it is installed at the crossing, is functioning to1338protect the public and rail workers going through the crossing. The1339railroads' attempt to reduce these in-person inspections is extremely1340unsafe, and we urge Congress to vigorously oppose those attempts.1341 Where a Signalman once could walk into a relay house and visually1342pinpoint a fault based on the physical position of a relay, today's1343microprocessor-based systems require interpreting diagnostic logs,1344analyzing digital fault data, and applying a working theory to locate1345and resolve the issue. This evolution has increased the technical1346aptitude required, not decreased the importance of Signalman. These1347complex systems still depend on physical integrity, electrical1348performance, and real-world conditions. Without a skilled workforce1349validating and troubleshooting them on the ground, the system is only1350as dependable as its last unchecked error code. This is why human1351oversight, and mechanical redundancy must be preserved, not removed.1352Innovation must augment safety, not automate workers out of the1353equation.1354 Innovation Must Not Undermine Labor Standards1355 The BRS supports innovation. However, too often, technological1356progress has been used as a justification to undermine labor standards,1357reduce staffing, and weaken inspection frequencies which is what the1358Class I freight railroads are attempting to do right now. Like other1359crafts, the Class I railroads have cut the number of signalmen they1360employ since 2015 by over 30%. This has left signalmen stretched thin1361and in certain territories that signalmen are assigned to that stretch1362hundreds of miles, the railroads only have a handful of signalmen left1363to ensure the signal and grade crossing systems in those locations are1364working properly. This is not modernization, it is a shift of risk,1365leaving BRS members and the public more vulnerable.1366 A recent example is found in Sections 121 and 122 of H.R. 8996 from1367the 118th Congress, which would authorize federal funding for the1368development and deployment of telematics on railcars. While we support1369advancing safety technologies, these provisions omit long-standing1370labor protections, including the 4R Act (49 U.S.C. Sec. 22404) and1371related provisions (Sec. Sec. 22905(b) & (c)) that protect rail workers1372negatively affected by federal grants.1373 Even more troubling, Sections 121 and 122 of H.R. 8996 exclude1374labor organizations from participating in project development or grant1375eligibility. These omissions are not minor technicalities; they1376represent a significant departure from how federally funded rail1377programs have traditionally operated. The 4R Act and related1378protections ensure that workers affected by technological change are1379not displaced, downgraded, or relocated without fair and equitable1380negotiations. They have been a core part of maintaining workforce1381stability and upholding public accountability in federally funded1382infrastructure projects. This sets a dangerous precedent. Innovation1383that is funded by taxpayers must not come at the cost of workers'1384rights, safety, or job security. When Labor is left out of the process,1385implementation suffers. Signalmen bring practical field experience that1386is critical to testing and refining new systems. BRS and our members1387want to be involved in the development of new technology, including the1388next generation of telematics, given our expertise on the issue and the1389fact that our members will be interacting with this technology on a1390daily basis. Excluding the workforce leads to avoidable failures and1391undermines the very safety improvements the legislation intends to1392support. Congress must ensure that innovation is inclusive,1393accountable, and aligned with the values of safety, fairness, and1394shared responsibility.1395 BRS Supports Innovation That Strengthens Safety and Jobs1396 Rail innovation should strengthen the system, not strip it down.1397The path forward is not one of workforce reduction, but of workforce1398integration. Technology should empower Signalmen, not replace them.1399Safety outcomes consistently improve when the people who understand the1400system best, those who work on it every day, are involved in its1401evolution. We have seen this firsthand during the national rollout of1402Positive Train Control (PTC) which started in the mid 2000's and took1403over a decade and a half to complete. The PTC rollout was most1404successful on railroads where signal workers were part of the planning1405and deployment. Their field expertise helped solve real-world problems1406that engineers and vendors could not foresee alone. When labor is1407excluded, the consequences are costly: implementation delays, training1408gaps, and reduced safety performance. Rail innovation cannot be1409successful when it overlooks the very workforce that will build,1410maintain, and troubleshoot the systems being introduced. Innovation1411should also create opportunities for upskilling, trade recruitment, and1412safety modernization, but that only happens when labor is meaningfully1413involved from the start. With current workforce shortages across the1414rail sector, now is the time to pair innovation with investment in the1415people who can deliver it through training partnerships and federally1416supported workforce development. Innovation is not just about what is1417new, it is about who is included, and for it to succeed, it must1418include us.1419 Conclusion1420 The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen is committed to a rail1421network that is safer, smarter, and stronger. We believe in innovation,1422but it must be done with us, not around us. Signalmen are ready to help1423lead this next era of rail safety. We will not stand by as technology1424is used to sideline the very workers who make safety possible.1425 Thank you for your attention to these issues, and for your1426commitment to a safe and fair future for America's railroads.1427 Respectfully Submitted,1428 Michael S. Baldwin,1429 President, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen.14301431 Mr. Webster of Florida. I would now like to recognize and1432welcome our witnesses and thank them for being here.1433 It is good to have you today. Thank you for it. I look1434forward to hearing what you have to say. Let me take a moment1435and tell you about the lighting system. Green means go, yellow1436means it's time to wrap it up, red means it's time to quit.1437It's pretty simple.1438 I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements1439be included in the record.1440 Without objection, show that ordered.1441 I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing1442remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided1443answers to any questions that may be submitted in writing.1444 Without objection, show that ordered.1445 I ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for 151446days for additional comments and information submitted by1447Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's1448hearing.1449 Without objection, show that ordered.1450 As your testimony, written testimony, has been made part of1451public record, the subcommittee asks you to limit your oral1452remarks to 5 minutes. And with that, I will call on Mr.1453Shannon.1454 You are recognized for 5 minutes for your testimony.14551456TESTIMONY OF DAVID L. SHANNON, GENERAL MANAGER, RAILPULSE, LLC;1457 BRIGHAM A. McCOWN, FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF1458 DIRECTORS, ALLIANCE FOR INNOVATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE; ERIC1459 GEBHARDT, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGY1460OFFICER, WABTEC, ON BEHALF OF THE RAILWAY SUPPLY INSTITUTE; AND1461 TONY CARDWELL, PRESIDENT, BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY1462 EMPLOYES DIVISION, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS14631464 TESTIMONY OF DAVID L. SHANNON, GENERAL MANAGER, RAILPULSE, LLC14651466 Mr. Shannon. Good morning, Chairman Webster, Ranking Member1467Titus, and distinguished members of the rail subcommittee. I am1468David Shannon, general manager of RailPulse, LLC. And it is an1469honor to be here before you today on behalf of a diverse1470coalition of railcar owners, all united in a common purpose: to1471grow the use of freight rail transportation in North America1472through innovation.1473 At the heart of this innovation is telematics on railcars,1474the installation of GPS and smart sensors on railcars that1475provide real-time information about their location, condition,1476and health. These technologies may sound technical, but their1477purpose is simple: to make rail a more competitive,1478transparent, and reliable mode of freight transportation. And1479this matters because, when more freight moves by rail, the1480public benefits. Rail is more fuel efficient, sustainable, and1481safer than trucking on a per ton-mile basis. And shifting1482freight from road to rail reduces highway congestion, cuts1483infrastructure wear, and lowers transportation costs across the1484supply chain.1485 Growth in rail isn't just an industry objective, it's in1486the national interest. But rail cannot grow without change.1487Shippers have told us clearly why they choose trucks: reliable,1488on-time performance; shipment visibility; and equipment1489availability and capacity. RailPulse was created to deliver the1490data that can be used to address these issues not just for1491individual companies, but for the system as a whole.1492 Formed in 2021, the coalition came together out of the1493realization that no single company or class of companies could1494solve these issues. Fragmented adoption of telematics would be1495slow and inconsistent. But by collaborating, sharing expertise,1496data, investment, and equal governance, we could build1497something transformative. Today, reflecting the diversity of1498railcar ownership, RailPulse members come from all classes:1499Bunge North America, a shipper; GATX, Greenbrier, Trinity Rail,1500railcar lessors; G&W, Railroad Development Corporation, and1501Watco, all short line railroads; and CPKC, CSX, Norfolk1502Southern, and Union Pacific, all Class I railroads.1503 With the help of a CRISI grant, the Federal Railroad1504Administration, and the State of Pennsylvania, railroads1505launched a multiphase pilot project to test these concepts. We1506equipped more than 1,000 railcars of different types--tank1507cars, auto racks, boxcars, and more--with advanced sensors and1508GPS devices from multiple vendors. We proved that data could be1509captured, standardized, and shared securely to all authorized1510stakeholders, and all in real time. Following the pilot, the1511RailPulse platform was officially launched across North America1512in September 2024, and we are now seeing strong interest in1513adoption.1514 But we faced two critical challenges. The first I will call1515the growth-to-value paradox. While our growth has been1516impressive by traditional measures for a technology startup--1517over 17 times since the pilot ended--it is nowhere near good1518enough. Only when a majority of the 1.6 million railcars in1519North America are equipped will we see the true systemwide1520impact. It is only then that railroads can begin to leverage1521the telematics data to change their operating practices, that1522we can begin to contemplate new regimes for safety, and that we1523can implement broad-scale, predictive railcar maintenance1524strategies to increase the safety of the railcar fleet. But1525getting there requires accelerated investment. And to that end,1526we urge Congress to support financial incentives to help1527railcar owners equip faster.1528 The second I will call the railcar innovator's dilemma. The1529rail industry needs to embrace the same fail-fast ethos that1530has driven American technology leadership globally. But right1531now, even when there are internal funds available for1532investment, there is concern, concern that innovations early1533adopters invest in might be undercut by future regulation or1534technology specification.1535 We need a regulatory environment that is outcome-focused1536and supports--even incentivizes--experimentation and1537innovation, especially for monitoring technologies that don't1538directly affect the railcars' operation. If companies are1539willing to test unproven tools responsibly, they should be very1540actively supported.1541 In closing, I want to thank the committee for your time and1542attention today. What RailPulse is doing is historic. For the1543first time, a diverse set of railcar owners are working1544together to modernize freight rail system at a foundational1545level. With your partnership, the continued support of the FRA1546and others, and with shared commitment, we can digitize all 1.61547million railcars in North America, and we can shift the1548perception and reality of rail as a smart, safe, sustainable1549mode of freight transportation.1550 Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.1551 [Mr. Shannon's prepared statement follows:]15521553Prepared Statement of David L. Shannon, General Manager, RailPulse, LLC1554 Good morning, Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and1555distinguished members of the Rail Subcommittee. My name is David1556Shannon and I serve as General Manager of RailPulse LLC. I am appearing1557before the Committee today on behalf of the diverse coalition of member1558companies who comprise the owners of RailPulse.1559 Why RailPulse1560 RailPulse, LLC was chartered in 2021 by a coalition of forward-1561thinking railcar owners who joined together to drive growth in the use1562of rail freight transportation in North America by enabling improved1563service and safety through the collaborative use of railcar telematics1564data. RailPulse believes that telematics on railcars provides1565information necessary to address the critical issues that rail1566customers identified as causing them to prefer truck over rail leading1567to erosion in rail market share \1\:1568---------------------------------------------------------------------------1569 \1\ Flexible Freight and the Future of Rail, 2020 North American1570Shipper Survey, Oliver Wyman, December 20201571---------------------------------------------------------------------------1572 1. On-time Performance--When telematics devices are deployed at1573full network scale, railroads can leverage the railcar data to improve1574yard operations, interline movements, and empty capacity management,1575resulting in greater velocity, resiliency, and predictable on-time1576performance.15771578 2. Equipment/Capacity--At individual fleet scale, railroads and1579car owners can better manage railcar availability and utilization by1580minimizing disruptions due to unplanned railcar maintenance and by1581having better visibility of empty capacity on the railroads and in1582customer facilities allowing more optimal and timely routing of1583railcars to meet shipper demand.15841585 3. Shipment Visibility--For any telemetry equipped railcar,1586shippers gain visibility to their empty or loaded movements giving them1587better insights into where their shipments are, what condition they are1588in, and should anything go wrong, the basis for a productive dialog1589with their serving railroad and a better customer experience.15901591 The vision of the coalition is to create a central platform (The1592RailPulse Platform) providing a single source of truth for telemetry1593data on the location, condition, and health of all railcars in North1594American revenue service. Through the RailPulse Platform, the coalition1595aims to transform the North American freight rail industry by sharing1596telematics data that delivers accurate, timely insights to railcar1597owners and to all parties of a rail shipment, while driving railcar1598telematics innovation, data standards, performance requirements, and1599proactive sensor network management.1600 RailPulse's goals in creating a North American railcar telemetry1601platform are aligned with national policy. Ultimately RailPulse is1602about making rail service offerings more useful and attractive to1603shippers, which we believe will lead to growth in rail, an extremely1604safe and fuel-efficient mode of surface transportation. Specifically,1605on a ton-mile basis, rail is 28 times safer for both the public and1606workforce. It is four times more energy-efficient, which is crucial for1607reducing overall energy consumption and dependence. And it produces1608significantly less greenhouse gas emissions than trucking--trucking1609produces 11.5 times more while moving only 1.5 times more freight \2\.1610If RailPulse succeeds, we will have a safer, more energy-efficient1611transportation system with fewer greenhouse gas emissions and reduced1612highway congestion. Regardless of how you look at it, growth in rail1613market share is a very important public good.1614---------------------------------------------------------------------------1615 \2\ Growth in the Freight Rail Industry, Adriene Bailey, Railway1616Age, August 20241617---------------------------------------------------------------------------1618 Structure & Governance1619 From its inception, RailPulse has been structured to reflect the1620diversity in ownership of the roughly 1.6 million railcars in service1621across North America. It is designed to benefit all constituents in the1622rail ecosystem to drive carload growth: shippers, Class I railroads,1623short line railroads, and railcar operating lessors, all while1624enhancing the safety and security of proprietary car-owner data. Each1625stakeholder has an equal voice in the governance of RailPulse and its1626policy decisions to ensure that the coalition stays focused on what is1627best for the North American rail industry rather than a single1628stakeholder or industry class.16291630 Founded by five railcar owning companies in 2021, today RailPulse1631is owned by a coalition of companies representing all four railcar1632owning classes: Bunge NA, a shipper; GATX, Greenbrier, and Trinity1633Rail, railcar lessors; G&W, Railroad Development Corporation, and1634Watco, short line railroads; and, CPKC, CSX, Norfolk Southern, and1635Union Pacific, Class I railroads.1636 Goals1637 RailPulse is focused on solving the rail industry's most pressing1638competitive and technological challenges associated with providing1639visibility into the movement of rail freight. Sharing common goals that1640will benefit the entire rail ecosystem is the foundation of the1641RailPulse coalition. The RailPulse members recognized that working1642independently would result in slow, incremental adoption of the latest1643GPS and telematics technologies and siloed access to the data. Working1644together as a coalition unifies our expertise and resources to take the1645entire rail industry forward. Rather than duplicating efforts, through1646RailPulse, railcar owners are now collaborating and aligning to not1647only speed adoption but also foster greater innovation.1648 The RailPulse coalition has five key goals:1649 1. Create a comprehensive platform that acts as a single source of1650truth for telematics data across the rail industry. By standardizing,1651centralizing, curating, enriching, and securing data from a variety of1652telematics vendors, the platform ensures that all stakeholders--ranging1653from shippers to railroads--can seamlessly access and utilize this1654information. The graphic below illustrates the role of the RailPulse1655Platform in the rail ecosystem.16561657 2. Facilitate collaboration among shippers, carriers, and car1658owners, to build a unified framework that encourages synergy across all1659sectors of the North American freight rail system. By integrating1660shared telematics data and insights, RailPulse empowers stakeholders to1661optimize operational efficiencies, elevate service standards, and1662enhance safety practices. This collaborative approach not only1663contributes to the growth of freight movement but also creates a1664resilient and interconnected ecosystem that benefits the entire rail1665industry.16661667 3. Foster transparency into rail shipment movements and deliver1668advanced insights into the estimated time of arrival for both loaded1669and empty railcars. By providing precise and actionable data, this goal1670aims to enhance supply chain productivity, enable better planning, and1671improve shipper satisfaction across the North American rail freight1672ecosystem.16731674 4. Advance the use of telematics technology to enhance the1675management and maintenance of the railcar fleet. By utilizing real-time1676data from cutting-edge sensors and GPS devices, the coalition aims to1677enable predictive maintenance practices that optimize asset1678utilization, extend the operational lifespan of railcars, and create a1679healthier, more reliable fleet. This approach not only enhances the1680efficiency and effectiveness of rail operations but also contributes to1681a safer transportation network by proactively identifying and1682addressing potential issues before they escalate.16831684 5. Drive telematics innovation by clearly specifying the desired1685outcomes for monitoring the location, condition, and health of1686railcars--critical elements for the long-term success and growth of1687rail freight. RailPulse prioritizes a results-driven approach where1688innovations are evaluated based on their conformance to performance1689requirements rather than rigid design or technology specifications.1690This ensures that vendors retain the freedom to innovate and push the1691boundaries of telematics technology while delivering solutions that1692enhance reliability, safety, and efficiency across the rail ecosystem.1693 Getting Started1694 To jump start its development, the coalition sought and was awarded1695a CRISI (Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements)1696grant. The grant, alongside the support of the Federal Railroad1697Administration (FRA) and the State of Pennsylvania, provided seed1698funding for RailPulse to evaluate the state of telematics technology,1699to test its fitness for use across the North American rail network, and1700to develop and demonstrate a neutral, open-architecture telematics1701platform designed to provide a shared source of truth on the location,1702condition, and health of railcars.1703 The CRISI grant facilitated a multiple phased project, concluding1704in mid 2024, that involved over 1000 railcars equipped with modern1705telematics sensors, including GPS units, impact sensors, load sensors,1706door/hatch sensors, and handbrake sensors. Diverse types of railcars,1707including tank cars, boxcars, hopper cars, auto racks, and gondolas1708were used in the trials to ensure comprehensive data collection across1709different freight categories. The project engaged multiple telematics1710vendors specializing in sensor technology and data analytics,1711demonstrating interoperability within a common platform across a1712diverse vendor ecosystem while fostering technology innovation. These1713outcomes created the baseline for the RailPulse Platform, set the1714foundation for broader railcar telematics adoption, and highlighted the1715transformative potential of equipping the entire fleet with advanced1716telemetry.1717 Today1718 Today, RailPulse is transforming rail shipping by leveraging the1719latest technologies to gather and share real-time railcar location,1720health and condition information. It enables data from GPS and railcar-1721mounted sensors to drive improved service levels, visibility, safety,1722sustainability, and productivity into North American rail-based supply1723chains.1724 The RailPulse Platform was officially launched and made available1725to all railcar owners and stakeholders in North America in September17262024.1727 Opportunities & Challenges17281. Growth to Value Paradox1729 Since launching, RailPulse has been rapidly bringing on new1730subscribers who are equipping railcars and using the data. On one hand1731the growth in the number of installed railcars has been substantial1732(over 17x the initial test population) while on the other hand it has1733not been nearly substantial enough to deliver broad systemwide benefits1734that contribute to the promised public good resulting for more use of1735rail transport.1736 As with all new technology startups, companies that are engaging1737with RailPulse and are equipping railcars tend to be early adopters who1738are doing so based on the expected benefits that they can directly1739obtain from the technology. As such, railcar equipping tends to happen1740on a fleet by fleet, customer by customer basis where the needs are1741most acute and the benefits can be realized primarily through better1742individual shipment visibility, shipper-railroad collaboration and1743dispute resolution, and similar transactional optimizations or where1744individual fleet utilization improvements can be obtained. Railcar1745growth can continue in this way for a long time but at a very measured1746pace.1747 The paradox lies in the fact that, while when measured by1748traditional metrics the growth RailPulse has experienced since1749launching is great, it is still not good enough. This is because the1750public benefits can only be unlocked by achieving a critical mass of1751telemetry equipped railcars--beyond 50% full fleet penetration. At1752critical mass, railroads can begin to leverage telematics data to1753change railroad operating practices, new safety regimes can be1754contemplated and implemented, and even broadscale predictive railcar1755maintenance strategies can be implemented. In aggregate, these network1756wide actions, and their associated benefits will be transformative to1757the rail industry because they will lead to measurable improvements in1758network efficiency, service, safety and ultimately growth in the use of1759freight rail by shippers. With this growth the industry will deliver1760the public good that this technology promises.1761 To accelerate the adoption of telematics network wide, we need to1762break out of the traditional technology adoption pattern. That will1763require incentive for railcar owners to equip railcars faster.1764Ultimately, we believe that financial incentives need to be introduced1765that will encourage equipping railcars when the transactional benefits1766alone are unknown or insufficient to justify the car owner's1767investment. This will bring more car owners into the market and drive1768adoption of larger fleets faster.1769 The RailPulse Coalition intends to seek additional funding1770opportunities to incentivize rail car owners to adopt telematics1771technology and become subscribers to the RailPulse Platform. This1772adoption incentive will align itself with the goal of getting more cars1773online faster and getting the rail car fleet closer to the coalition's1774goals of the larger systemic benefits like predictive estimated time of1775arrival, predictive maintenance requirements, critical safety alerts,1776and supply chain efficiencies that reduce the cost of freight rail1777moves to shippers and carriers. We believe that supporting future grant1778funding for these benefits is in the public interest. In fact, both the1779European Union and India are both countries who have participated in1780grant funding to outfit rail telematics across their freight rail1781fleets.17822. Rail Telematics Innovators Dilemma1783 One of the key reasons the US leads the world in technology1784innovation is the fail-fast ethos that permeates our technology sector.1785This mindset encourages rapid experimentation and learning by embracing1786failure as a natural part of the innovation process. The rail industry1787needs to be incentivized to adopt a similar ethos and be strongly1788supported when they do.1789 Development of unproven technology is inherently costly and1790technically complex which makes investment risky. On top of that, in1791the rail industry, there also exists a pervasive concern that the1792innovation process might create liabilities for the companies that test1793innovative but unproven technologies or that even if their innovation1794is proven successful in testing, an alternative technology may be1795mandated by the government that makes their investment moot. Thus, we1796have a dilemma where there is belief in the potential of the technology1797but a fear of being a first mover, even where internal investment is1798available, due to the risk exposure of loss it might create.1799 We need a regulatory environment wherein the innovators don't fear1800being penalized when leading the charge in new technology development.1801The RailPulse Coalition needs to be able to experiment with new1802technologies and new devices to prove them out. The coalition has a1803mechanical committee that recommends the adoption of performance1804criteria that any device and the data it generates must meet before an1805expectation of use is created or regulated. Especially for monitoring1806technologies (those that don't directly control the operation/use of a1807railcar), the rail industry needs to be able to test innovative1808solutions without fear of negative ramifications. The coalition simply1809asks that coalition members, rail car owners, and technology vendors1810should be free within agreed upon parameters to innovate and test1811technology solutions before they are proven and when proven those1812technology innovations will be supported.1813 Conclusion1814 In closing, I again want to thank the committee for its invitation1815to be here today to discuss this exciting time in the freight rail1816industry. Working collaboratively as car owners the entire industry is1817making history as we utilize the latest in technologies working with1818our technology partners and vendors to push the limits of rail1819telematics for decades to come. By working together with this1820committee, FRA and the rail coalition we have a tremendous opportunity1821to convert the entire fleet of 1.6 million rail cars into smart rail1822cars and in the process change the way rail shippers, regulators,1823communities, rail employees and investors view the freight rail1824industry.18251826 Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.1827 Mr. McCown, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your1828testimony.18291830 TESTIMONY OF BRIGHAM A. McCOWN, FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN OF THE1831 BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALLIANCE FOR INNOVATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE18321833 Mr. McCown. Thank you very much, Chairman Webster, Ranking1834Member Titus, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the1835opportunity to appear before you today. I am here in my1836capacity as the chair of the Alliance for Innovation and1837Infrastructure. Aii is a nonpartisan, independent think tank1838developed over a decade ago focused on advancing pragmatic1839solutions to improving safety, fostering innovation, and1840strengthening America's infrastructure systems.1841 Today's hearing touches on a crucial issue. As we invest in1842rebuilding and expanding American infrastructure, a critical1843linchpin for not only our domestic economy but for our global1844economic competitiveness, we must ensure that our regulatory1845framework evolves alongside the technology shaping 21st-century1846transportation. The challenge before us is not partisan; it's1847practical. Modernization done right enhances both safety and1848competitiveness. We can protect American jobs while making our1849infrastructure smarter, more efficient, and more resilient.1850Technology is not the enemy of safety; it is often its greatest1851ally.1852 Aii's recent report, ``Driving Regulatory Innovation for1853Safer Railroading,'' reveals significant friction between the1854current regulatory approach and the adoption of safety-1855enhancing tools. In the last 5 years, nearly 70 percent of1856Class I railroads have sought waivers from the Federal Railroad1857Administration to use technologies like automatic track1858inspection, yet 40 percent of those waivers took more than 61859months or longer to be approved, many with limited or no1860explanation. As a former Federal regulator, let me say that1861this isn't about shortcuts. It is about ensuring that when1862railroads deploy rigorously tested systems that improve defect1863detection and reduce risk, they should be embraced.1864 The concern is that if the regulatory system moves too1865slowly with proven technology, how can we expect it to move at1866all when innovation comes knocking? The regulator must be1867equipped to fairly and swiftly evaluate new innovations. To1868FRA's credit, a recent proposed rule on ATI acknowledges the1869need for reform, but it still leans on outdated assumptions1870such as mandatory visual inspections, even where automated1871systems have demonstrated superior performance. FRA's proposal1872lacks key elements of a modern regulatory design: objective1873standards, structured timelines, and transparent1874decisionmaking.1875 We should move away from prescription and toward an1876outcome-based approach of continuous improvement like those1877found in safety management systems. Safety and technology go1878hand in hand, and continuous improvements require regulators to1879rethink how they regulate. By the time a regulation is written,1880the technology is already outdated. Because today's technology1881moves at the speed of light, this regulatory lag that is1882inherent in the system is innovation's worst detractor. We are,1883in many cases across Government, literally discouraging1884technology from being developed.1885 That same approach can benefit rail safety. As I have said,1886safety and innovation are not mutually exclusive. When1887regulations reward validated results, regardless of the method1888used, we empower both workers and innovators to contribute to a1889stronger system.1890 I do also recognize that workforce concerns are real. New1891technologies can be deployed in ways that enhance the ability1892of workers to complete their task more efficiently.1893Technological innovations often require more people, not less.1894You may recall when Americans were told that word processors,1895computers, and printers would make our lives a life of leisure,1896but that hasn't exactly turned out that way. Technology,1897though, improves our ability to do more. And that is important1898because more needs to be done.1899 Technology is that secret sauce to the American economy,1900and it can be leveraged to improve infrastructure, the1901companies regulated by it, and the regulator itself. Aii does1902not advocate for deregulation, but it supports smarter1903regulations that empower innovation and increase efficiency and1904resilience of the infrastructure while protecting communities1905and ensuring tax dollars are wisely spent.1906 Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I commend1907your bipartisan leadership and the work, the important work,1908that you all are doing. This hearing is a step toward building1909a regulatory framework that reflects America's capacity for1910innovation and responsibility. Thank you again for the1911opportunity to contribute, and I look forward to your1912questions.1913 [Mr. McCown's prepared statement follows:]19141915 Prepared Statement of Brigham A. McCown, Founder and Chairman of the1916 Board of Directors, Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure1917 Executive Summary1918 This testimony presents both personal insights and research1919findings regarding the limitations of the current Federal Railroad1920Administration (FRA) regulatory framework and waiver process. Key1921points include:1922 Approximately 70% of Class I railroads submitted FRA1923waivers in recent years involved relief from rules restricting modern1924safety technologies.1925 Approximately 40% of those applicants experienced delays1926beyond 180 days.1927 In Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. FRA (2023), the Fifth1928Circuit ruled FRA's waiver denials were ``arbitrary and capricious.''1929 Aii identifies opportunities for Congress and FRA to1930modernize the framework through objective standards, increased1931transparency, and timeline accountability, building on the intent of1932the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act and the intent of draft1933Railway Safety legislation.1934 I. Introduction1935 Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the1936Subcommittee:1937 Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name1938is Brigham McCown, and I appear before you today in my capacity as the1939Chair of the Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure (Aii). Aii is1940an independent, non-partisan think tank dedicated to advancing1941pragmatic, data-informed solutions with a goal of advancing1942infrastructure safety and efficiency across the United States.1943 Aii has written several white papers and policy briefs on1944innovation, safety, and regulatory reform for rail transportation in1945recent years and produced dozens of additional reports and resources on1946U.S. transportation and infrastructure systems. We create independent1947and objective analysis to achieve the best outcomes for public safety,1948infrastructure resilience, and innovation. Issues like the one before1949this committee today are precisely the reason I founded Aii over ten1950years ago.1951 The topic of this hearing, how America builds, raises a critical1952and timely point: the nation's regulatory infrastructure must evolve in1953parallel with our physical infrastructure. While our transportation1954systems have benefited from dramatic technological advances, our1955regulatory framework has not kept pace. Legacy rules and outdated1956procedures, particularly around the Federal Railroad Administration's1957waiver and inspection systems, may hinder rather than help efforts to1958improve rail safety. This hearing offers a valuable opportunity to1959consider how the federal government can modernize its regulatory1960approach to reflect today's capabilities and tomorrow's needs.1961 Today, I will share findings from Aii's most recent report, Driving1962Regulatory Innovation for Safer Railroading \1\. The report examines1963the current limitations of FRA's waiver process and regulatory1964structure and identifies potential reforms to support the safe1965integration of modern technologies, particularly Automated Track1966Inspection (ATI), into the national rail safety framework.1967---------------------------------------------------------------------------1968 \1\ https://www.aii.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Driving-1969Regulatory-Innovation-for-Safer-Railroading.pdf1970---------------------------------------------------------------------------1971 II. The Stakes: Why Reform Matters1972 Rail transportation is vital to the American economy, and the1973safety of our network must remain at the forefront. Yet the current1974regulatory framework under which the FRA operates remains rooted in an1975era before the emergence of technologies such as sensor-based defect1976detection, data-driven condition monitoring, and AI-supported1977inspections.1978 Aii's analysis shows that over the past five years, approximately197970 percent of Class I railroads submitted waiver applications to FRA1980related to the use of advanced safety technologies. Approximately 401981percent of those experienced delays longer than 180 days, with many1982decisions lacking detailed technical justification.1983 These regulatory bottlenecks have not only slowed innovation, but1984they have also drawn legal scrutiny. In Union Pacific Railroad Co. v.1985Federal Railroad Administration (2023) \2\, the U.S. Court of Appeals1986for the Fifth Circuit ruled that FRA's denial of ATI waivers was1987``arbitrary and capricious'' under the Administrative Procedure Act.1988The Court concluded that the FRA failed to meaningfully evaluate safety1989data already in its possession and failed to articulate a clear1990rationale for preferring visual inspections over technology-based1991alternatives. This ruling reinforced stakeholder concerns that FRA's1992waiver decisions often lack transparency, analytical rigor, and data-1993driven reasoning.1994---------------------------------------------------------------------------1995 \2\ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/22-19963648/22-3648-2024-08-20.html1997---------------------------------------------------------------------------1998 III. FRA's Proposed Rule and Observed Regulatory Gaps1999 FRA's October 2024 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on ATI reflects a2000formal recognition that modernization is needed \3\. Aii's review finds2001that while the rule introduces structured considerations for ATI, it2002largely preserves a prescriptive posture that may limit flexibility to2003deploy emerging technologies.2004---------------------------------------------------------------------------2005 \3\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/23/2024-200630595/track-geometry-2007measurement-system-tgms-inspections-extension-of-comment-period2008---------------------------------------------------------------------------2009 For example, the proposal would continue to require a baseline2010level of manual visual inspections, even where ATI has demonstrated2011greater detection performance. Data analyzed by Aii suggests ATI2012systems outperform manual inspections in identifying geometry defects2013in several test environments.2014 Current waiver criteria still rely heavily on broad statutory terms2015such as ``public interest'' or ``consistent with rail safety.'' Aii's2016findings suggest that the use of more objective evaluation standards,2017such as quantifiable safety outcomes, operational efficiency, and2018third-party validation, could improve clarity and consistency.2019 Transparency also remains limited. While the proposed rule provides2020an avenue for stakeholder input, it does not commit to publishing2021Railroad Safety Board member identities, voting records, or technical2022rationales. Aii notes that increasing transparency may build public2023trust and institutional accountability.2024 Timeliness continues to be an issue. Aii observed that2025approximately 40 percent of relevant Class I railroads experienced2026waivers with significant delays. Structured timelines, especially those2027aligned with validated safety data, may help ensure the timely2028integration of modern technologies.2029 These findings reflect broader provisions within the Infrastructure2030Investments and Jobs Act (IIJA) \4\, which instructs the FRA to act2031within defined timeframes and reassess frequently waived regulations.2032Aii's analysis indicates that a structured waiver review trigger, such2033as three waivers granted on the same provision, could provide a pathway2034for proactive modernization consistent with legislative intent.\5\2035---------------------------------------------------------------------------2036 \4\ See https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/20373684/text and2038 https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2022-12/2039Guidance%20on%20Submitting%20Waiver2040%20Special%20Approval%20Other%20Requests%20for%20Approval%20to%20FRA%20%204128Dec2042%202022%29%20final.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com.2043 \5\ Aii Report Recommendation 5, p. 16.2044---------------------------------------------------------------------------2045 IV. Lessons from Other Modal Agencies in DOT:2046 The FRA is not the first agency to encounter tension between safety2047mandates and the pace of technological change. During my federal2048service, I was involved in the creation of the Pipeline and Hazardous2049Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Integrity Management Program.2050That initiative moved PHMSA away from rigid compliance checklists and2051toward a performance-based model grounded in risk assessment and2052verifiable safety metrics.2053 The results were significant. Between 2014 and 2024, hazardous2054liquid pipeline incidents decreased by 36 percent, even as mileage and2055throughput increased. Notably, these improvements coincided with2056stricter incident reporting standards, ruling out underreporting as the2057cause. This suggests that performance-based frameworks can enable2058innovation while enhancing safety.2059 These principles, clearly defined performance goals, flexibility in2060achieving them, and strong oversight, may also be applicable to the2061rail sector. The PHMSA model demonstrates that federal regulators can2062embrace modernization without sacrificing their safety mission.2063 V. Observed Regulatory Opportunities2064 Based on Aii's research and policy analysis, several areas appear2065to offer Congress and the FRA avenues for enhancing the effectiveness2066of the waiver and rulemaking processes:2067 The Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act provisions on2068waiver timeliness could be further supported by clearer deadlines and2069agency accountability mechanisms.2070 Evaluation of waivers may benefit from the use of2071quantifiable performance metrics, rather than broad or subjective2072terminology.2073 Public transparency in waiver decisions, such as the2074release of voting records and technical justifications, could2075strengthen public confidence.2076 In instances where ATI or other validated technologies2077consistently meet or exceed safety standards, there may be grounds to2078reassess the need for parallel manual inspection requirements.2079 Patterns of recurring waivers could be used to signal2080that existing rules may no longer reflect technological or operational2081realities.20822083 These findings are intended to support ongoing oversight and2084bipartisan efforts to modernize the regulatory framework without2085compromising safety or accountability.2086 VI. Conclusion: A Legislative Opportunity to Modernize Rail Safety2087 The current regulatory structure, while rooted in safety, was2088designed for a different era. It does not fully accommodate the tools2089and technologies available today. Aii's research highlights examples2090where validated innovations have faced delays or denial under existing2091procedures, despite measurable safety benefits.2092 Congress, through mechanisms such as the proposed Railway Safety2093bills and future surface transportation reauthorization, can build a2094regulatory framework that is both rigorous and adaptable. Observed2095outcomes in other transportation sectors suggest that performance-2096based, transparent models can enhance safety, accelerate innovation,2097and strengthen public trust.2098 I thank this Subcommittee for its continued, bipartisan attention2099to these issues. Your leadership in oversight and modernization efforts2100reflects a deep commitment to improving transportation safety and2101resilience.2102 On behalf of the Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure and the2103professionals who support our work, thank you for the opportunity to2104contribute to today's hearing. I welcome your questions and the2105opportunity to support further dialogue on these important issues.21062107 Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much. Now, Mr.2108Gebhardt, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your testimony.21092110TESTIMONY OF ERIC GEBHARDT, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF2111 TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, WABTEC, ON BEHALF OF THE RAILWAY SUPPLY2112 INSTITUTE21132114 Mr. Gebhardt. Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and2115members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to2116appear today. I am Eric Gebhardt. I am the executive vice2117president and chief technology officer of the Wabtec2118Corporation, testifying on behalf of the Railway Supply2119Institute.2120 Wabtec's commitment to innovation stretches back to George2121Westinghouse's 1869 invention of the automatic airbrake. And2122today, our 29,000-person global workforce, including 12,0002123U.S. employees, helps move roughly one-fifth of the world's2124freight through our locomotives, braking systems, and digital2125platforms. RSI's more than 200 member companies support tens of2126thousands of American jobs and share a mission of advancing2127safety, innovation, and network efficiency across the rail2128system. For Wabtec, that mission comes to life through three2129pillars of modernization: accident prevention, asset health2130monitoring, and network utilization.2131 For accident prevention, Wabtec's Interoperable Electronic2132Train Management System and Positive Train Control continuously2133monitor train location and speed on more than 24,000 North2134American locomotives, preventing train-to-train collisions,2135overspeed derailments, work zone incursions, and movements2136through misaligned switches. Our enhanced wayside asset2137communications support real-time information exchange for2138automatic train control and early hazard warnings, creating an2139integrated digital safety net. This integrated approach gives2140railroads and regulators the tools to prevent and mitigate2141accidents, and exemplifies how Wabtec and the broader RSI2142membership are turning continuous improvements into concrete2143safety gains.2144 Wabtec and RSI have been at the forefront of deploying2145asset health monitoring and predictive maintenance systems.2146Preventing the next incident means spotting defects early.2147Wabtec's kinetics inspection technologies combine machine2148vision, laser scanning, acoustic and thermal sensing, and AI2149analytics to assess the condition of locomotives, freight cars,2150and track components. Onboard diagnostics track vibration, fuel2151flow, and pressure against fleet baselines to predict component2152fatigue, while railcar telematics turn freight cars into2153connected assets that broadcast mileage, impact shocks, and2154handbrake status. By shifting from calendar-based to condition-2155based maintenance, railroads reduce failures and keep equipment2156in service longer.2157 For network utilization, Wabtec's trip optimizer and EPA-2158certified smart cruise control calculates an optimal speed2159profile and automatically manages throttle and dynamic brakes,2160delivering about 10 percent fuel savings and more than 4002161million gallons conserved to date. Complementing trip2162optimizer, real-time planning solutions optimize the train2163network to unlock additional mainline capacity. And cloud-based2164yard management platforms trim idle time and the on-foot2165exposure that causes many yard injuries.2166 The Tier 4 modernized locomotives reinforce these digital2167tools, achieving 76 percent lower NOx, 70 percent lower2168particulate matter, and up to 30 percent better fuel economy2169than previous generations. To maintain this progress, we2170respectfully recommend three Federal actions.2171 One, sustain and grow Federal investments, particularly the2172CRISI program, with dedicated set-asides for digital safety and2173advanced inspection platforms so railroads of all sizes can2174accelerate deployment of these critical technologies.2175 Two, expand FRA research, development, demonstration, and2176deployment capabilities to advance AI-enabled inspections,2177collision avoidance systems, and alternative fuel locomotives.2178 And three, modernize and streamline regulatory processes so2179that technologies with proven risk reduction benefits can move2180more quickly to demonstration and widespread use.2181 In conclusion, modern technology has become an2182indispensable driver of rail safety, reliability, and2183efficiency. These improvements protect our communities,2184strengthen supply chains, and fuel economic growth. Wabtec2185Corporation, together with RSI and its member companies, is2186committed to advancing the next generation of lifesaving and2187efficiency-enhancing technologies. We appreciate congressional2188support through past initiatives, and we believe continued2189partnership is crucial.2190 On behalf of Wabtec and RSI, thank you for the opportunity2191to testify, and I look forward to your questions.2192 [Mr. Gebhardt's prepared statement follows:]21932194Prepared Statement of Eric Gebhardt, Executive Vice President and Chief2195 Technology Officer, Wabtec, on behalf of the Railway Supply Institute2196 Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the2197Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's2198hearing on rail innovation and technology. My name is Eric Gebhardt,2199and I serve as Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of2200Wabtec Corporation. I appear this morning on behalf of the Railway2201Supply Institute (RSI), the trade association representing nearly 2002202manufacturers, component suppliers, and technology companies that2203support America's freight and passenger railroads. Together, RSI's2204members have more than 725 rail supply locations in 46 states and 2772205congressional districts. RSI represents an industry that has over 1.62206million railcars drawn by more than 28,000 locomotives on 140,000 miles2207of rail. They design, build, and maintain the equipment, digital2208systems, and services that advance the mission of safety, innovation,2209technology, and sustainability within the rail industry.2210 Rail is vital to our nation's economy and mobility. It is also one2211of the safest modes of transportation--and technology has been central2212to achieving that record. In my testimony today, I will discuss how2213modern rail technology is not only optimizing operations but also2214saving lives and ensuring a more reliable rail network, and suggest2215policy steps to sustain this progress.2216 Wabtec's Legacy and Global Impact2217 Wabtec's history is deeply rooted in rail innovation, dating back2218to its founding in 1869 with a breakthrough that fundamentally improved2219rail safety: the invention of the automatic air brake by our founder,2220George Westinghouse. Wabtec has built on this heritage of innovation,2221and today operates in over 50 countries with a workforce of over222229,000, including 12,000 in the United States. With the combined2223expertise of legacy Wabtec, GE Transportation, and others, the company2224has unmatched engineering and digital capabilities and a portfolio2225spanning from locomotives, braking systems, digital solutions, and2226propulsion technologies that enhance the performance of rail networks2227worldwide.2228 Wabtec plays a key role in advancing rail infrastructure through2229strategic partnerships, acquisitions, and investment in emerging2230technologies. Wabtec's commitment to research and development ensures2231that the rail industry continues to evolve to meet the needs of modern2232transportation. Beyond North America, Wabtec has a significant presence2233in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and Australia. This2234international footprint enables Wabtec to leverage global best2235practices and collaborate with rail operators worldwide to drive2236advancements in transportation systems and rail networks. Despite2237increasing competition from foreign manufacturers, Wabtec remains a2238leader in locomotive and transit solutions by investing in proprietary2239technology and maintaining strong partnerships with international rail2240authorities. In an era where global rail infrastructure is rapidly2241evolving, Wabtec continues to provide innovative solutions that keep it2242at the forefront of the industry.2243 Representing the Rail Supply Community2244 While my testimony highlights Wabtec capabilities, I speak for a2245much wider coalition of suppliers, large multinationals and specialty2246shops alike, whose innovations span everything from castings and2247fasteners to machine-vision inspection portals and cloud-based2248dispatching software. In 2020, the rail supply industry directly2249employed almost 240,000 workers, who contributed $27.7 billion of2250value-added economic activity across the U.S. When the direct,2251indirect, and induced contributions of the sector's activities are2252combined, the U.S. rail supply industry's total economic impact was2253$75.8 billion of GDP, 682,000 jobs, $49.0 billion of labor income, and2254$15.5 billion in taxes.2255 Collectively, RSI members:2256 Deliver the critical hardware and software that Class I,2257short line, and passenger railroads rely upon to meet federal safety2258standards; and2259 Anchor an American industrial base that faces rising2260foreign competition yet remains indispensable to resilient domestic2261supply chains.22622263 A shared commitment to rail safety and innovation binds the entire2264RSI community. Wabtec approaches this critical issue through the lens2265of a global locomotive and digital solutions supplier charged with2266turning concept into deployable technology. Building on three domains:22671) accident prevention, 2) asset health awareness, and 3) network2268utilization, our engineers translate industry needs into scalable2269hardware and software that railroads can utilize today.2270 Accident Prevention2271 Accident prevention in today's rail network is built on a system of2272in-cab, train handling, and wayside technologies supplied by Wabtec and2273other RSI members.2274 Wabtec's positive train control technology (PTC), the Interoperable2275Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS) is a safety overlay that2276continuously monitors train location and speed and will intervene to2277prevent accidents. This system is now installed on more than 24,0002278North American locomotives across all Class I freight railroads and2279many commuter lines. It is specifically designed to prevent train-to-2280train collisions, overspeed derailments, incursions into established2281work zones, and movements of trains through misaligned switches.2282 Additionally, wayside-to-asset communication systems offer numerous2283new benefits to enhance efficiency, safety, and overall performance. A2284robust communication system enables real-time information exchange2285between trains and the wayside infrastructure. This allows for enhanced2286safety features, such as automatic train control, collision avoidance2287systems, and early warning mechanisms for potential hazards.2288 This integrated approach gives railroads and regulators tools to2289prevent and mitigate accidents, and it exemplifies how Wabtec and the2290broader RSI membership are turning continuous improvement into concrete2291safety gains.2292 Asset-Health Monitoring2293 In addition to train control, Wabtec and RSI have been at the2294forefront of deploying asset health monitoring and predictive2295maintenance systems. Preventing the next derailment requires seeing the2296earliest signs of mechanical trouble. Wabtec is a pioneer in the2297inspection and monitoring of rail assets to improve safety through our2298KinetiX Inspection Technologies portfolio. These technologies focus on2299the rail vehicles and infrastructure themselves--using sensors,2300analytics, and connectivity to continuously assess the condition of2301locomotives, freight cars, and track components. By detecting emerging2302problems early, asset monitoring systems allow railroads to fix issues2303proactively before they lead to failures, accidents, or service delays.2304 Integrating machine vision, laser scanning, remote sensing with2305acoustic and thermal technology, load monitoring, and AI-driven2306analytics, the technology sets the standard for automating inspection2307processes, enhancing asset availability and life, significantly2308reducing operational costs and service disruptions. This is about being2309proactive rather than reactive: finding the tiny warning signs in2310mountains of data and acting on them, instead of waiting for something2311to go wrong.2312 Wabtec's artificial intelligence capabilities facilitate predictive2313maintenance, minimizing unplanned downtime and improving asset2314utilization. By integrating AI-driven diagnostics with real-time2315monitoring, we help railroads reduce mechanical failures and increase2316train reliability. For example, our Railcar Telematics portfolio2317includes state-of-the-art sensors that turn freight cars into smart2318connected assets that allow operators and shippers to see the GPS2319location of freight and better manage the safety and maintenance of the2320fleet.2321 This improved fleet reliability means higher network utilization--2322railroads can use their locomotives and cars more effectively and2323schedule trains with more confidence that each trip will go as planned.2324It also reduces maintenance costs over time, since repairs can be2325scheduled optimally and asset life is extended by fixing issues before2326they cause damage. In short, modern asset health monitoring is making2327rail operations more predictable, efficient, and safe. It exemplifies2328how digital technology and big data analytics are being harnessed to2329tackle age-old challenges of railroad maintenance and safety.2330 Network Utilization2331 The examples of PTC and asset health monitoring all underscore a2332fundamental point: modern technology is the key to taking rail safety2333and efficiency to the next level. These innovations prevent accidents,2334optimize operations, and improve asset health in ways that were not2335possible with traditional methods. They complement the skill and2336experience of railroad workers with precise automation and data-driven2337insight, resulting in safer and more productive railroads.2338 These safety gains are compounded when trains flow smoothly through2339the network. For example, Wabtec's Trip Optimizer is a smart cruise2340control system for trains certified by the U.S. EPA to deliver 10% fuel2341savings. Considering the terrain, train make-up, speed restrictions,2342and operating conditions, it calculates an optimum speed profile. It2343can automatically control the locomotive throttle and dynamic brakes to2344reduce fuel burn and provide efficient train handling onboard2345locomotives. The system is installed on over 11,000 locomotives2346globally and has saved over 400 million gallons of fuel, cutting carbon2347emissions by over 500,000 tons annually. Based on the typical price for2348No. 2 diesel fuel, Wabtec has saved customers hundreds of millions of2349dollars in fuel expenses.2350 Similarly, real-time planning solutions optimize train scheduling2351and improve network throughput while reducing congestion and energy2352use. By leveraging predictive analytics and AI-enhanced decision-2353making, technologies enable freight and passenger trains to operate2354more efficiently within existing infrastructure. Even in rail yards,2355cloud-based yard management platforms can integrate inventory, switch2356lists, and crane operations to eliminate cascading delays that often2357ripple onto the main line. Improved yard fluidity through automation2358can lead to reduced idle times and locomotive fuel consumption. In2359addition, fewer yard conflicts translate directly into fewer human2360movements between tracks, a leading cause of injuries.2361 Hardware that underpins safer, cleaner operations2362 Freight and passenger rail operators across North America rely on2363Wabtec locomotives to deliver safe and reliable operations for our2364customers. Continuing to invest in new and modernized locomotives,2365along with the development of a portfolio of alternative fuel2366capabilities to meet a variety of operator needs, will be vital to the2367continued competitiveness of freight rail relative to other modes.2368 Freight Locomotives: Wabtec's Tier 4 locomotives2369represent the most advanced diesel-electric locomotives available2370today. These locomotives meet the Environmental Protection Agency's2371(EPA) stringent Tier 4 emissions standards, which require a 76%2372reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx) and a 70% reduction in particulate2373matter (PM) emissions, compared to previous generations. With over23741,000 Tier 4 locomotives in operation, Wabtec continues to set the2375standard for sustainable rail transportation. Railroads adopting these2376locomotives benefit from improved fuel efficiency and a reduced2377environmental footprint.23782379 Locomotive Modernization Programs: Wabtec modernizes2380aging locomotive fleets to extend their operational life while2381incorporating the latest efficiency and safety enhancements. These2382efforts have resulted in up to 30% improvement in fuel efficiency and a2383more than 50% increase in haulage ability.23842385 Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Technologies: Wabtec is2386investing in hybrid-electric and alternative fuel technologies to2387support a range of next-generation propulsion technologies. The2388development of fuel-flexible, battery-electric and hydrogen internal2389combustion engine locomotives represents a significant step toward2390implementing innovative technology solutions and increasing energy2391efficiency within the rail sector.2392 Policy recommendations2393 Thanks to sustained private sector and federal investment in rail2394technology, the industry has made great strides. We have seen the2395virtual elimination of certain types of collisions and derailments2396through PTC; we have dramatically cut fuel waste and emissions through2397smart automation; and we are catching maintenance issues long before2398they would historically have been discovered. All of this translates2399into a stronger rail network that can transport more goods, more2400safely, and at a lower cost. With freight demand expected to grow and2401with heightened attention on supply chain resilience, these technology-2402driven gains are more important than ever--they help railroads handle2403growth while maintaining the highest safety standards and reliability.2404 But continued progress is not automatic. It depends on ongoing2405innovation and deployment of new technologies across the industry.2406Railroads, suppliers, and government must work together to ensure that2407we fully leverage the latest advances (such as artificial intelligence2408for inspection, or automation for operational efficiency) and that we2409do so without undue delay.2410 To promote rail safety and efficiency through technology, we2411encourage Congress to:2412 1. Sustain and grow grant programs, particularly the Consolidated2413Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program, with2414dedicated set-asides for digital safety and advanced inspection2415platforms. With the growing adoption of life-saving and efficiency-2416enhancing innovations by railroads of all sizes, these federal programs2417have been critical to accelerating the deployment of these technologies2418nationwide.24192420 2. Expand research, development, demonstration, and deployment of2421next-generation rail technologies. Increasing the FRA's research and2422development budget and establishing public-private partnership programs2423will help drive the next wave of innovation--for example, advancements2424in artificial intelligence for track and equipment inspection,2425autonomous or remotely operated trains for certain applications,2426enhanced cybersecurity for rail systems, and energy-efficient2427technologies.24282429 3. Modernize and streamline regulatory processes so that railroads2430can more readily, test, evaluate, and adopt new safety technologies.2431Current regulations, while well-intentioned for safety, can sometimes2432be inflexible or overly prescriptive, inadvertently hindering the2433adoption of improved technologies.2434 Conclusion2435 In conclusion, modern technology has become an indispensable driver2436of rail safety, reliability, and efficiency. These improvements benefit2437everyone--they protect our communities, make our supply chains more2438efficient, and help our economy grow. Wabtec Corporation, together with2439the Railway Supply Institute and its member companies, is committed to2440developing technologies that move the needle on safety and performance.2441We appreciate the support Congress has shown through past initiatives,2442and we believe continued partnership is crucial. By sustaining2443investment in rail technology deployment, supporting research and2444pilots, and modernizing the regulatory framework, Congress can help the2445rail industry deploy the next generation of life-saving, efficiency-2446enhancing technologies. On behalf of Wabtec and RSI, I want to thank2447the Committee for the opportunity to provide this testimony. We look2448forward to working with you to ensure our nation's rail network remains2449the safest and most efficient in the world. I am happy to answer any2450questions you may have.24512452 Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much. Now, Mr.2453Cardwell, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your testimony.24542455 TESTIMONY OF TONY CARDWELL, PRESIDENT, BROTHERHOOD OF2456MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD2457 OF TEAMSTERS24582459 Mr. Cardwell. Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and2460members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to2461speak with you today. My name is Tony Cardwell, and I am the2462president of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes2463Division of the International Teamsters. I was elected to lead2464our national union in 2022. BMWED members are the railroad2465workers who build and maintain the tracks, bridges, buildings,2466and other critical infrastructure that support both freight and2467passenger rail service across the United States.2468 I began my railroad career when I was hired by the Union2469Pacific Railroad, and I have 25 years of seniority on the2470Oregon division. Throughout my career, I have witnessed2471firsthand the industry's evolution, particularly in areas such2472as safety, technology, and innovation.2473 A common misconception is that the unions are2474antitechnology. Let me be clear: The BMWED is not2475antitechnology. We support innovation when it improves safety2476for the general public and enhances the working conditions of2477our members.2478 In BMWED's 138-year history, we have consistently embraced2479significant technological advancements in the rail industry,2480especially when those changes have made the railroad safer for2481the communities we serve. As president of the BMWED, I2482negotiate agreements with the railroads. We understand that in248350 years, railroad work will look far different.2484 What I will not do is trade safety for convenience or allow2485the railroads to do so in the name of chasing the latest piece2486of technology. No advancement is worth risking the safety of2487the constituents you serve and the communities where our2488members work and live. Nearly 2 years after the East Palestine2489disaster, the railroads' lobbyists are once again putting2490safety on the line. This time, they are targeting the safety-2491sensitive work my members perform, seeking to weaken inspection2492standards in order to satisfy Wall Street's short-term2493expectations.2494 BMWED's track inspectors perform FRA-mandated visual2495inspections of railroad track twice a week. During these2496inspections, they look for 27 different variations of track2497defects. ATI cannot find 73 percent of track defects, 732498percent. As we speak here today, the Association of American2499Railroads, on behalf of the Class I railroads, is asking the2500FRA for a safety waiver that would reduce the frequency of2501these inspections by 75 percent, cutting them from twice a week2502to just twice a month. The same waiver would allow railroads up2503to 72 hours to address a defect after it is identified. Under2504current FRA regulations, human track inspections are required2505to remedy the defect immediately.2506 Allowing trains carrying passengers or hazardous materials2507to travel over compromised track for up to 3 days is an2508unacceptable risk. We fully support the use of ATI to2509supplement visual inspections, not to eliminate them. ATI2510cannot replace the work that track inspectors perform. It only2511identifies one category of defects, which is track geometry. It2512cannot detect 73 percent of derailment-causing defects such as2513broken rails, numerous switch defects, loose bolts, and many2514more.2515 If the railroads succeed in securing this waiver, rail2516safety will be significantly weakened. We will see more2517derailments, some of which could be as catastrophic as East2518Palestine or even worse. Imagine if an event like that were to2519happen in the heart of the districts you represent. That is why2520BMWED has launched a national campaign to oppose this waiver.2521We believe it would be devastating to our constituents and the2522safety of rail workers.2523 We are grateful for the support of Ranking Members Larsen2524and Titus and urge all Members of Congress to join us in2525standing against this proposal.2526 While a track defect did not cause the East Palestine2527derailment, Norfolk Southern failed to give carmen workers2528inspecting the train enough time to do their jobs. East2529Palestine was a tragic reminder of the FRA mandate inspections.2530Whether of track, signal systems, railcars, locomotives, or2531grade crossings, they are all essential. They all matter. The2532East Palestine derailment should have been avoided. My message2533to the railroads and the companies developing rail technology2534is simple: Partner with us to get it right.2535 We are not opposed to innovation or technological change.2536However, it must be implemented in a way that safeguards the2537communities across the country where our members work and live.2538I want to be extremely clear. BMWED will not stand by if2539waivers are accepted and place you and your constituents at2540risk. If the AAR waiver is granted, it will expose the American2541people to imminent danger.2542 At a time like this, we should be reminded of the words of2543the Holy Bible, Ezekiel 33:6: ``But if the watchman sees the2544enemy coming and does not sound the alarm to warn the people,2545he is responsible for their death.'' We see the dangers coming.2546We are sounding the alarm. The question before you now is, Will2547the warning be heard?2548 Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.2549 [Mr. Cardwell's prepared statement follows:]25502551 Prepared Statement of Tony Cardwell, President, Brotherhood of2552 Maintenance of Way Employes Division, International Brotherhood of2553 Teamsters2554 Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the2555Subcommittee:2556 Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee.2557My name is Tony Cardwell, and I am the President of the Brotherhood of2558Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED) of the International2559Brotherhood of Teamsters. I became the National President of BMWED in25602022. Before I was elected President, I was a General Chairman of the2561Union Pacific Railroad in Oregon, where I have 25 years as a BMWED2562track worker and have seen up close the changes in the railroad2563industry over the years as it relates to safety, technology, and2564innovation.2565 Background about BMWED2566 BMWED is a national union representing the workers who build and2567maintain the tracks, bridges, buildings, and other structures on2568passenger and freight railroads in the United States. BMWED represents2569members on all six Class I freight railroads, Amtrak, most commuter2570rail systems, and several unionized short lines (most short lines are2571not unionized).2572 BMWED members play critical roles in maintaining rail tracks, rail2573bridges, and overhead electric catenary systems that provide power to2574trains. BMWED members inspect track to ensure it is free of defects,2575maintain overhead rail catenary primarily from Washington, D.C. to New2576York along the Northeast Corridor, and provide protection to workers2577working in the railroad right of way so that they don't get killed or2578injured by oncoming trains, track cars, machines or motor vehicles2579crossing grade crossings.2580 BMWED is one of the oldest unions in the United States and was2581founded in 1887 in Demopolis, Alabama. In 2004, the BMWED merged with2582the Teamsters and is now part of the International Brotherhood of2583Teamsters.2584 For Nearly 140 Years, BMWED Has Welcomed Innovations That Advance2585 Safety2586 Importantly, BMWED is not ``anti-technology.'' On the contrary, we2587are advocates of responsible use of technology when it improves the2588working lives of our members and more so when it makes the railways2589safer. In BMWED's 138-year history, there have been significant2590technological improvements in the rail industry that BMWED has2591embraced, particularly when it has helped our members and/or provided a2592safer railroad.2593 Some examples include:2594 Mechanization and Hydraulics: When the railroads were first created2595in the 1800s, Maintenance of Way crews lifted heavy rails and railroad2596ties manually, using their brute strength, heavy steel lining bars, and2597teamwork to get the job done, which was slow and dangerous work--many2598rail workers were severely injured in the process--but it also limited2599how much could be accomplished in a single shift.2600 Initial technological advances brought heavy equipment that used2601pulleys and cables, alleviating some of the brute force needed for rail2602construction. However, ultimately, the introduction of hydraulic2603systems revolutionized the industry. The backhoe's introduction2604replaced many exhausting and injury-prone processes by bringing2605hydraulic lifting power and mechanical precision into the equation.2606Backhoes could lift, place, and move materials with far less physical2607strain with the right attachments. Hydraulic and specialized track2608equipment were built to advance and allow machines to lay rail, pull2609spikes, drive spikes, and pullout and insert ties. Whereas workers2610might have only been able to install 200 ties a day manually, they can2611now install up to 1000 ties daily with the new equipment. For BMWED's2612workforce, this meant adapting to new labor requiring equipment2613training, spatial awareness, and mechanical problem-solving. Indeed,2614for some time, the introduction of hydraulic mechanization did2615eliminate some jobs, but it also changed the skills our members needed2616and, in the process, created new jobs. BMWED members successfully2617adapted and today operate this equipment daily.2618 Track (Production) Tamper: Track ballast is the material that forms2619the track-bed upon which railroad ties are laid on top of. Ballast is2620critical to ensure tracks remain stable vertically and horizontally as2621trains operate over them and that water is drained correctly away from2622tracks so railroad ties do not rot. Ballast is usually made of stone or2623gravel; the material you see underneath railroad tracks. Historically,2624Maintenance of Way workers relied on manual labor and tools such as2625track jacks, lining bars, and tamping picks to compact ballast beneath2626the ties and adjust the track's alignment. This process was labor2627intensive, took time, and often yielded uneven results.2628 The introduction of the mechanized Production Tamper changed the2629rail industry by replacing the hard, manual work of hand tamping with a2630faster and more precise way to maintain track elevation and alignment.2631When the tempers came along, railroad workers could lift, line, and2632tamp the track all at once, making it easier to keep trains running2633smoothly and safely. For Maintenance of Way employees, this meant2634learning how to operate heavy equipment, understand hydraulic and2635electronic systems, and troubleshoot on the fly. Instead of pushing2636back against the change, they leaned into it and added a new layer of2637technical skill to their work. Today, BMWED workers operate track2638tampers daily. Production tampers are one of the most critical2639developments in railroad technology and are mainly responsible for the2640ability to increase the type and speeds of track on a universal basis2641while dramatically reducing the risks of derailment. This equipment2642continues advancements with lasers, touch screens, advanced2643diagnostics, and computer systems that genuinely improve the efficiency2644and safety of the entire railroad system.2645 Continuous Welding Rail: Historically, railroad tracks were laid2646using what is known as jointed rail. Jointed rail, as the name implies,2647were 39-foot track sections bolted at various points using joint bars2648and bolts to form long pieces of railroad track. Jointed rails are2649weakest at the points where the joint bars or bolts are and are prone2650to cracking or loosening at those spots, causing significant sway for2651the train car while undermining the track's integrity.2652 In 1933, the first segment of Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) was laid2653in the United States, marking the beginning of a transformative shift2654in track infrastructure. CWR is rail track that has been welded2655together into \1/4\ mile pieces. And, because it has been manually2656welded together, CWR does not contain joints or bolts that jointed a2657track has. Train rides are smoother and more stable with CWR, which2658decreases the risk of derailment and increases the life of the rail.2659 The use of CWR expanded significantly in the 1950s as railroads2660sought smoother rides, lower maintenance costs, and the ability to2661manage faster and heavier trains. As jointed rail was gradually phased2662out, Maintenance of Way employees adapted to the evolving technology by2663mastering thermite welding, understanding rail stress dynamics, and2664ensuring proper anchoring techniques. This transition elevated their2665responsibilities and skillsets, transforming Maintenance of Way work2666into a more technical and specialized craft essential to modern rail2667operations. Maintenance of Way employees create and install CWR daily.2668 As evidenced by the above examples, BMWED and its members have2669adapted successfully to significant technological change in the2670railroad industry. There is one common thread with the technology we2671have come to support: demonstrable safety improvement in some form.2672Crucially, in these instances, workers are still doing the work, even2673if they use machines. Maintenance of Way workers today still install2674railroad tracks, ties, and ballast daily, even though they use machines2675to install these track components, and these components have advanced,2676like how Continuous Welded Rail has largely replaced jointed tracks. In2677addition to creating a safer and more efficient railroad system, these2678machines have made Maintenance of Way workers' lives easier--it is hard2679to imagine going back to installing rails and railroad ties manually2680like it was done in the 1800s, given how taxing that approach is. But2681we still need humans to operate these machines--there are no self-2682operating backhoes or track tampers, for example. And that is likely2683going to be the case for years to come.2684 BMWED has consistently embraced technology because it has empowered2685our members to work safer and smarter while making our railroad network2686safer, which is in direct contrast with the actions of the railroad2687industry, which has recklessly pursued cost-cutting at the expense of2688safety and quality of service in the past decade. The industry has2689drastically reduced its workforce levels by over 30 percent to unsafe2690levels while relying on unproven technology that cannot replace the2691expertise and skills of the workers the railroads let go. Additionally,2692the railroads have sought safety waivers to regulations that are still2693needed, and the Association of American Railroads recently asked the2694Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to waive 80 more railroad safety2695regulations \1\, many of which are written in the blood of previous2696derailments and incidents that killed people, including rail workers,2697and caused irreparable injuries and damages. These safety waivers are2698what the railroads euphemistically call ``performance-based2699regulations''--all it means is no regulations.2700---------------------------------------------------------------------------2701 \1\ https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2025-0026-08292702---------------------------------------------------------------------------2703 BMWED and the Future of Technology2704 How we do railroad track or bridge inspections today will likely2705not be how we do it 50 years from now. BMWED wants to be a union that2706adapts to the changes and continues to perform all railroad2707construction work, including operating machines. Just as our members2708had to adapt by transitioning from manual labor to operating machines,2709the next generation of technology will likely require our members to2710become proficient in using artificial intelligence, analyzing multiple2711data sources from sensors, and operating even more sophisticated2712machinery, such as drones. BMWED members can make that transition if2713given the opportunity.2714 In my role as President, I negotiate agreements between BMWED and2715railroads. I want to negotiate with companies about developing and/or2716deploying the next generation of meaningful technology so that BMWED2717can be partners by having our workers utilize technology, and we can2718ensure that our workers are being trained to have the skills needed to2719use the technology.2720 For example, drones will continue to play an increasing role in2721railroad track and bridge inspections, such as inspecting hard-to-reach2722bridges and structures and conducting heat, high water, and track2723washout inspections following storms. Our members currently perform2724these inspections, and if the railroads transition to drone-based2725methods, we fully expect that this work will remain BMWED work.2726Consistent with long-standing principles under our collective2727bargaining agreements, the railroads must train their workforce when2728new technologies are introduced. We want BMWED members to be trained2729and certified to operate drones, and we are prepared to work with the2730railroads to implement programs that acquire the necessary equipment2731and support our members in obtaining the FAA licenses and2732certifications required for safe and legal drone operation.2733 Adjusting to new technology involves ensuring that workers receive2734the training necessary to adapt to and operate said new technology. For2735example, BMWED has had a long-standing interest in training our members2736to get commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) to do more tasks on the2737railroads that require heavy machinery since the amount of railroad2738operations involving trucks is rapidly increasing. Our collective2739bargaining agreements with the railroads pay our members who have CDLs2740a higher hourly wage, so by helping them get their CDLs, we can improve2741their economic standing. There have been some issues with federal grant2742eligibility, but we would like to work with Congress to make CDL2743training for railroad workers an eligible expense under the2744Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Grant Program2745(CRISI), so BMWED can apply for a federal grant through CRISI to do2746this CDL training.2747 Innovation works best when railroads and companies develop new2748technologies and work hand in hand with their workers and unions to2749identify problems and develop technological solutions. Railroad workers2750are on the front lines, and it makes good business sense to canvass2751workers who are intimately familiar with the technology they are using2752and can help spot problems in the field. Indeed, their feedback is2753invaluable. After all, our members are performing the work now and have2754valuable input on how that technology might best be deployed to improve2755the quality of work.2756 Despite over a century of continuous track maintenance and2757construction work through all the ebbs and flows of technology,2758railroads continue to resist engaging the BMWED in meaningful2759discussions about how new technology can be used to improve safety. Our2760collective bargaining agreements contain scope rules that govern the2761work our members perform, and under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), those2762agreements remain in effect until the parties agree to amend them. This2763work is reserved for BMWED-represented employees through decades of2764customary and historical performance. That means the railroads cannot2765unilaterally decide to shift safety-critical work away from our members2766without first bargaining with the BMWED and reaching an agreement.2767 When railroads explore new tools for track and bridge inspections,2768they should be collaborating with the workers who have been doing the2769work for decades. Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing. As2770outlined below, we have repeatedly tried to bargain over Automated2771Track Inspection (ATI), and the railroads have refused each time. We2772have also asked the Class I carriers to let our members fly drones to2773perform track and bridge inspections, which is work that is already2774core to the maintenance of way craft, just with different tools. To2775date, none of the carriers have agreed. This lack of engagement is a2776missed opportunity and a safety concern. The safest outcome will always2777come from combining experienced workers with emerging tools, not2778removing the workers entirely.2779 Technology should be used to make America's rail network safer and2780help skilled workers do their jobs more effectively. It should not be2781used to bypass the people who know the work or to undercut the2782agreements that have protected this work for generations. Railroads2783should work with the BMWED to deploy new technology to enhance safety,2784not sideline it.2785 Too often, we see labor unions and the workers they represent as2786excluded from developing and deploying new technology. It is notable to2787me that one of the witnesses testifying alongside me is from RailPulse.2788RailPulse has many stakeholders who are part of their initiative to2789develop a next-generation telematics platform for railcars. These2790partners include shippers, Class I railroads, short line railroads, and2791railcar operating lessors. To me, one prominent stakeholder is missing:2792labor. There is not a single labor union listed, and as far as I know,2793RailPulse has not approached any rail labor union to be part of the2794coalition or help develop the technology.2795 BMWED does not oppose RailPulse's technology, and we think better2796GPS technology on railcars can benefit shippers, workers, and other2797participants in the railroad industry. BMWED and our members may or may2798not be directly affected by RailPulse's technology. But I certainly2799would appreciate the opportunity to be part of the coalition working on2800the technology. And I know that several of my fellow rail unions would2801likewise want to be part of that coalition because RailPulse's2802technology will directly affect their members and their work. Some2803craft of railroad workers will have to ensure that those sensors on the2804rail cars are installed and maintained correctly, and the jobs of rail2805workers across different crafts are going to be affected by this2806technology, including the train crews that transport rail cars and the2807carmen that inspect rail cars for defects. They should be included in2808the development and deployment of this technology.2809 Over the last decade, the freight railroads have drastically2810reduced the training they provide to their workers. As mentioned above,2811programs like the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety2812Improvement (CRISI) program are invaluable because, uniquely under2813CRISI, rail unions are directly eligible to apply for CRISI grants.2814BMWED plans to apply for more CRISI grants to conduct workforce2815training for its members. Retaining unions' eligibility to apply for2816CRISI and expanding workforce development funding is one of BMWED's2817priorities in surface transportation reauthorization. This workforce2818development funding is critical to helping BMWED train our members to2819adapt to new technology in our industry so they are not left behind2820skills-wise.2821 We look forward to working with Congress on this issue.2822 No Existing Technologies Can Replace Trained Human Inspectors Capable2823 of Identifying the Full Range of Track Defects2824 Where technology and innovation can go off the rails and be2825dangerous is when railroads or other private companies attempt to2826prematurely use that technology to replace human workers even when2827technology cannot replicate, or come close to replicating, what a human2828worker can do. While technology and innovation can be a force for2829positive change, they cannot come at the expense of safety, and there2830must be regulations around the technology to ensure it functions2831properly. Gutting our long-standing safety regulations just because a2832delusive piece of new technology comes along is a recipe for disaster.2833 Unfortunately, BMWED is going through that exact fight with the2834Class I railroads now in their attempt to reduce visual track2835inspections by upwards of 75 percent from twice a week to twice a month2836and rely solely on a form of technology known as Track Geometry2837Measurement Systems (TGMS), which the railroads refer to as Automated2838Track Inspection or ATI. ATI cannot replace what a human track2839inspector does because it only inspects track alignment, elevation, and2840gauge. It does not inspect for track defects that cause a majority of2841track-caused derailments.2842 As background, the Federal Railroad Administration requires2843railroads to inspect their railroad tracks through visual track2844inspections twice a week for 23 different track defects, which is much2845more than the ATI can detect. Track defects are the second leading2846cause of rail derailments after human error, so it is essential to2847ensure that railroad tracks are free from defects. The worker who2848usually performs these visual track inspections is called a track2849inspector, and track inspectors are part of the BMWED union.2850 ATI is a technology that has been around since the 1970s. ATI is a2851machine run over railroad tracks that detect one type of track defect:2852track geometry defects. Track geometry refers to the geometric2853properties of the track, including how wide the track is (track gauge)2854and any curvature of the track. These track geometry defects account2855for just six of the 23 defects FRA requires railroads to inspect. ATI2856cannot detect defects like broken rails, rotten ties, washouts where2857the track has washed away, or obstructions in the right of way. ATI can2858only detect 26 percent of what a human track inspector can detect and,2859therefore, cannot replace human inspections. Moreover, ATI only detects2860defects, while track inspectors identify problems before they become2861defects.2862 Nothing in federal law or federal regulations also prevents the2863railroads from running any form of ATI, including TGMS, as much as they2864want. The railroads run ATI right now, and BMWED members operate some2865ATI machines.2866 Since the railroads have spread false information about this, BMWED2867supports using Automated Track Inspection technology, including TGMS,2868because it can detect certain track geometry defects better than the2869human eye. However, BMWED supports using ATI technology on top of the2870existing level of visual inspections, NOT as a replacement for those2871visual inspections.2872 The Association of American Railroads is seeking a safety waiver2873from the FRA on behalf of its Class I railroads to reduce visual2874inspections by 75 percent to twice a month and solely rely on ATI as a2875replacement for track inspections.2876 Last year, the FRA proposed a rule requiring railroads to run ATI a2877few times yearly while keeping the same level of visual track2878inspections (twice weekly). BMWED supported this proposed rule,2879including the proposed ATI requirement. BMWED would still like to see2880the FRA finalize this proposed rule.2881 AAR and the Short lines (ASLRRA) opposed the proposed rule,2882claiming that running ATI 3-4 times a year was ``too onerous,'' even2883though AAR has falsely claimed for years that they could not run ATI on2884the railroads. From BMWED's perspective, AAR's comments in opposition2885to the proposed rule show that this fight is not about ATI if the2886railroads are opposing a requirement to run ATI at specific intervals,2887but rather about the railroad's attempts to reduce visual track2888inspections because they want to cut back on costs, no matter the cost2889to safety.2890 As Maintenance of Way workers, we take track defects extremely2891seriously. In AAR's requested safety waiver, the industry wants to wait2892up to 72 hours to take corrective action for track geometry track2893defects found by ATI machines for upwards of 72 hours. This delay is in2894comparison to the current federal requirements that a track defect2895found by a human track inspector must be corrected immediately,2896including if it is a defect that an ATI machine can also find. What AAR2897seeks in their safety waiver would effectively result in passenger2898trains carrying people or freight trains carrying hazardous materials2899running over defective tracks. The consequences of allowing a defect to2900go unaddressed for up to three days could be yet another derailment2901that kills or severely injures people and causes irreparable damage to2902communities near railroad tracks. That raises significant safety2903concerns.2904 Comments are due July 9th to the FRA about AAR's proposed safety2905waiver to reduce visual track inspections by 75 percent. Now is not the2906time to be going backward on rail safety when there are hundreds of2907train derailments and accidents every year, any of which could be the2908next East Palestine. BMWED urges Congress to oppose AAR's proposed2909waiver because it is unsafe and will expose workers and communities to2910more train derailments, more deaths and injuries, and more property2911damage. We are grateful to Ranking Members Larsen and Titus for their2912support on this issue and ask every Member of Congress for their2913support on this issue as well.2914 ``Innovation'' and ``Deregulation'' are the Industry's Buzzwords for2915 Cutting Costs and Lowering Safety Standards2916 One of the other reasons we need to get innovation and technology2917right in the railroad industry is that safety in the railroad industry2918has stagnated and even gotten worse in many key safety metrics over the2919last decade. The Class Is' rate of total train accidents per million2920miles was 14.78 percent higher in 2024 than a decade ago in 2015,2921according to FRA data released in March of 2025. Even if you exclude2922highway-rail crossings, the rate of accidents was 8.25 percent higher2923in 2024 than in 2015. That increase in the incident rate is occurring2924even though Class Is ran 23 percent fewer train miles in 2024 than in29252015 (447 million vs 582 million). Using AAR's baseline, between 20052926and 2025, the railroads ran 31 percent fewer train miles. The2927industry's rate has increased despite running fewer trains with less2928frequency. So, the railroads are running way fewer trains, and safety2929is getting worse, not better.2930 Additionally, the number of employee-on-duty fatalities has2931remained constant over the last decade. There were seven fatalities in29322024 compared to eight in 2015, despite the number of employee hours2933decreasing 30.7 percent from 2015 to 2024. There are now significantly2934fewer employees in the industry, yet fatalities have not meaningfully2935improved compared to ten years ago.2936 More than 12,000 cities, small towns, and villages across our2937country have railroad tracks running through their communities. In29382024, approximately 500 cars carrying hazardous materials derailed or2939were damaged. Each accident risks the train workers and the communities2940that host railroad tracks. We expect better for an industry that has2941earned over $160 billion in profits over the last decade.2942 The East Palestine, Ohio derailment in 2023 showed the importance2943of human inspections in preventing derailments before they happen.2944Routine inspections of the different elements of the railroad system,2945including track, brake, rail car, and locomotives, are vital to2946ensuring there are no defects in any of those aspects of the rail2947system that could cause a derailment. The NTSB investigation found that2948the East Palestine derailment was caused by a wheel bearing on a rail2949car that overheated and was not caught in time. In a post-incident2950inspection, the FRA found that one out of four railcars in the East2951Palestine derailment had defects. The defects would have been2952identified and addressed if trained workers had thoroughly and2953physically inspected the railcars.2954 That inspection did not happen because Norfolk Southern (NS) and2955other Class I railroads are cutting back on the number of qualified2956Carmen, the craft that does these rail car inspections, by 40 percent2957since 2015. Additionally, NS and other Class I in recent years have2958limited the time that Carmen must inspect rail cars to 30 seconds per2959side of each rail car, and a train can hundreds of rail cars to inspect2960at one time. That time pressure prevents qualified and skilled workers2961from being able to do their jobs.2962 Even though NS had installed some technology called defect2963detectors that are supposed to detect defects before they happen, NS2964did not install enough defect detectors on the route that the East2965Palestine train was traveling on, so they were spaced too far about,2966and some of them were not working properly. Hence, the technology2967failed to do what it was supposed to do, which is another example of2968how technology cannot replace qualified workers in terms of safety.2969 Had NS had the proper level of Carmen and given them the time to do2970their job and inspect the East Palestine train when it was combined2971from different trains outside of St. Louis, Missouri, the odds are high2972that the defective wheel bearing on that train would have been caught2973and fixed and East Palestine would never have happened. The East2974Palestine derailment was entirely preventable with the proper workforce2975levels, regulations, and safety procedures in place. Instead, a2976community and its residents are traumatized for a lifetime. That fact2977is unacceptable and should infuriate everyone.2978 While East Palestine was not a track derailment, if the railroads2979successfully get this waiver and reduce visual track inspections by2980upwards of 75 percent, there will be many more track missed defects and2981potentially many more derailments along the scale of East Palestine.2982 In its investigation of a September 2021 Amtrak Empire Train2983derailment on BNSF track in Joplin, Montana, caused by bad track2984conditions that killed three passengers and injured 49 other passenger2985and crew members, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found2986that ATI should be used as a supplement to human track inspections, and2987should not replace humans (emphasis added): For example, automated2988track inspections by geometry cars or railcar-attached devices provide2989detailed information on specific track parameters, but they do not2990capture the diverse array of unique track hazards detectable to human2991inspectors. They are intended to supplement an inspection program and2992should not be used to supplant an inspector physically examining a2993track (Page 35).\2\2994---------------------------------------------------------------------------2995 \2\ National Transportation Safety Board Final Report of September29962025, 2021, Joplin, Montana BNSF Derailment. ``Derailment of Amtrak2997Passenger Train 7 on BNSF Railway Track.'' Published July 5, 2023.2998Accessible at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/2999Reports/RIR2308.pdf3000---------------------------------------------------------------------------3001 Safety will decline dramatically if we do not fix the current3002problems with how railroads do inspections across the board, including3003protecting the visual track inspections that the railroads actively3004seek to reduce by 75 percent. More preventable derailments like the one3005in East Palestine will happen because of increased defects. Congress3006must prevent these derailments by adopting common-sense safety3007regulations, especially around inspections.3008 Conclusion3009 BMWED has navigated 138 years of technological change in the3010railroad industry and plans to navigate the next 138 years. We must3011survive as a union. While there is no way to predict what the future3012looks like, it will be different from today, and part of charting a3013path for the upcoming changes will involve successfully adapting to and3014embracing innovation and technological advancement. At the same time,3015these innovations should enhance the safety of workers and our rail3016system and make workers' lives easier. Too often, railroads and private3017companies first think about innovation and how to justify reducing3018their workforce, even when technology cannot fully replace human3019beings, which would decrease safety and put the public at risk. Labor3020unions and workers push back against unproven technology because3021companies misuse it for the wrong reasons.3022 My message to companies and railroads is simple: partner with the3023BMWED on technology so we can get it right. The BMWED is not scared of3024innovation or technological change but does want to ensure it is done3025correctly for the safety of our members and communities across our3026great country.30273028 Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you all for your testimony.3029We will now turn to questions from the panel. I will recognize3030myself for 5 minutes.3031 So, Mr. McCown, your organization recently issued a report3032highlighting how, under the Biden administration, the waiver3033process broke down. How do politics such as this conflict with3034the Federal Railroad Administration's stated mission of3035enabling the safe, reliable, and efficient moving of people and3036goods?3037 Mr. McCown. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.3038 The report focuses on the fact that technology continues to3039evolve, and the regulatory framework hasn't kept pace. And you3040are referring to limiting political whiplash, which is one of3041the five recommendations. And in technical safety decisions, we3042need to ensure that regulatory outcomes are based on data, and3043that they are consistent with standards, not shifting political3044priorities.3045 When you don't know what the rules of the game are from the3046regulator, it's hard to comply, number one. And number two,3047it's impossible to deploy capital.3048 Mr. Webster of Florida. So, can you describe the importance3049of, kind of, a transparent regulatory process to achieve FRA's3050mission?3051 Mr. McCown. I'm sorry. Was that to me, sir?3052 Mr. Webster of Florida. Yes.3053 Mr. McCown. Yes. Yes, it's critical. It's impossible to3054comply with the rules if you don't know what the rules are. And3055it's impossible to plan when decisions appear haphazard or3056decisions change. This should be nonpartisan, not something3057where the rules change depending on who's in the White House.3058 Mr. Webster of Florida. Okay, so when railroads ask for an3059automated track inspection manual inspection--seek a waiver3060there, these waivers are about using technologies to3061proactively and strategically address potential track safety3062issues, not simply eliminate manual inspections. Is that right?3063 Mr. McCown. Yes.3064 Mr. Webster of Florida. Okay. So let me just get this3065straight, okay? There is technology, and some of it is pretty3066advanced, makes some great things done. Does it have 1003067percent reliability?3068 Anybody?3069 Mr. McCown. I will answer. You need people to interpret the3070data, that's clear. But the technology in many cases is more3071accurate than the people. The technology is better than my3072eyeball. That's just fact. If that weren't the case, we3073wouldn't take x rays when we go to the doctor's office.3074 Mr. Webster of Florida. But on the other hand, there is a3075manual inspection that takes a person. What do they do? What do3076they look for?3077 Anybody can answer that question. Tell me about a manual3078inspection.3079 Mr. Cardwell. The manual inspections are the visual3080inspections that are done. They are able to catch a lot of3081defects that can't be caught by the track geometry machines,3082which is ATI. And so the visual inspections can catch all kinds3083of defects and preventative defects in advance of the defects3084becoming worse. But there are numerous defects that the ATI3085track geometry can't catch, such as just as simple as a broken3086rail. The track geometry machines do not pick up a broken rail,3087and that is just a basic track defect. It happens all the time,3088every night across the country.3089 Mr. Webster of Florida. So there is also an automated track3090inspection, and so, is that quicker? Does it look at less3091things than a manual inspection does? What's the difference?3092 Mr. Cardwell. Is that a question for me?3093 Mr. Webster of Florida. Anybody.3094 Mr. Cardwell. The ATI machine does catch track geometry3095defects, and it is efficient at catching track geometry3096defects. We love the work that the ATI does on the tracks. Our3097track inspectors appreciate the track geometry machines that3098come through and catch those defects. But what they don't catch3099is what the visual eye can catch, and that is a lot of the3100basic defects that are out there. It catches about six. There3101are 23 codes in the FRA, and it catches about 6 of those3102defects, and they are all track geometry, the measurements of3103the track, track surface, track gauge, things of that nature.3104 Mr. Webster of Florida. So, is it better, the same, faster?3105What's the difference?3106 Mr. Cardwell. For track geometry, I would argue that it3107does a better job for track geometry, but it doesn't catch a3108large percentage of the defects that are out there. It only3109catches about 26 or 27 percent of the defects on the track.3110 Mr. Webster of Florida. So, is it checking the track or the3111vehicle's mechanical parts, or both?3112 Mr. Cardwell. I'm sorry, what was the question?3113 Mr. Webster of Florida. Is it checking the track itself or3114the mechanical parts on the car itself? Wheels, axles, things3115like that. What does----3116 Mr. McCown [interrupting]. I believe you are referring to--3117the geometry tool detects the track. That's a different3118technology from, say, hot bearings or other aspects on the cars3119themselves.3120 Mr. Webster of Florida. So, okay, so there is the hot3121bearing. Does that show up in a manual inspection, or does it3122take a rolling automated inspection?3123 Mr. Cardwell. What was the question?3124 [Pause.]3125 Mr. Cardwell. Yes, on the hot bearing detectors, they are3126different. We represent the track inspectors that do the work,3127but I would say that hot bearing detectors, the best thing that3128can be done to detect those is a strong visual inspection, and3129that was what was said by the STB, as well, after the East3130Palestine derailment. There is technology that catches it, but3131the technology doesn't relay the information as quickly as it3132should, obviously, as seen, and the technology isn't as3133prevalent out there as it should be.3134 The detectors were too far apart in the East Palestine3135derailment is what was decided by the STB. There should be more3136of them out there. There wasn't enough, and that was the3137determination from the STB report.3138 Mr. Webster of Florida. Okay, I am way over, sorry about3139that, but thank you for your answers. I appreciate that.3140 So Ms. Titus, you are recognized.3141 Ms. Titus. Thank you. Well, I would like to continue this3142conversation, because I said in my opening remarks, I think3143there were 17 defects that couldn't be found by this geometry3144technology that needs the eye to see them.3145 And, Mr. McCown, I think you need a different analogy from3146the eye and the x-ray machine, because every time you have an x3147ray, then you have to have a person come in and read that x3148ray. It doesn't read itself and find the problem and take care3149of it.3150 So, maybe we can go back to you, Mr. Cardwell. Talk again3151about some of these defects that a person can see if they are3152out there inspecting that this technology can't find. And tell3153us how many of these you might find in a week or a month. How3154prevalent are they? And how trained do you have to be to find3155these things? I mean, it's not just somebody walking down the3156track. These are experts who are looking for these kinds of3157things just in case, because they are such safety problems.3158 Mr. Cardwell. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman3159Titus.3160 It takes an immense amount of time to become a track3161inspector, and a lot of studies and research and testing that3162is done before you can become a qualified track inspector. So,3163yes, they are very skilled workers, and they are able to find3164defects that no technology can find.3165 And they are also able to rationally deal with the defects3166as they come. For example, when you run into a track defect, it3167is not always just a defect that is caused by some random3168thing. It is usually a multitude of issues that are causing3169that defect. So, for example, there could be water issues in3170the area that are causing a surface level issue. The ATI3171machines are unable to determine that there is a water problem.3172The visual inspections, you are able to see that there is a3173water problem, where there is a drainage issue, where there is3174a lot of mud or issue in that track which is causing a surface3175issue which causes the railcars to tip off the rail and cause3176derailment.3177 When we come up to those defects as a visual track3178inspection is being done, we can look at the different--the3179environment that we are in, and we can make determinations on3180what can fix the issue. And we can also prevent the track3181defect, which is most important. There is no preventative3182maintenance being done by ATI. The human inspections are what3183do preventative maintenance before the defect is caused.3184 Remember, we want to find defects before----3185 Ms. Titus [interrupting]. Accidents.3186 Mr. Cardwell [continuing]. It happens, not after, because3187defects are what cause derailments.3188 Ms. Titus. Under the current regulations, if you find one3189of these defects, don't you have to report it and have it3190addressed immediately, or else there are some kind of fines or3191issues that arise if you don't?3192 Mr. Cardwell. I am sorry. What was the question, again?3193 Ms. Titus. Don't you have to report this and have it3194addressed immediately, or else there are some fines imposed on3195the railroad if that doesn't happen, or on the inspector?3196 Mr. Cardwell. Yes. The waiver is asking for a 72-hour--33197days before the defect has to be corrected.3198 Ms. Titus. I want to ask about that, too. I think Mr.3199McCown.3200 In the waiver, even though it's 72 hours, if you don't3201inspect it, there is no fine or anything, any consequences.3202Isn't that a part of the waiver, too?3203 Mr. McCown. There is no fine, but I think you have to put3204this in context, that if----3205 Ms. Titus [interrupting]. Well, that seems to be a pretty3206big context, if you are not--if you are taking away the fine,3207if you are not going to address the problem.3208 Mr. McCown. Well, is it a problem? This is so specific, it3209finds----3210 Ms. Titus [interrupting]. We don't know, with your3211technology, if we don't have a person out there looking at it.3212 Mr. McCown. Well, just like in other modes, this technology3213finds things that are so minimal they may be a ``wait and3214see.'' They may not need to be addressed right away. If BNSF's3215testing says you find 200 times more defects with this tool3216than a visual inspection, it is depicting very minute issues3217that may not require immediate action. And so, I think it has3218to be ranked according to safety.3219 And the Congress can--you all can decide what timeline is3220appropriate, but not everything is an overnight problem.3221 Ms. Titus. Well, who determines that ``wait and see''? I am3222not sure I want to be on a train on a track that is a ``wait3223and see.'' Who makes that decision if it is too minute to3224address immediately?3225 Mr. McCown. It's a safety risk management decision that3226operators make every single day of the week in every mode of3227transportation. That's what we do. We are professional risk3228mitigation experts.3229 Ms. Titus. Bean counters?3230 Mr. McCown. I'm sorry?3231 Ms. Titus. I just said bean counters.3232 That's all right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.3233 Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Rouzer, you are recognized for32345 minutes.3235 Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate each of3236you being here today to share your wisdom and testimony.3237 Mr. Gebhardt, I am going to start with you. When a rail3238infrastructure project is undertaken, whether it is upgrading a3239corridor, modernizing a yard, or deploying new technologies, is3240it just the businesses and communities in the immediate3241vicinity that see the benefit, or do these projects tend to3242generate broader regional or even national economic impact?3243 Mr. Gebhardt. Well, I think, as any of these projects would3244be done, there is broader impact that would come----3245 Mr. Rouzer [interrupting]. Can you bring that microphone a3246little closer to you?3247 Mr. Gebhardt. Yes.3248 Mr. Rouzer. Thank you.3249 Mr. Gebhardt. There is broader impact that would come from3250this.3251 If we think about--if there is new railway equipment that3252has to be utilized there, there is a broad network across the3253country with RSI--or Wabtec in particular here--that may3254provide that equipment there. It could also open up3255opportunities to move more freight by rail, which is the safest3256and cleanest way to move a ton-mile, which could also open up3257some of the interstates and such there from what would have3258been truck traffic along those ways there. So there are a lot3259of benefits that come from this.3260 Mr. Rouzer. So another strong interest of the committee is3261how Federal grant programs can help drive innovation.3262Specifically, the CRISI program is first and foremost shaped to3263improve rail infrastructure safety and performance. But you3264noted much of the industry, from short lines to suppliers, have3265looked to use these grants as a way to deploy and scale3266promising technologies.3267 Has Wabtec directly utilized CRISI funding to advance or3268deploy new technologies?3269 Mr. Gebhardt. So Wabtec tends to work with others for some3270of these grants here, where someone else may be the prime3271recipient of it, and we'll work with them or could also provide3272the technologies.3273 One of the keys is that we have been working very, very3274diligently on both Tier 4 technology, which reduces NOx by 763275percent and particulate matter by 70 percent, and also been3276working on modernizations where we take older technology, we3277upgrade them, take them from DC to AC technology, and really3278bring new life to them. And by doing that, we can improve3279efficiency by 30 percent and improve haulage ability, how much3280you can actually pull, tractive effort, by 50 percent. And now,3281with the IIJA Act, it opened up these opportunities to the3282short lines, where they could utilize those fundings to upgrade3283to Tier 4 technology and also modernize their locomotives. So3284it has been very beneficial.3285 Mr. Rouzer. So would you rate the CRISI program an3286essential program or nonessential program?3287 Mr. Gebhardt. Oh, I would say we would recommend keeping it3288at its current levels that are in the IIJA. And then we would3289even think of even increasing the amount of grants for FRA to3290do more R&D, because we really do need to be developing this3291future technology that is out there a little bit further.3292 Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Shannon, I am going to come to you next.3293Federal regulations and implementation always seem to lag3294behind the pace of technological innovation, making it3295difficult to create the most efficient system possible in many3296cases.3297 So we have freight railroads that deploy increasingly3298advanced diagnostics and real-time data tools to help monitor3299car and track conditions, yet many of the ways we evaluate rail3300safety operations and equipment date back decades, some even to3301the steam locomotive era. Mr. Shannon, if Congress were to3302mandate the use of thermal wayside detectors, what impact would3303that have on you and the efforts of your customers to invest in3304railcar telematics and similar monitoring technologies?3305 Mr. Shannon. I think the concern that that comes to for us3306is that the outcome is what we would like to see focused on,3307which is identifying hot bearings, failing bearings, wheel3308defects, et cetera, before they become emergency conditions. If3309we regulate a specific solution--say, more wayside detectors--3310that is going to sort of remove the motivation for both the car3311owners and the technology developers to invest their time and3312energy to create the technologies for the railcars themselves3313that you put on the railcars themselves that show the promise3314and have done in other industries extremely effectively of3315giving early detection before this becomes a critical failure3316mode so that the car owner has the opportunity to replace3317wheels, to do the maintenance activities ahead of failure,3318where wayside detectors tend to be more closer to time of3319failure when they detect the ultimate issue.3320 Mr. Rouzer. Yes. Well, as they say, prevention is always3321the best cure, no matter what we are talking about.3322 I yield back.3323 Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Moulton, you are recognized for33245 minutes for your questions.3325 Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would3326like to actually pick up where my colleague, Mr. Rouzer, just3327left off.3328 I agree, Mr. Rouzer, that prevention is better. But I would3329add that, if you have telematics that can be simultaneously or3330constantly monitored by the engineer, then you would also know3331the instant that a hot bearing is detected on a car, regardless3332of whether you are near a hot bearing detector. Am I right, Mr.3333Shannon?3334 Mr. Shannon. That would be correct. Telematics on the3335railcar is going to give whoever is the recipient of the data3336the most immediate insights as to the condition of the wheel.3337 But again, I think the thing that we need to consider is3338the best use of this technology is to prevent the railcar from3339reaching the point where the bearing does----3340 Mr. Moulton [interrupting]. Well, maybe that is the case--3341--3342 Mr. Shannon [continuing]. Get so hot it is going to fail.3343 Mr. Moulton [continuing]. But if it improves safety to also3344have it----3345 Mr. Shannon [interposing]. Absolutely.3346 Mr. Moulton [continuing]. Available, I mean, why would we3347not do that, as well?3348 And my point is the same as Mr. Rouzer's, which is that if3349we have modern technology that can bring the accident rate down3350to zero, then that is what we should be using, not installing3351more 1960s technology which is the hot bearing detectors that3352the railroads have.3353 I mean, I assume you care about transportation and you are3354not buying an awful lot of fax machines because that was the3355communications technology in the 1960s, right?3356 Mr. Shannon. Yes, I think I agree with----3357 Mr. Moulton [interrupting]. You are hesitating on that,3358which makes me----3359 Mr. Shannon [interrupting]. I had to make sure I3360understand----3361 Mr. Moulton [continuing]. Worried that you are still in the3362market for fax machines.3363 Mr. Shannon. No, I don't want more fax machines. Definitely3364not.3365 Mr. Moulton. Okay, well, that's the point.3366 Mr. Shannon. More technology on railcars.3367 Mr. Moulton. So there is a lot of agreement here that we3368have got to get into the 21st century.3369 Mr. Shannon. Absolutely.3370 Mr. Moulton. And we have technology available today.3371 I mean, the fact that I can order something for $1.99 on3372Amazon and know exactly where that package is on the way to my3373house, and yet I can spend $15,000 or $20,000 to ship a railcar3374across the United States and have no idea where it is, no idea3375when it will arrive, is a little absurd.3376 Mr. Shannon. That is a great concern, and it is one of the3377key reasons RailPulse exists is to provide a single source of3378truth for the location, condition, and health of the railcars3379using advanced telematics technologies on the railcars3380themselves.3381 Mr. Moulton. Right. So there are improvements in customer3382service because you know where your car is.3383 Mr. Shannon. Absolutely.3384 Mr. Moulton. And there are, obviously, improvements in3385safety that we have detailed.3386 And you also made the point that the more freight that we3387get off of trucks and onto rail is good for the national3388interest. Those are your words. In 2023, there were 22,5433389hazardous material incidents on highways compared to 2973390freight rail hazmat incidents. It is a pretty stark statistic.3391Railroads have approximately 10 percent of the hazmat accidents3392trucks have, despite roughly equal hazmat ton-mileage, 103393percent. So we would be saving a lot of lives, a lot of money3394if more hazmat--just to take hazmat as an example, let alone3395broader freight--were transported by rail instead of truck.3396From 2012 to 2023, there were 82 fatalities on highways due to3397hazmat accidents; zero railway deaths.3398 But Mr. Cardwell made a very good point, which is that the3399railroads, especially in the last 10 or so years, have a3400history of taking every cost-saving measure and not putting it3401into expanding their traffic to actually getting more trucks3402off the highways. They put it into cutting service, cutting3403employees, and just improving profits for Wall Street. So how3404do we square this circle, where we want rail traffic to3405increase, we want technology to help us get there, but we don't3406want the companies to just give all the profits to Wall Street3407and none of the benefits to the American people?3408 Mr. Cardwell, please.3409 Mr. Cardwell. I would say that we are more than willing to3410have the ATI machinery operated, and technology. We actually3411have pushed for more of it. We believe that they should use the3412ATI regularly.3413 The last proposal that was given from the FRA was for three3414times a year, and the railroad spoke against ATI, and now they3415are saying they want to do it 12 times a year and get rid of3416all the visual--75 percent of the visual inspections.3417 Mr. Moulton. So here is my point.3418 Mr. Cardwell. We think they should work in tandem together.3419 Mr. Moulton. Look, I have only got 20 seconds left, but3420here is my point. I agree with what you are saying.3421 Mr. Shannon, I agree with what you are saying. Why can't we3422get on the same page here? Why won't you invite the rail unions3423into discussion, into the coalition? You don't even have all3424the Class I's yet. Let's involve some of the rail unions in3425this debate.3426 Mr. Shannon. The answer to that question is fairly simple.3427RailPulse is chartered and owned by railcar owners. And it3428would be--we don't own the data that is in RailPulse, and so3429how the data is used within the railroads when they get access3430to it is really--is a railroad thing.3431 Mr. Moulton. That has nothing to do with inviting the likes3432of Mr. Cardwell to the table. We all should share the same3433goals, which is increasing traffic by rail. You are part of the3434solution. But his workers are part of the solution, too, and3435they have a pretty good perspective. So I just hope you can3436work more together in the future.3437 Voice. We would agree with that.3438 Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.3439 Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.3440 Mr. LaMalfa, you are recognized for 5 minutes.3441 Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, it is3442interesting the debate going here seems to boil down to, does3443advancing technology mean we have less workers? And I don't3444necessarily think that that is what needs to happen, having3445less workers or also standing in the way of improved3446technology.3447 So, I guess, Mr. Cardwell, let me ask you quickly. Do you3448see that what is advancing here on the bottom line means that3449there will be less workers on the rail because it will be3450replaced by technology and it will be replaced by self-3451regulation, et cetera?3452 Mr. Cardwell. We have seen a mass reduction, 30 percent--up3453to 30 percent reduction since 2016 in our workforce.3454 Mr. LaMalfa. Because of technology?3455 Mr. Cardwell. As expected with some technology, yes. We3456understand that technology is going to eliminate some jobs. In3457fact, from 138 years ago, we have seen thousands of railroading3458jobs lost because of technology.3459 Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, I have read your outline on that. Tampers3460and all the way through, that labor saving made it easier on3461the workers, but has resulted in less workers.3462 But I guess what you are looking at here, do you believe3463what we are talking about here with this advanced telemetry and3464such, if that is implemented, does that mean less workers?3465 Mr. Cardwell. I am sorry, what was the question one more3466time?3467 Mr. LaMalfa. With this additional telemetry and more3468advanced technology, does that mean less workers to you?3469 Mr. Cardwell. I can't hear.3470 [Pause.]3471 Mr. Cardwell. Yes, the waiver is asking for a 75-percent3472reduction in human inspection, visual inspection.3473 Mr. LaMalfa. Okay, let me throw it to Mr. McCown or Mr.3474Shannon on that.3475 Is that your goal here, is that you will have actually less3476online workers because the technology makes that possible?3477 Mr. McCown. Well, I think, from the think tank's3478perspective, we are agnostic on that solution. But I think what3479it does is the people who are the finders are also the fixers.3480It allows you to redeploy your assets to where they are needed3481most.3482 As I mentioned during my opening, technology often makes3483more work to be done, not less work. And I think we are getting3484stuck between this either/or, and it's not.3485 Mr. LaMalfa. That's what I am wondering.3486 Mr. Shannon.3487 Mr. Shannon. Yes, I would agree with what Mr. McCown said.3488The technology is not designed to eliminate work. It is3489actually designed to make the work more effective, more3490productive by highlighting and identifying issues. And those3491issues then need to be worked on by somebody. They need to be3492evaluated and verified, and then, as appropriate, any repairs3493and other actions need to be taken. There is nothing at what3494RailPulse is advocating for to eliminate jobs.3495 Mr. LaMalfa. All right. Mr. McCown, a bit earlier there was3496a discussion about the technology at a more microlevel,3497confined, maybe more flaws. Maybe you are talking about a piece3498of rail where you can find a very microcrack or something, for3499example, that maybe a visual inspection would easily pass over.3500So now we know about that microcrack, and you are talking about3501like, well, does it rise to the level of repair right now?3502 I mean, if my pickup has a dent in it, it doesn't keep me3503from going out in my fields. But if I have a bent frame or a3504leaking axle or something, then that does. So can you comment a3505little bit more on the action level of what your technology3506finds as to--you kind of talked about a risk tradeoff. Like, a3507slight crack in a rail that visually wouldn't be seen wouldn't3508even be known about. Does that mean you have got to repair the3509rail, that type of thinking?3510 Mr. McCown. Thank you for the question, sir. That is a very3511good point.3512 And if you think about it, we have preventive tests. It's3513to make a holistic assessment of the infrastructure asset over3514its entire lifetime. If you can find things early, you can3515watch them to see if it's getting worse, if a defect is3516propagating or it's not. It's crucial for the risk management,3517and it's integral in an SMS type of approach, which is about3518continually raising the bar. But not every defect requires3519immediate action. That's the analysis part that takes people.3520 Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Mr. Shannon, is the FRA standing in the3521way of the advancing technology? My notes are saying there3522seems to be some holdup, that FRA wants to just stick with the3523old technology and is kind of not embracing the ability to3524integrate new in its regulation.3525 Mr. Shannon. To date, FRA has been supportive of what we3526are trying to do at RailPulse, so I don't know that they are3527necessarily standing in the way. However, if they advocate for3528specific technologies and sort of shut down innovation in the3529process, that would stand in the way.3530 Mr. LaMalfa. They may be seeking to lock in technologies is3531what I am kind of hearing. But are they open enough to look at3532what we are talking about here to let it be approved?3533 Mr. Shannon. I would say they have been open to RailPulse--3534--3535 Mr. LaMalfa [interposing]. All right.3536 Mr. Shannon [continuing]. For sure.3537 Mr. LaMalfa. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.3538 Mr. Shannon. They have been supportive of what we are3539trying to do.3540 Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. Thank you.3541 Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.3542 Mrs. Sykes.3543 Mrs. Sykes. I am down here. Thank you so much, Chairman.3544And thank you, Ranking Member Titus, for holding this hearing3545today. To our guests and witnesses, thank you for being here,3546as well.3547 I have many times in this committee raised the issue of3548rail safety, and I think today's hearing on how our Nation can3549modernize our rail system is a perfect place to address it3550again.3551 As you all know, and as we have discussed today, on3552February 3, 2023, a Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous3553chemicals derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, which is right next3554door to my district in northeast Ohio, causing many issues and3555long-term issues for folks in not only Ohio, but our3556neighboring State of Pennsylvania.3557 Certainly, no one should have to deal with the horror and3558fallout of what occurred from this disastrous derailment. But3559what is even more upsetting is that this entire derailment3560originated from a wheel bearing that failed and a wayside3561detector that failed to identify the issue in time. Because3562these detectors are placed over 20 miles apart, this overheated3563bearing was only noticed after any effective action could be3564taken to save the bearing and prevent the catastrophe that we3565saw that day.3566 In my time as a State legislator, I have kept with me this3567advice from our public safety director, who reminded us that if3568something is predictable, it is preventable. And it is3569maddening, because this incident was predictable and3570preventable. And because neither of those things happened, an3571entire community has been upended, with little done to rectify3572their safety and their concerns.3573 So to ensure that this kind of disaster doesn't happen3574again, I introduced the RAIL Act. It is a bipartisan,3575commonsense piece of legislation. Among other things, it3576includes policies that specifically address the issues of3577failing wayside detectors. If the RAIL Act were signed into3578law, wayside detectors and hot boxes would be required every 103579miles of track, rather than 20. Were this policy back in place3580in February of 2023, this tragedy could have been prevented3581altogether, and we would not be worrying about the long-term3582health effects of a controlled burn in eastern Ohio.3583 But during the investigation of the disaster, it was also3584reported that railcars were being dispatched after giving an3585inspector only 30 seconds to inspect each side of the railcar.3586Thirty seconds is hardly enough time to get around and walk3587around the railcar, let alone check one to confirm that it is3588safe to transport potentially hazardous cargo. And some of3589these trains, as you know, are double stacked and miles long.3590So I am happy to report that, after working with various labor3591groups, the RAIL Act also required the Department of3592Transportation to update railcar inspection regulations and3593audit related inspection programs. And this will prevent3594limiting the time for employees to do these complete railcar3595and locomotive checks.3596 So Mr. Cardwell, if you could please speak to the3597importance of ensuring that these safety inspections, whether3598for tracks or railcars, aren't rushed. Because one thing I have3599noticed in this conversation--and other colleagues have3600mentioned--technology and the rail workers should go hand in3601hand and be complementary to one another. But if you are3602shortchanged with even your ability to do the work, then what3603good is the technology?3604 Mr. Cardwell. The answer is ``Yes.'' All of us, all the3605crafts are fine with the technology that is coming in, and we3606want to work with them to develop this technology and make sure3607that it works well. So we do want to work in tandem with these3608different technologies.3609 I will remind you and the rest of the committee that the3610railroads have the ability to use this technology as much as3611they want to. The key factor is they are trying to eliminate3612the human factor, the human inspections to cut cost and then3613bring this technology in when it is simply unproven and can't3614catch the defects the way the human inspections can.3615 So on the railcar issues, I am not a carman and I don't3616represent the carmen, but I can tell you and assure you that3617they do want more thorough inspections done of cars. And we3618also want an adoption of the technology that helps catch some3619of these other defects that the human eye can't catch. So yes,3620we can work together and achieve a much safer railroad if we3621are willing to do that.3622 Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Cardwell.3623 And Mr. Shannon, I know one of my colleagues talked to you3624about bringing labor to the table. I have about 30 seconds3625left, and so this is about the amount of time someone would3626have to inspect one of these train railcars. But in the time3627remaining, maybe you can give a full answer to my question3628about how and what are some of the best ways to include labor3629in these conversations so that employees are able to help you3630institute technology and make sure our communities are safe?3631 Mr. Shannon. From a RailPulse perspective, I would say our3632members would bring labor in as appropriate into the3633discussions about how to use the data that comes out of3634RailPulse. Our goal as RailPulse is to ensure that data is made3635available, that it is timely, it is secure, and that all of the3636right people that need to have access to it get access to it.3637But since we don't have a direct relationship with the labor, I3638would say that would be through our member companies that do3639use the data, including the railroads.3640 Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am over time by 303641seconds, and it just goes to show he couldn't even answer the3642question in the amount of time it takes for folks who are given3643that time to inspect brakes in railcars. I yield back.3644 Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.3645 Mr. Stauber, you are recognized for 5 minutes.3646 Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.3647 We are witnessing a technology boom in the rail industry3648that is poised to make freight and passenger rail safer and3649more efficient than ever before. During my time as a law3650enforcement officer, I saw similar technology advance. At first3651we officers sometimes met these changes with resistance.3652However, we often came to realize the great benefits that the3653technology provided us, whether it helped track down a criminal3654or improve our response time to a concerned citizen or kept us3655safe.3656 Importantly, we were brought into the conversation. We were3657brought into the conversation. I think it is equally important3658that our rail workers are brought into the conversation about3659rail technology, as my colleague just mentioned.3660 Rail workers are the first and last line of defense for3661safety in the rail industry. But technology can supplement3662their efforts and enhance their processes, and we should take3663advantage of American ingenuity. Mr. Cardwell, in your3664testimony, you mentioned that you want to work with the3665railroads and private companies to develop the next generation3666of technology. What are some of the technologies that you and3667your members are excited about?3668 Mr. Cardwell. I have recently done a couple of agreements3669with the railroads that have allowed snow removal with these3670amazing machines that they are using in the high parts of3671California, and they are doing snow removal much faster,3672eliminating quite a few snow removal jobs, for example, and we3673negotiate those agreements. We are excited about them. Our guys3674do operate them, but it did take away a lot of jobs in the snow3675removal area of the work that we do. We have negotiated3676agreements for car plate--where they lay the plates on the3677rail, where it is a very safety-sensitive job, and they use a3678plate machine now, and it eliminated two or three jobs on each3679gang.3680 So we have negotiated technology and are excited for3681technology that doesn't eliminate safety. In this case, we wish3682they would use the technology every day of the week on the3683railroad tracks. We wish ATI would run regularly, at least once3684a week. It would be great. It is a good supplement to the work3685that our track inspectors do. We are not opposed to it, and I3686want to emphasize that over and over again. We simply don't3687think there should be a reduction of 75 percent in the human3688inspections. It is unsafe.3689 Mr. Stauber. So how can rail technology companies3690collaborate with unions such as BMWED to achieve the goal of3691safety?3692 Mr. Cardwell. What was the question again?3693 Mr. Stauber. How can rail technology companies collaborate3694with the unions to achieve the goal of safety?3695 Mr. Cardwell. Well, we have the professionals that know3696this work. They understand it, and they are the best people to3697come in with the technological groups and talk to them about3698how these machines could operate, or what would be better, or3699better refine them. And we are more than willing to take that3700time to sit with them as a union, and even bringing in members3701from the field, the professionals, the people that do this3702work, to help explain and work with these technological groups3703to figure out what is the best way to do it, the safest way to3704do it. That is the important thing, is safety. So we are more3705than willing and have spent time and money doing that.3706 Mr. Stauber. Thank you.3707 Mr. Shannon, can you highlight how the current regulatory3708process at FRA has stifled innovation?3709 Mr. Shannon. I would say the concerns that we might have3710would be where any kind of regulatory process specified a3711solution and sort of shut down the motivation for our car3712owner-members and the technology companies we work with to3713innovate to chase an outcome, as opposed to build something3714that has been prespecified.3715 It is important that we focus on the outcomes and the3716performance we want out of the system, and use the innovation3717engine that is embodied in the North American technology sector3718to come up with the best solutions to address those challenges,3719as opposed to having the solution mandated for us.3720 Mr. Stauber. Mr. Gebhardt, same question: Can you highlight3721how the current regulatory process at FRA has stifled3722innovation?3723 Mr. Gebhardt. We work within the frameworks that the FRA3724has. On some of these, if we had more outcome-based metrics for3725success to go ahead and move forward so that we can move3726forward on the waiver process and then move forward into actual3727adoption, that could help the process overall.3728 Mr. Stauber. So outcome-based, not mandating.3729 Mr. Gebhardt. Well, outcome-based, meaning we state what3730the outcome would be for this technology to be accepted. So it3731might have to have 98 percent accuracy, or it might have to3732last a certain amount of time. Being more outcome-based on that3733could help us through the process.3734 Mr. Stauber. Okay. Thank you very much.3735 Mr. Chair, I am out of time, and I yield back.3736 Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.3737 Mr. Deluzio, you are recognized for 5 minutes.3738 Mr. Deluzio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, everyone. I3739am particularly glad to see a western Pennsylvania company,3740Wabtec, represented here.3741 Mr. Gebhardt, I will start with you. I know the company is3742doing quite a bit of innovation around locomotive and rail3743technologies, making lots of products for Amtrak and others3744across the rail industry.3745 I will note the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, I think, was3746a really important investment that helped support the3747development of those technologies for Amtrak in particular and3748others, but I think there is ripple effect, right, helping3749other manufacturers and workers.3750 Tell me about some of the work you guys are doing on3751locomotive technology. What are the opportunities and some3752alternative energies? What can the Congress be doing? What3753should we be thinking about to help stimulate some of that3754development?3755 Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, thank you, Congressman, for the3756question.3757 When I look at the technologies we are really working on,3758we are working a lot with our Tier 4 locomotives.3759 Mr. Deluzio. You lost your mic, Mr. Gebhardt.3760 Mr. Gebhardt. Yes. Okay, with our Tier 4 locomotives and3761also with our modernizations. We are taking, with the Tier 4,376278 percent reduction in NOx, 70 percent reduction in3763particulate matter, with our modernizations taking older3764locomotives and bringing them up to modern standards when we do3765that. The IIJA really helps with that because it opens this up3766to the short lines, allows them to step into this, and really3767helps with the funding of that.3768 On the development side, some of the R&D grants that are3769coming through are helping with the alternative fuels that you3770had mentioned there. We are working with biofuels, renewable3771fuels to make sure that those are capable technologies there.3772We have also been working with LNG. We have a number of liquid3773natural gas units that are operating right now as an3774alternative fuel, and these were a lot of things that were3775developed under some grants that were done.3776 So we are very supportive of continuing with these types of3777grants to really bring this technology forward.3778 Mr. Deluzio. Well, it seems to me there is a business3779benefit if you can get your fuel and energy costs down. I think3780there is an air quality benefit for all of us. And so I think3781this is a good opportunity that Congress should pay attention3782to here, as well.3783 Mr. Cardwell, I want to come to you, as well. I picked up3784on some of the discussion about automated track inspections and3785your point is a good one to me, as I hear it, that you and your3786members are all about better technology, helping the railroads3787implement this stuff, but you need humans in the mix, you need3788humans involved. Tell me what this looks like to one of your3789members. How this technology--how they use it, how you see this3790being implemented in a way that is safest and that brings to3791bear the expertise your members have.3792 Mr. Cardwell. Let's just take the ATI machines, for3793example, the one that was the primary discussion today3794concerning track inspections. Our track inspectors are happy3795when the ATI machine comes through the territory because it3796catches certain defects that the human eye can't. And so they3797are glad to see it come through the territory because it3798catches geometry measurements that the human eye can't catch,3799and that is always helpful. So they like when that comes3800through.3801 But there are many things that these machines can't catch3802that the human eye can. There is a whole list, in fact. The3803large majority, 73 percent of the track defects, can only be3804caught by the human eye. And so they like working with that3805technology, they are glad when it comes to their region or3806territory. There are many others.3807 The machinery that is being used today on the railroad is3808much more technologically advanced, and they love operating3809that equipment. It has cut jobs, but we are happy with the3810machinery because it is more efficient and safer.3811 Mr. Deluzio. And some of the things that you just3812mentioned, a big percentage--I think 70 or so percent, you are3813saying--that the human eye can only capture, give me some3814examples of what that might be.3815 Mr. Cardwell. Sure. So for example, just a broken rail3816cannot be caught by the ATI machinery. The rail, what happens3817when it heats up and it cools, it expands and contracts. And so3818that rail breaks, and it happens all the time. There are3819literally probably several hundred broken rails a day across3820the railroads, and those broken rails can cause derailment, for3821obvious reasons.3822 Mr. Deluzio. Is that the number-one cause of derailment,3823track issues like that?3824 Mr. Cardwell. Track issues are the number-one cause of3825derailment. I think 50-plus percent of track derailments are3826caused by rail defects and, most importantly, in switches. And3827this ATI machinery does not pick up most of the defects inside3828of a switch. Most derailments are caused within a switch when3829one train goes to another track, it goes from one track to3830another. And in that switch, there is a lot of defects that3831cannot be detected by any technology right now.3832 Mr. Deluzio. Very good, Mr. Cardwell. My time is up. Thank3833you both.3834 Mr. Chairman, I yield back.3835 Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.3836 Mr. Nehls, you are recognized for 5 minutes.3837 Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as we talk about3838this ATI, you talk about 73 percent, I am just going to make a3839comment.3840 I believe that, East Palestine a couple of years ago, a3841little over 2 years ago, February of 2023, I think ATI is a3842good thing. I think it really, really is. That technology is3843available today, and I believe it improves safety. I don't3844believe the Class I's really want to go out there and have3845derailments. I mean, it just doesn't make sense. So they are3846spending an enormous amount of money with this ATI because they3847want to continue to have what I would say is a very good record3848on moving goods and services across our country, and doing it3849very safely. I applaud them for that.3850 I don't believe ATI was really ever created to completely3851eliminate visual inspections. I don't think that was the intent3852here. I believe it is an augment. They will augment the visual3853inspections. Now, whether the FRA is saying 75 percent,3854whatever, I don't know about that. But I do not believe--when3855the Class I's are investing in this technology, it is costing3856money. I have been around, I have seen these machines that3857travel to and fro, and it is costing them an enormous amount of3858money. I believe it is all in the name of safety, and they are3859deploying these things along the network.3860 And at some point in time, this technology may justify3861reducing the workforce. I mean, it just makes sense. You3862mentioned 73 percent. With this evolving technology, let's say3863ATI identifies six, or whatever the number is. Everybody is3864going to have a number of these flaws, these deficiencies. What3865happens when the technology is so good it can identify all of3866it that we don't--maybe don't need any of you to do it? Would3867you support that, then, or would you say, well, I just don't3868believe that that's--no.3869 Mr. Cardwell. If the data safety--if the--first of all,3870Congressman Nehls, we thank you for your leadership----3871 Mr. Nehls [interposing]. Sure.3872 Mr. Cardwell [continuing]. And your work for us.3873 I would say that if the technology proves safer, then the3874unions have to adapt to it.3875 Mr. Nehls. Yes.3876 Mr. Cardwell. And we have.3877 Mr. Nehls. Yes.3878 Mr. Cardwell. Historically, across all levels of machinery,3879we have been more than willing to allow that technology in as3880it is proven safe. In this case----3881 Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. I guess I just want to--I got a3882couple of minutes, I want to talk about, really, the3883modernization act. But the point I am trying to make is3884management and labor, you have got to get together to talk3885about--we are all concerned about safety. When I was the3886chairman of this subcommittee, we had all the unions in there,3887we were trying to get some good legislation in on improving3888safety. But let's understand that I don't believe the Class I's3889are out there and they want to see derailments today.3890 And I have to say, for the last couple of years, it has3891been pretty good. We haven't any mushroom clouds over any of3892our communities in the past 2-plus years, and thank goodness we3893haven't. So I applaud the Class I's and everybody else that is3894working hard to keep our rail as safe as possible.3895 I am sure you all may be familiar with the bipartisan bill.3896It is the H.R. 2515, the American Tank Car Modernization Act.3897That's my bill, and I led it with Seth Moulton, Congressman3898Moulton. This bill will provide Department of Transportation3899grants through the FRA directly to railcar owners for the3900purchase and installation of telematics devices, with the3901achievable goal of greatly speeding up the adoption of3902telematics on the 1.6 million railcars.3903 I mean, this is just common sense. This is the heartbeat of3904the car. Why wouldn't we do this if the technology is there?3905Having telematics on an increasing number of freight railcars3906will significantly provide upgraded supply chain visibility,3907safety enhancements, create maintenance efficiencies, and3908enable comprehensive telematics solutions for the shippers and3909the stakeholders in the rail system. That is just common sense,3910you guys, it is common sense.3911 For far too long, we have talked about increasing the use3912of freight rail and bringing the rail system into the modern3913ages when the solution, it's right in front of us and has been3914effectively used by trucking--it has been used by the trucking3915industry for decades. We just don't use it in the rail.3916 Mr. Shannon, please illustrate the position of RailPulse on3917H.R. 2515, and how the legislation would impact the entire rail3918industry.3919 Mr. Shannon. First, we are very supportive. Thank you very3920much.3921 How it would influence the industry, I think, is it changes3922the economics. That----3923 Mr. Nehls [interposing]. Sure.3924 Mr. Shannon. Our biggest challenge right now, with the3925adoption of telematics on railcars, is the justification of the3926initial expense of equipping a railcar.3927 Mr. Nehls. Sure.3928 Mr. Shannon. And through the lens today of a car owner,3929they need to do an ROI equation for themselves based on the3930direct benefits. Those direct benefits may or may not be equal3931to----3932 Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. Thank you.3933 Mr. Gebhardt, how do you feel? How is Wabtec? Good deal?3934 Mr. Gebhardt. We are very supportive----3935 Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. Yes, thank you.3936 Mr. Gebhardt [continuing]. Of telematics.3937 Mr. Nehls. I've got 10 seconds. I am going to finish here.3938 We have talked to hundreds of people in the rail industry3939over the past few years. Commonsense themes of using freight3940rail keep coming up. Using rail is complex, it is inconsistent,3941and could be more costly than other modes. And I want freight3942rail to be used more. We want it to be used more, not less, and3943it is a safe way to transport the goods that America needs to3944thrive and grow. The entire operational system needs to be3945averse to the modern solutions we give shippers more of a3946reason to use it [sic].3947 So let's get this done. It's bipartisan. I am looking3948forward to working with industry and labor on how we can make3949rail the safest possible mode of transportation in the country.3950 Thank you. I yield.3951 Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much. Mrs. Foushee,3952you are recognized for 5 minutes.3953 Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Chairman Webster and Ranking3954Member Titus, for holding this hearing. And thank you to the3955witnesses for being here today.3956 Mr. Cardwell, under current regulations, if a track3957inspector finds a track defect, they are required to3958immediately do one of two things: either take the track out of3959service or place a speed restriction on the track until the3960defect is fixed.3961 Alternatively, under AAR's recently submitted waiver, if a3962railroad is using automated track inspection technology, or3963ATI, they would have 72 hours to send out an inspector to check3964the defect, but there aren't currently any requirements to take3965the track out of service or reduce train speeds until the3966defect is fixed.3967 As we are all acutely aware, safety regulations often have3968to play catchup as new technologies like ATI are developed or3969deployed. And it seems obvious to me that this is an area that3970needs to be seriously looked at by the DOT. Can you speak a3971little about the way in which this loophole in Federal3972regulation can lead to increased risks in rail safety, and why3973it is important for automated track inspection technology to be3974subject to the same safety protocols as human inspectors?3975 Mr. Cardwell. It is pretty hard to understand why they3976would ask for such an exception. It is a serious safety concern3977that we have, a 72-hour delay of putting a remedy on a defect.3978 Just for a quick explanation, when a track inspector finds3979a defect, he stops or slows down that track. He can slow the3980speed down so it is safer to travel across. He can stop any3981trains from going over it. He may fix the defect itself, but3982there is a remedy immediately taken. And in this case, they are3983asking for 72 hours. I don't know that anyone wants to be3984around a railroad track where a defect is on that track for up3985to 72 hours without being corrected. I know I wouldn't go3986anywhere near it, and it is a danger. It is an extreme danger.3987I think the waiver is extreme.3988 Mrs. Foushee. Thank you for sharing that perspective.3989 I think we all recognize the potential that developing3990technologies like automated track inspection and AI have to3991help improve rail safety outcomes and protect our communities3992from accident. That said, I also firmly believe that it is of3993paramount importance that these new and exciting technologies3994are used in conjunction with and under the supervision of human3995inspectors and other trained rail safety workers, not as a3996substitute for them.3997 Mr. Cardwell, I am curious, from your experience, how you3998have seen new technologies assist the critical role that human3999inspectors play in interpreting this influx of tech-generated4000data, and why you think it is important to have humans, not4001computers, making rail safety decisions.4002 [Pause.]4003 Mr. Cardwell. The question--we can work together--makes it4004better is because our people that do the work know it best.4005They do the work. We have an average of, I think, 29 years of4006seniority in the rail industry. Those folks know this work4007inside and out, and they can work with the people that do this4008work in conjunction with them, and help them make a safer4009railroad.4010 We believe that we can take the derailment, which--the4011derailments that are happening right now per million rail-miles4012traveled are as high as they have ever been. We did4013measurements clear back to 2015, and we still have the same4014amount of derailments today as we did in 2015 per rail-mile4015traveled. We think working together we can lower that4016derailment, those derailments in America by using this4017technology, but also working with the human inspectors and4018human workers that do this work--and they are professionals--4019and work in conjunction with them, and we can build a better4020railroad.4021 Mrs. Foushee. And one final question. It is critically4022important that innovations in railcar inspection technology are4023used to support and supplement in-person inspections performed4024by qualified mechanical inspectors. So how can automated track4025inspection technology be used to support the vital safety work4026that our BMWED members perform every day?4027 [Pause.]4028 Mr. Cardwell. The ATI machinery catches measurements, it4029measures the track constantly. And in doing so, a human4030inspector can't do that so it works well for what it does. And4031we believe that they should continue to use it. In fact, we4032proposed they should use it more often, not less, because it4033does catch those measurements that the human eye can't. It4034works well. In the areas that it has been used it works well.4035We are not opposed to it at all.4036 We just--the current FRA proposal that we had from a year4037ago is still sitting on the table that can be picked up and4038used, and it proposes that we use it more often, not less4039often. And we support that bill.4040 Mrs. Foushee. Thank you for that.4041 I yield back, Mr. Chair.4042 Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.4043 Mr. Mann, you are recognized for 5 minutes.4044 Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having4045this hearing, and thank you all for being here this morning.4046 I represent the Big First district of Kansas, which is4047roughly two-thirds of the State, most of the western and some4048of the eastern part, as well. Kansas, my State, is served by4049more than 4,600 miles of active rail, owned and operated by 144050individual freight railroads that connect our manufacturers,4051farmers, producers, and natural resources to domestic and4052foreign customers. These railroads move nearly 40 million tons4053of freight across Kansas annually, and serve as a huge economic4054driver for the economy.4055 Our freight railroad operations must focus on keeping our4056communities, consumers, and workforce safe while ensuring our4057Nation's supply chains remain efficient. Overburdensome rules4058and regulations can greatly hinder these efforts to move goods4059and people across the network, and I look forward to hearing4060from you all today on how Congress can help alleviate some of4061these burdens.4062 A handful of questions. First for you, Mr. Gebhardt, what4063are some of the challenges that businesses like yours face when4064Government rules and regulations are inconsistently applied?4065 Mr. Gebhardt. Well, consistency, of course, is important4066there, and making sure that they can be applied, because we4067don't want to have a locomotive for every State in order to4068meet requirements.4069 Also, we don't want to have different varying degrees4070there, so we try to have consistency. We would like to try to4071build [inaudible] as much as possible. Our Tier 4 locomotive,4072we like to build those. We like them to have constant standards4073for that.4074 Mr. Mann. Can you elaborate on how a more comprehensive4075regulatory reform such as moving to a performance-based4076framework could provide greater certainty to railroads and to4077rail suppliers?4078 Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, and this is something that is important4079to us also. So we have been monitoring our locomotives for a4080long time now. We talk about telematics. Since 1998, we have4081been pulling data back on our locomotives. And right now, we4082have 18,000 locomotives that we pull the data back on. We get408310 million data messages a day. We can analyze all of that to4084understand how can we extend intervals, how do we work4085differently, how do we make sure that we improve the product so4086that it can be a condition-based maintenance, condition-based4087inspections, and condition-based intervals.4088 Mr. Mann. It is important, in my view. Last question, and4089again for you, Mr. Gebhardt. We often associate regulations4090with safety, but ignore the positive role that deregulation may4091have in promoting the exact same outcomes. In the railroad4092industry, how important have past deregulations been in4093improving safety outcomes?4094 Mr. Gebhardt. I would say--I will talk more generally about4095what we do around safety on this. Safety is paramount to all4096that we do, and we focus very tightly on that. We think about4097Positive Train Control and such around this. Positive Train4098Control, we do--1 million miles a day of data we get back. And4099so we understand exactly how the trains are operating such4100there. We then put our TO, our trip optimizer, which is the4101adaptive cruise control, to help the engineers and conductors4102operate the trains through the terrain to drive down the fuel4103usage on that, but also drive up the safety, the train handling4104as part of what it does there.4105 We gather all this data, we learn from the data, we make it4106better. And I think that is what--a lot of this big data that4107people are talking about, we have been doing it now for 304108years, almost 30 years now, pulling all this data back. We4109learn a lot from it. We are starting to apply AI, but most of4110what we do is deterministic right now. And whenever we do use4111AI, we put a human in the loop just to make sure that the right4112answers are going back on that.4113 Mr. Mann. Great. Well, thank you all for being here. Thanks4114for your time.4115 And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.4116 Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.4117 Mr. Garcia, you are recognized for 5 minutes.4118 Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking4119Member, and to all the witnesses here today.4120 Mr. Gebhardt, your company develops and maintains software4121used by train dispatchers. For instance, train dispatchers4122employed by a major commuter railroad continue to experience4123issues with their dispatching system developed and maintained4124by Wabtec. These issues include the system glitching and4125incorrectly showing train locations. The only solution Wabtec4126has offered to these train dispatchers is to turn off and4127restart their computers.4128 While the computers were turned off, no backup system was4129in place, and the train dispatcher had no way of knowing the4130location of trains or monitoring on-track worker safety. In4131other words, the train dispatcher was completely in the dark4132until the computer restarted. Dispatchers had to restart their4133computers several times a day, and the issue persisted for4134years.4135 Mr. Chair, I would like to request unanimous consent to4136submit a letter for the record from the American Train4137Dispatchers Association dated March 27, 2024, to the FRA,4138outlining dangerous flaws where the dispatch system provided4139inaccurate information and failed to display the position of4140the power-operated switches controlled by the train dispatcher.4141This issue occurred at BNSF, which also uses a dispatch system4142developed and maintained by Wabtec.4143 [The information follows:]41444145Letter of March 27, 2024, from L. Ed Dowell, President, American Train4146 Dispatchers Association, to Hon. Amit Bose, Administrator, Federal4147 Railroad Administration, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Jesus G.4148 ``Chuy'' Garcia4149 March 27, 2024.4150The Honorable Amit Bose,4151Administrator,4152Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,4153 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590.41544155Via email41564157Re: March 26, 2024 BNSF Train Dispatcher Software Taken Out of Service4158Due To Safety Concerns41594160 Dear Administrator Bose:4161 Please consider this letter as a formal complaint and a request for4162a complete investigation and audit of the BNSF's ``Auto Router'',4163``Movement Planner'' and ``Train Management Dispatch System'' (TMDS).4164On March 26, 2024, BNSF Manager Dispatching Practice and Rules issued4165BNSF Railway Control System Notice No. 75 stating, ``A TMDS defect was4166discovered where incorrect data is being communicated from TMDS to4167Movement Planner. As a result of the TMDS data defect, effective March416826, 2024, the Auto Router function is being temporarily disabled. It4169will be disabled at the system level on CTC territory. This will allow4170time for Wabtec to develop and test an enhanced TMDS version that4171addresses the TMDS data defect.''4172 When Auto Router is on, TMDS has a defect that Auto Router4173triggers. Basically, TMDS pulls a past switch position from archived4174data and subsequently throws the switch in the field and does not4175properly display the position of the switch in TMDS to the dispatcher.4176This was first reported to BNSF last year. Fall of 2023 a BNSF Train4177Dispatcher reported a potential safety defect to BNSF Safety Hotline4178(the dispatcher has all supporting data). After a short investigation4179BNSF stated that they were unable to replicate the defect and advised4180the train dispatchers on that desk to take Auto Router offline at that4181location only. A few months later, the same defect occurred on a4182different desk. Now on March 26, 2024, the BNSF has taken Auto Router4183down on their entire system. This significant action should demonstrate4184the seriousness of this defect. Even more concerning, is that at least4185one other Class-1 Railroad uses Auto Router.4186 ATDA believes strongly that all software used by train dispatchers4187that affects the safe movement of trains and on-track equipment should4188be required to be tested and certified safe by the FRA. The current4189practice by railroads to implement and utilize these safety critical4190technologies without being thoroughly vetted is unacceptable. We cannot4191continue to allow the safety of our communities to be left in the hands4192of railroads.4193 The primary ATDA contact on the property is:41944195Kevin Porter, Vice President4196porter@atda.org4197(817) 733-766441984199 We look forward to working with you to investigate and resolve this4200serious safety issue.4201 Respectfully submitted,4202 L. Ed Dowell,4203 President, American Train Dispatchers Association.42044205Enclosure: BNSF Railway Control System Notice No. 7542064207cc: Karl Alexy, Associate Administrator & Chief Safety Officer, FRA4208 Andrea Wohleber, Senior Advisor, FRA4209 Kevin Porter, Vice President, ATDA4210 Eddie Hall, President, BLE/T4211 Tony Cardwell, President, BMWED4212 Mike Baldwin, President, BRS4213 Jeremy Ferguson, President, SMART-TD42144215 Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Mr. Gebhardt, I am very concerned4216about the flaws reported by the ATDA and the workers on the4217ground. What is the average time that it takes for your company4218to resolve safety concerns that are reported by workers such as4219train dispatchers?4220 Mr. Gebhardt. Well, I am not aware of the specific issue4221that you brought up there, but we are more than happy to get4222back to you on that.4223 For safety issues, we take those very seriously. In fact,4224we typically get back within hours, rather than within days. So4225I would like to learn more about the case that you brought up4226there, and make sure that I can understand it better and take4227whatever actions are necessary on that.4228 Mr. Garcia of Illinois. And to my question?4229 Mr. Gebhardt. How long----4230 Mr. Garcia of Illinois [interrupting]. The time that it4231takes to resolve safety concerns that are reported by workers4232such as train dispatchers.4233 Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, so once a safety case comes into Wabtec,4234we immediately start taking action there. We try to work4235through a triage process, where we decide what the severity of4236the safety issue is, and then decide what the short-term4237containment plan would be, and then what the long-term4238corrective action is.4239 Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Is there an average time on those4240reports?4241 Mr. Gebhardt. I don't have that available.4242 Mr. Garcia of Illinois. And what steps do you commit to4243take to ensure that technology used by train dispatchers is4244fixed?4245 Mr. Gebhardt. I missed the last word.4246 Mr. Garcia of Illinois. What commitments will you take to4247ensure that technology used by train dispatchers is fixed?4248 Mr. Gebhardt. So we have a rigorous safety process4249internal. We also work with the FRA, the TSA, and others to4250make sure we meet all the applicable safety standards. And4251typically, our internal safety standards are higher.4252 Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.4253 Mr. Gebhardt. So I----4254 Mr. Garcia of Illinois [interrupting]. Mr. Cardwell, I4255understand the flaws with the dispatcher software can pose4256severe safety risks to workers on the train tracks and the4257general public. Should new technologies such as dispatch4258systems be overseen by the Federal Railroad Administration?4259 Mr. Cardwell. Thank you for the question. The answer is4260``Yes.''4261 When we have workers out on the tracks and the dispatchers4262are watching our back, they are the ones that keep the trains4263from coming in on our work groups. And if there is a glitch or4264there are problems, that puts our workers in peril. And I would4265argue that it should be regulated. If it is not, and there is4266an incident or there is a glitch like that, it would be4267devastating. So the answer is ``Yes.''4268 Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Well, thank you, Mr. Cardwell. And4269of course, thank you and all the witnesses for being here4270today.4271 I yield back.4272 Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you so much.4273 Mr. Westerman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.4274 Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to4275the witnesses for being here today.4276 As we talk about innovation and construction and all the4277things we would like to see not only in our rail system but,4278really, in the infrastructure across our country, an issue that4279comes up often is permitting and permitting reform.4280 And as you are aware, in a recent 8-to-0 Supreme Court4281ruling that involved the railroad in the Uinta Basin out in4282Utah, the Supreme Court said something that we have been saying4283for a long time, that NEPA is a process to review permitting,4284it is not something that produces an outcome. But I think this4285is a major decision by the court. And as Justice Kavanaugh4286said, Congress did not design NEPA for judges to hamstring new4287infrastructure and construction projects. So I would just like4288to maybe start with Mr. Shannon, and go down the dais or the4289table and tell me how important permitting reform is in your4290area.4291 Mr. Shannon. I will confess, permitting reform is out of4292scope, really, for RailPulse. We are the car owners, so we4293don't get involved in permitting for railroad, new track or4294anything like that. So I would have to----4295 Mr. Westerman [interrupting]. So building more rails4296wouldn't help your business?4297 Mr. Shannon. It certainly could, but it is outside of the4298scope of what we do. It would be more of our members' focus.4299 Mr. McCown. Congressman Westerman, thank you for the4300question.4301 Permitting reform is crucial. We used to be an America of4302builders. We built things. It is next to impossible to get4303anything built. And whether you are on the left or you are on4304the right, these permitting regulations affect us all. And NEPA4305was never meant to be a bedrock environmental law. It is a4306process law. And as you know, at the end of NEPA, you can go4307ahead and build it, even if it says there are going to be4308significant adverse consequences.4309 We have to reform it because it is being used by the loser4310to hold up projects. Our infrastructure is deteriorating, and4311it has got to be fixed.4312 Mr. Westerman. Mr. Gebhardt.4313 Mr. Gebhardt. We are not directly involved in the4314permitting process, as a technology company. But anything that4315helps move more freight by rail and allows more infrastructure4316to be built would be positive for the industry.4317 Mr. Westerman. See, I would argue that you are impacted by4318NEPA because you can't implement your technology if people4319can't get a permit to----4320 Mr. Gebhardt [interposing]. Correct.4321 Mr. Westerman [continuing]. Build new infrastructure. And I4322think that is one of the disconnects that we have, that we4323don't realize just how impactful the permitting process is in4324the way it has been weaponized to stop things from happening.4325It is also easy to stop something from happening. The difficult4326work is in actually building something and making things4327happen.4328 Mr. Cardwell.4329 Mr. Cardwell. Yes, we support the NEPA reforms on4330Brightline and a lot of the railroad that is coming. We think4331it is important.4332 Mr. Westerman. All right, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.4333 Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.4334 Mr. Nadler, you are recognized for 5 minutes.4335 Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.4336 Mr. Cardwell, by law, safety waivers may only be granted if4337they are in the public interest and enhance safety. Both the4338National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Railroad4339Administration have stated that automated track geometry4340systems should supplement, not replace, visual inspections. In4341your view, what rationale have the railroads provided for4342continuing to pursue the safety waiver, and how does that align4343with the existing safety guidance?4344 Mr. Cardwell. Obviously, I think they are cost-cutting4345measures. I am not entirely sure, because they are not safe,4346that is for sure. I believe they are cost-cutting measures. I4347believe they are job elimination attempts.4348 Mr. Nadler. You believe what?4349 Mr. Cardwell. Because we were----4350 Mr. Nadler [interrupting]. I couldn't hear you. You believe4351the cost-cutting measures----4352 Mr. Cardwell [interrupting]. I am sorry.4353 Mr. Nadler. Finish your statement. I couldn't hear you. You4354believe the cost-cutting measures----4355 Mr. Cardwell [interrupting]. Yes, that is why we are----4356 Mr. Nadler [continuing]. You believe the cost-cutting4357measures what? I didn't--I couldn't hear you.4358 [Pause.]4359 Mr. Cardwell. Oh, I apologize. We believe that they are4360cost-cutting measures. That's it. They are definitely not4361providing a safer railroad, so we believe the attempts are just4362cost-cutting measures.4363 Mr. Nadler. Okay, thank you. As you know, automated track4364inspection systems can detect only one category of track4365defect: geometry. But inspectors are trained to identify 174366additional types of defects that ATI cannot detect. Why is it4367so important to search for all potential hazards, not just4368those related to track geometry?4369 [Pause.]4370 Mr. Cardwell. There are 23 defect codes under the FRA, and4371there are subsets of those defect codes. And it only finds six.4372So ATI technology can only find 6 of the 23 different defects.4373That is extremely dangerous. That means a large percentage of4374the defects won't be detected by the ATI. So if we reduce the4375human inspection, visual inspection, then those defects won't4376be able to be found. That is a dangerous, dangerous situation.4377 Mr. Nadler. Okay. And what would be the safety impact of4378reducing inspection frequency for those 17 other types of4379defects from twice weekly to just twice monthly?4380 Mr. Cardwell. That means that we would be going4381approximately 14 to 15 days between inspections on those4382tracks. That is dangerous. If there is a track defect down on4383that track that can't be found by ATI and it sits there for 144384days with millions of pounds of chemicals and passengers going4385over those rails, I think that is just unacceptable. It is4386dangerous.4387 Mr. Nadler. And can you share how recent technological4388innovations have helped track inspectors do their jobs better?4389 Mr. Cardwell. Yes, there are all kinds of technological4390advances that help us do our jobs better. There is new4391technology coming regularly in the industry, new machinery that4392helps--the physical labor that our workers do is being enhanced4393by the machinery that is coming in. And I say it keeps--it4394helps--it keeps the injuries down, it keeps potential death4395down because the machinery has new technology in it that avoids4396collisions and things of that nature. So there is great4397technology out there that is doing great things for our members4398and keeping them safer. We are willing to adopt those.4399 And we are willing to work with ATI technology, as well. We4400have asked for the data, the information. We have insisted on4401wanting to know and speak with the people that developed this4402technology and the people that are overseeing this technology4403to understand how it works and what it does, and we continue to4404be kept away from the technology from the railroads.4405 Mr. Nadler. Okay, thank you. And a moment ago, I asked for4406the--what would be the safety impact of reducing inspection4407frequency for those 17 other types of defects from twice weekly4408to twice monthly. You answered the question. My last question4409is, what are the railroads doing? Are they, in fact, reducing4410inspection from twice weekly to twice monthly?4411 Mr. Cardwell. Yes, they are not only asking for a reduction4412in inspections, they are asking for a 72-hour period, up to 724413hours, before they correct the defects.4414 Mr. Nadler. And I assume you think that either the National4415Transportation Safety Board or Congress should remedy that.4416 Mr. Cardwell. Yes. That is just so dangerous. Remedying the4417defect after 72 hours is completely--if any railroader that has4418done railroad work were in this room, we would just laugh at4419it.4420 Mr. Nadler. Thank you. My time is expired, I yield back.4421 Mr. Begich [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. I4422recognize Representative Taylor for 5 minutes for questions.4423 Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member Titus,4424for holding this hearing today, and thank you to all of our4425witnesses for your testimony and insight and the sacrifices I4426am sure you all made to be here.4427 Ohio has 44 operating railroads and over 5,000 miles of4428track, making Ohio the third largest rail infrastructure State4429in the Nation. With Ohio's presence in the rail industry,4430adopting and implementing new technologies could result in huge4431growth for southern Ohio.4432 Mr. McCown, in your testimony, you highlighted how the4433United States regulatory process has hindered technological4434growth in the rail industry. I am proud that the first bill I4435introduced in Congress, the Regulation Decimation Act, would4436remove burdensome, unnecessary, and counterproductive4437regulations that prevent innovation and growth.4438 Mr. McCown, as this committee works on drafting the4439upcoming surface transportation reauthorization bill, what4440regulations and/or processes within the Federal Railroad4441Administration should we be examining to remove regulatory4442bottlenecks?4443 Mr. McCown. Mr. Taylor, thank you for the question. And as4444a native Ohioan, I appreciate your comments there, as well.4445 We need to move from prescription to performance-based4446policies to make sure that, A, nobody can take advantage of4447shortcuts, no one is going to be self-regulated, but we are4448hitting performance metrics. We need to be outcome-based4449instead of prescriptive. The goal is transparency and4450incentivizing innovation. Let's be agnostic on the technology4451that is used to meet and exceed its target.4452 The goal of continuous improvement is to constantly drive4453down the number of incidents, to make them less severe, to4454occur less often. By doing this, we are unleashing innovation,4455and we will see cottage industries further develop and innovate4456in this area. But by telling somebody, you have to do it this4457way, we are already losing.4458 Mr. Taylor. Thank you. The implementation of new4459technologies in our rail industry could help make our track4460safer, reduce delays, and improve product delivery. It is4461imperative that the development of new technologies and4462American innovation is encouraged.4463 As one example, Mr. Shannon, I was glad to hear that4464RailPulse is being utilized throughout Ohio, keeping our4465communities safe. However, as a small business owner, I4466understand the difficulties that smaller companies may have in4467adopting new technologies. Mr. Shannon, from an industry4468perspective, what can be done to help encourage the adoption of4469new technologies?4470 Mr. Shannon. I think that is a great observation. The4471technology that we are talking about on railcars is not4472horribly expensive. But at the same time, for small businesses,4473small railcar owners, we are talking about a significant4474investment. And so one thing that can be done and should be4475done would be providing incentives to encourage the adoption of4476this technology, financial incentives through CRISI grant or4477similar public-private kind of incentives.4478 Mr. Taylor. I heard at one point that it is sort of cheaper4479to get it on a new car than it is to put onto an existing car.4480Is that true?4481 Mr. Shannon. It can be cheaper to put it on a new car. The4482core technology is very similar, regardless of whether it is a4483new car or an existing car. But capturing a car in service and4484getting to that car, locking it down, if you will, so that you4485can safely install the equipment can cost more, for sure. So--4486--4487 Mr. Taylor [interrupting]. Would you say it is a bigger4488challenge for, like, short line railroads or smaller4489operations?4490 Mr. Shannon. It would be a bigger challenge for short line4491railroads, it can be a bigger challenge for private car-owning4492shippers.4493 Mr. Taylor. Thank you.4494 The benefit that new technologies can provide in preventing4495accidents should be one of Congress' top priorities. With the4496East Palestine derailment in my home State of Ohio, we are4497keenly aware of how important it is to prevent tragedies before4498they happen.4499 Mr. Gebhardt, your company, Wabtec, produces a couple of4500different products that seek to prevent accidents. Can you go4501into more detail about these two technologies that can detect4502potential accidents and seek to prevent them?4503 Mr. Gebhardt. Well, we do a number of technologies that are4504specifically focused on safety. We have a kinetics inspection4505technologies platform that uses acoustic technology, thermal4506technology, visual technology to look for defects, potential4507issues that are going to be coming along there.4508 We also have technology for incoming inspection into yards,4509and now we are developing technology that actually will go4510under the trains to go ahead and inspect for the outgoing4511inspections to augment the work that the yard workers are4512already doing there.4513 So we are working to try to make rail safer, we are working4514with the locomotives, of course, but then we are also working4515with the railcars.4516 Mr. Taylor. Real quickly, is there anything big on the4517horizon that we haven't heard about that is coming out as far4518as this kind of safety technology?4519 Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, I would say probably the most exciting4520one that we have is what we call our RailGhost. It is actually4521something that is going to go under the trains, inside the4522yards or in sidings, and can do a lot of the inspections there.4523We are working on the visual inspections now. We will put4524different measurands on there over time, but it is a very4525exciting technology, and it will augment what the yard workers4526are already doing.4527 Mr. Taylor. Thank you, and thank you all very much.4528 Chairman, I yield back.4529 Mr. Begich. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize Mr.4530DeSaulnier for 5 minutes for questions.4531 Mr. DeSaulnier. Very nice pronunciation. It's like you took4532French, high school French or something.4533 Well, I want to thank you and the ranking member for this4534hearing. It is fascinating. I represent a district in the East4535Bay of the bay area. I have dealt with innovators and the4536innovation economy for a long time because I am old. And a long4537time ago, I was admonished by somebody in that field, ``Do not4538let the technology seduce you.'' So we want to take the value4539of all this wonderful technology, but make sure it also works4540in the real world.4541 So, Mr. Cardwell, I will start with you. As a former4542Teamster member, I have my withdrawal card from many years ago4543from Local 170 in Worcester, Massachusetts, where I worked for4544trucking companies, starting as a warehouseman and then later4545working as a dispatcher. So I know something about--a long time4546ago--logistics from those two perspectives, working graveyard4547shifts when I was going to college.4548 So, to your point, I think sometimes us who are in the4549labor field--and I am a senior member of the Education and4550Labor Committee--we get accused of being modern-day Luddites4551and we are against innovation. But my experience is we have4552evolved to where we see the value, but we want to make sure4553that the human part of it is connected. And we deal with this4554on the Aviation Subcommittee, of which some of us are on--is4555when the technology and the procurement process gets ahead of4556the human beings, then we have disasters or mistakes which4557affect everybody and, I would argue, sets innovation back.4558 So, trying to get that right balance, how are we doing4559that, particularly in goods movement? All this benefit, which--4560and I love your comments, Mr. McCown, about performance-based4561and outcome-based driven. This should be an example, I think,4562in goods movement and how we move product. But we have to have4563humans involved in that.4564 So, could you speak to that? How do you engage with4565management not just to protect your workers, which I want to be4566part of, but do it in a way that is thoughtful, that--and I4567know you do this already. If humans aren't involved, there is4568nobody to check, as you have already said, to make sure that4569the technology is working properly. And if the humans don't4570understand the technology, and we haven't provided the4571infrastructure in workforce development the way other4572industrialized countries like the Germans do, it doesn't work.4573And it just becomes this battle over profit motive and where4574the money goes to.4575 So, how do we fit that balance, and how have you engaged to4576make sure that you are part of that?4577 Mr. Cardwell. Sure, we want a partner with us, and we are4578excited about the CRISI grants. We ourselves are going to apply4579for a bunch of them, and have, so we can train our members with4580this new technology, as well. And that funding that comes in is4581helpful. We want to partner with anybody who is willing,4582including the gentlemen here, to work on these issues to make4583sure that our workers are part of this change and evolution in4584technology. We are more than willing to do that. But what we4585cannot do and will not do is compromise the safety aspect of4586it.4587 The technology is not proven. And where it is proven, it4588works well. And we are willing to adopt those technological4589changes for safety alone. What we cannot do is accept this4590technology if it is not proven to be safe, and if it doesn't4591catch certain things.4592 It was testified to in the Senate hearings that 90 percent4593more defects are found by ATI, which is not true. It can only4594find up to 6 out of the 23 defect codes within the FRA. So4595there is no way that it has increased that much. If there were4596that much increase in defect finds from this technology, then4597there would be a huge workload increase, as well. And that4598workload hasn't gone up. It has maintained the same.4599 I would argue that we are for this technology and want to4600continue working with these different groups.4601 Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. McCown, I want to ask you--thank you4602for that--a question in the short time I have left.4603 Representing an area that is the fifth wealthiest district4604in the country, but also having a lot of goods movement in4605there, it is this urban-industrial interface in the bay area.4606We have got four refineries, hazardous material, and then we4607have got the Port of Oakland. So trying to manage that has4608always been a struggle. We have had some pretty good success4609when the industrial partners have worked with us. But4610unfortunately, there are some people in the private sector who4611drive to lots of short-term investment returns. So shortly, how4612do we balance all of this in an area like that?4613 Mr. McCown. Yes, thank you so much, sir. Yes, I first came4614to Washington, DC, working for a South Bay gentleman whose4615portrait hangs to your left, and so I understand that very4616much.4617 Mr. DeSaulnier. I am aware of him.4618 Mr. McCown. It's a balancing process. And oftentimes, the4619truth is in the middle.4620 Mr. Begich. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize Mr.4621Fong for 5 minutes for questions.4622 Mr. Fong. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Certainly, I echo the4623comments made that there is certainly value to technology4624innovation. It is transforming the transportation industry. But4625we need to see that it moves forward in the rail space.4626 Mr. Gebhardt, the research that Wabtec has been doing4627sounds very promising when it comes to supply chain4628improvements. I wanted to get your take on how the Federal4629Government can better support the development and commercial4630deployment of innovative railroad telematics?4631 Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, this is an important topic, and I would4632break it down into a couple of areas, the first being helping4633with the development phase with some R&D funding, public-4634private partnerships around that because some of these4635technologies might be 8, 10 years away. Making investments on4636that, on a moving target, is something that some Government4637encouragement can definitely help with that.4638 And then providing waivers so we can actually get some of4639the technology out on the track to go ahead and test it.4640 And of course, a safe manner. We always want to make sure4641we are doing everything in a safe manner there.4642 And then making sure that there is outcome-based approvals4643for things. I will give one quick example on this. Zero-to-zero4644is one of our technologies. We have had trip optimizer in4645operations since 2009, but it kicks in at about 9 miles an hour4646on the way up and about 12 miles an hour on the way back down4647again. We have worked technology to go from start to finish,4648from zero to zero on the other side there, and this is an4649adaptive cruise control. It helps with having better fuel,4650better train handling and such around this technology. And that4651is something where some help in moving that forward would be4652demonstrated. We have proven that it is safe; now we just need4653to get some test time on that one.4654 Mr. Fong. I appreciate that. I think, if we have learned4655anything from 2020 and the pandemic, we need to be investing4656more in supply chain to ensure that we reduce delays and ensure4657that essential goods are moving to the market.4658 To Mr. Shannon, I wanted to ask, how are small, the4659regional railroads, short line railroads, how are they being4660brought into the modernization effort? Are there integration4661barriers that we need to be cognizant of, cost barriers?4662 Mr. Shannon. Well, first I would say the small, regional4663railroads we are actively working with as much as possible,4664including within our ownership. The short line railroads are4665represented as a class of owners within RailPulse so that we4666get their insights and opinions in terms of driving RailPulse4667forward.4668 I would also add that I think the small, regional railroads4669are very important to driving the adoption of this technology,4670because they have such a tight affinity working with the4671shippers and their customers, and helping them get the benefits4672out of this technology.4673 That being said, a comment that was made earlier about they4674are small, they are not as cash rich, and those that have4675fleets of railcars that they would like to see instrumented,4676any help that can be done to help accelerate the adoption of4677the technology on their behalf or for them would be valuable.4678 Mr. Fong. Sure. Well, certainly, from someone who4679represents the Central Valley of California, rail is very4680important for us in moving our products, whether it's4681agriculture or manufacturing or energy, oil and natural gas,4682too, to where it needs to go.4683 Building off of your answer, what are the biggest policy or4684bureaucratic obstacles? What are they to deploying sensor-based4685monitoring and automated track inspection?4686 Mr. Shannon. Did you say track inspection?4687 Mr. Fong. Automated--well, ATI, yes.4688 Mr. Shannon. Yes. Well, RailPulse is not involved in track4689inspection, so we are telematics on railcars. That information4690can be used to improve the safety, the health of the railcars.4691The--and it is sort of--in answer to your question, I will4692comment on----4693 Mr. Fong [interrupting]. Maybe Mr. McCown can----4694 Mr. Shannon [continuing]. Focusing on outcomes----4695 Mr. Fong [interposing]. Yes.4696 Mr. Shannon [continuing]. Is probably the single biggest4697thing, performance metrics, so that we stay--we don't hamstring4698the innovation in the industry.4699 Mr. Fong. Thank you.4700 Maybe that question was better addressed to you, Mr.4701McCown, in terms of how----4702 Mr. McCown [interrupting]. Sure, so----4703 Mr. Fong [continuing]. What are the biggest obstacles to4704employing new technologies?4705 Mr. McCown. Yes, thank you so much for the question.4706 The truth is that it's not one size fits all. And a rail4707track over here is not the same as a rail track over there, yet4708we are treating them all the same. What we need to be able to4709do is manage the risk appropriately and then deploy assets,4710human and technology, to where they are needed.4711 But right now, the FRA is set up where everything is4712monolithic, it is all the same. And that is just not the best4713way to evaluate risk. And so, these performance-based metrics4714allow operators to concentrate where the risks are. And they4715are held accountable if they don't do that.4716 Mr. Fong. I appreciate that. I have run out of time.4717 I yield back.4718 Mr. Begich. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize Mr.4719Burlison for 5 minutes for questions.4720 Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.4721 Mr. Gebhardt, artificial intelligence has the potential to4722revolutionize the world, but also the rail industry, as well.4723From predictive maintenance to infrastructure for optimizing4724train operations, AI has the capability to not only enhance4725efficiency, but reliability and safety. And I think that is4726important to note. Can you shed light on how AI is going to4727impact the rail industry in a positive way?4728 Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, we have been working very closely with4729AI and developing that, but we are pacing it based on the real4730capabilities. We are making sure it is being tested.4731 As I had mentioned earlier, we pull in about 10 million4732data messages a day from our locomotives around the world, and4733we process all of that. We have really been working over the4734last several years, the last decade or so, with deterministic4735rules that are if-then type statements, let's put it that way.4736Now we are starting to do more and more with AI. But as we4737understand AI, we always have a human in the loop as that goes4738back. So we have automated rules that are deterministic. The4739AI, there is a human in the loop on that.4740 When we look at condition-based maintenance and those types4741of things, we are using the AI to really pull forward that data4742so we know where can we extend intervals, where do we need to4743shorten intervals. And then, even within the engineering side,4744how do we improve the components to make sure we can continue4745to extend that and focus on safety? We make sure we focus very4746much on how do we make our products safer and safer.4747 But AI is a fantastic tool at this point. We are really4748doing a lot of things with a human in the loop. The only place4749that we are doing full AI is really around visual tools, where4750we have a new rail spiker that we are doing, where we can4751actually use AI in order to shoot the spikes in automatically,4752those types of things that are nonsafety-related and things4753that really take a lot of the visual technology. That is where4754we are using a lot of AI.4755 Mr. Burlison. Thank you. You had mentioned earlier about4756RailGhosts. Is that right?4757 Mr. Gebhardt. Yes.4758 Mr. Burlison. Can you describe that? So, this is a robotic4759device?4760 Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, this is a robotic device. And the goal4761is that longer term, it will be robotics and visual AI. So, it4762has about 16, 18 wheels on the sides there, and it actually4763flows under the train. And each of the wheels snaps back as it4764goes under the train. And what we are doing now is, we are4765putting cameras, thermal guns, other things on this platform,4766and therefore, we will be able to augment the inspections as it4767goes through. And we are very excited about it. And we can move4768it at about 12 miles an hour, so it can move very quickly4769through there, be able to put the data right in the hands of4770the yard workers to go ahead and see exactly what is going on4771there, maybe follow up with an inspection afterwards on those4772types of things.4773 And then what is also pretty cool about it is how we put it4774in what is called turtle mode, where it can actually drop down4775inside the rails, and then the train can just pull right over4776it and just go right out on the outgoing side of things. So we4777are really excited about the technology, working with a couple4778of the Class I's on this at this point to make sure that we can4779meet all their needs that they are looking for.4780 Mr. Burlison. And Mr. Gebhardt, is there anything that is4781holding you back in that regard? Are there any regulations or4782laws that we need to evaluate that are going to hold your4783industry back from innovating here?4784 Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, so on that particular case of4785RailGhosts, there is not much holding us back on that one.4786 I had mentioned the zero-to-zero, trying to get the waivers4787for zero-to-zero to go ahead and move forward with that, which4788is the extension of our trip optimizer, adaptive cruise control4789product. That's one that we are working to try to move that one4790along.4791 Mr. Burlison. Okay, thank you.4792 Thank you. I yield back.4793 Mr. Begich. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize4794myself for 5 minutes of questions.4795 My first question, Mr. Cardwell, you mentioned that the4796average employee in the industry has been active for 29 years,4797in earlier testimony. A good blend of youth and experience4798helps to foster responsible innovation adoption. Do you have4799any concerns about an aging workforce in your industry?4800 And if so, what needs to happen, in your opinion, in order4801for this to be addressed?4802 Mr. Cardwell. I have no concerns about the age. The average4803time that they spend in seniority in the classification is 294804years. We have a lot of young employees right now, too. It's a4805good job, it's a good-paying job, and it's a career. These guys4806love what they do, so they stay for a long time. They typically4807don't go out into other jobs. They are interested in the4808technology, and they want to participate in it, as all the4809young people are these days. And they want to participate and4810operate this new machinery and technology, as well. They are4811excited about it.4812 We believe there is a good relationship that can be formed4813there, but we can't compromise safety when we do it.4814 Mr. Begich. Thank you.4815 Next question, Mr. McCown, in your role as former president4816of Alyeska Pipeline, you oversaw critical infrastructure4817operations in some of the harshest and most remote conditions4818in the United States. How do you assess the applicability of4819advanced safety and inspection technologies such as automated4820track inspection or acoustic monitoring in similarly rugged and4821isolated environments like the Alaska Railroad?4822 Mr. McCown. Chairman Begich, thank you very much for your4823question. I thoroughly enjoyed my time in Alaska, and my wife4824would still like to move back there permanently.4825 Pipeline safety regulations have evolved over the years4826into more performance-based. We also use different tools to4827measure different aspects of the pipeline. And in the pipeline4828industry, that has changed dramatically over the last 30-plus4829years. Your pipeline is almost 50 years old now, with an4830enviable safety record.4831 So it can be done. It is a combination of deploying4832technology, also people, and determining where your risks are.4833If you take that holistic system, there is no reason why we4834should be up here trying to drag rail into the 21st century. We4835need these tools and the pace of technology. And what is4836available today is different than it was just a couple of years4837ago.4838 Mr. Begich. And to follow up on that, from your experience,4839what Federal policies or regulatory flexibilities would best4840support the deployment of remote sensing and predictive4841maintenance systems in frontier State infrastructure?4842 Mr. McCown. Yes. Well, as I mentioned earlier, no two sets4843of track are alike, different operating conditions. And4844fortunately or unfortunately, regulations are set up for a one4845size fits all, which is again why I would like to see more4846performance-based.4847 But at the same time, when a waiver gets held up--and I4848hate that term ``waiver.'' It is an equivalency. We are not4849waiving anything. We are meeting the standard a different way.4850That is what encourages innovation. And so at the Department,4851not just in FRA, these get held up for far too long. And in4852some cases, the standard they want you to meet is actually4853higher than the regulations. And the well-meaning DOT career4854folks pile things on. We need more flexibility, not less. And4855once you have a waiver that is being done over and over again,4856it is time to change the regulation.4857 And for Alaska, Alaska is a different operating4858environment, and people need to understand that and, quite4859frankly, defer to folks who know best.4860 Mr. Begich. I so appreciate that you mentioned that, Mr.4861McCown. You understand better than perhaps anyone in this room4862just how different Alaska can be as an operating environment,4863and we do need to make sure our regulations are flexible with4864respect to the environments in which they apply.4865 One question. I am going to open this up for any of the4866witnesses here. One of the challenges that we have in rail is4867the deployment cost of new rail. A lot of the conversation4868today focused on operations and innovations within the existing4869operating infrastructure. What technologies or opportunities4870for new technologies are on the horizon that can lower the cost4871for new rail deployments?4872 Mr. McCown. I will go ahead and take a quick stab at it.4873Regulatory certainty is required to deploy capital. Where you4874have risk, right, in any business, you are not going to invest4875into something. So, we need a stable regulatory environment4876where the rules aren't going to change depending on who is in4877the White House or what bureaucrat is in charge 2 years from4878now.4879 So, by laying those rules down and by removing rules that4880no longer make sense, we can lessen the cost to build new4881things, to build new rail tracks, to build new highways that4882are safer and better than the existing ones that are out there.4883 Mr. Begich. I appreciate that, and I would just encourage4884the industry generally, as we are looking at innovations across4885the industry, let's also be sure we are looking at innovations4886that will drive down the cost and accelerate the deployment of4887new rail.4888 Certainly, in my home State of Alaska, we have had a4889longstanding dream to connect to the lower 48 States through4890Canada to Alaska. We would like to do that in a capital-4891efficient manner, and we would like to do that in an4892expeditious manner. And I think innovation is going to be one4893of the ways that we actually make that dream achievable.4894 With that, my time has expired. I would like to thank the4895witnesses and ask if there are any further questions from any4896members of the subcommittee who have not been recognized.4897 Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today. Thank4898you again to the witnesses for your testimony. The subcommittee4899stands adjourned.4900 [Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]49014902 Submissions for the Record49034904 ----------49054906 Statement of Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive Officer,4907 Association of American Railroads, Submitted for the Record by Hon.4908 Daniel Webster4909 Introduction4910 On behalf of the members of the Association of American Railroads,4911thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record.4912AAR freight railroad members account for the vast majority of railroad4913mileage, employees, and freight traffic in Canada, Mexico, and the4914United States. In addition, AAR maintains two wholly-owned subsidiaries4915on the cutting edge of rail technology. MxV Rail in Pueblo, Colorado,4916is the industry's research, testing, and training epicenter, developing4917science-based solutions to make North America's rail network safer,4918more efficient, and more reliable. Railinc in Cary, North Carolina, is4919the industry's digital backbone, providing essential data, tracking,4920maintenance, and messaging services to power safe and efficient rail4921service around the country.4922 At first glance, today's freight railroads may appear unchanged:4923locomotives pulling a string of rail cars across steel rails and wooden4924ties. But beneath that familiar exterior lies a remarkable4925technological evolution. Billions of dollars in reinvestment by the4926railroads have transformed the systems that support, operate, and4927optimize freight railroads over the last few decades, and advances in4928digital technologies, automation, data analytics, and safety systems4929have revolutionized the industry. As a result, railroads are safer,4930more reliable, and more cost-effective than ever before, and the4931industry is continuing to develop and deploy new technology to continue4932that trajectory. Safety has always been, and will continue to be, at4933the forefront of everything the railroads do, and the industry will4934continue to invest in new technology that improves the safety of rail4935operations for our employees, customers, and communities. Railroads4936have identified a path to take the industry into the future that4937combines the power of innovative technology with the grit and expertise4938of our workers. That path will only come to fruition in a regulatory4939environment that supports innovation.4940 Freight Cars and Defect Detection4941 Over the last 50 years, railroads have invested billions of dollars4942in developing and deploying technology to help identify potential4943problems with railcars before they cause safety concerns like4944derailments. Research, data, and years of experience show safety4945outcomes improve with a layered approach combining visual inspections4946with technology that identifies problems invisible to the naked eye.4947 For example, several decades ago, railroads began voluntarily4948deploying detectors along tracks to identify defects on passing rail4949cars before structural failure. These trackside systems measure the4950temperature or the ``acoustic signatures'' of freight car wheel4951bearings as they pass, identifying bearings that are nearing failure4952and alerting train crews to respond when necessary. Over time, the4953industry has worked together to improve the performance of these4954detectors and conduct trend analysis to identify at-risk bearings4955sooner.4956 While wayside detection has dramatically improved safety on the4957mainline, railroads are continuing to invest in new, more advanced4958technologies for identifying problems faster and more consistently.4959That investment includes onboard condition monitoring systems that4960continuously collect and report data on wheel bearing health to4961identify problems and alert train crews earlier than ever. Norfolk4962Southern has also deployed specialized detection portals to generate4963detailed three-dimensional images of each locomotive and railcar as it4964moves through the portal. Using artificial intelligence (AI), ultra-4965high-resolution cameras, laser scanning, and digitized imaging,4966railroads can now identify potential issues--including misaligned4967components and structural defects--and pull cars for repairs before4968safety concerns arise.4969 Track and Other Infrastructure4970 Railroads are continuing to improve the safety of their track,4971bridges, signals, and other infrastructure through new technology that4972inspects, maintains, and predicts issues with more accuracy and4973efficiency than ever before. These tools reduce the risk of derailments4974and service disruptions, lower maintenance costs, and improve the4975overall resilience of the rail network.4976 Defect detector vehicles are a key component of these systems.4977Advanced track geometry cars use sophisticated electronic and optical4978instruments to inspect track alignment, gauge, curvature, and other4979track conditions. On-board computer systems provide sophisticated4980analyses of track geometry and predict the response of freight cars to4981track deviations to help railroads determine when tracks need4982maintenance. New methods for detecting rail flaws are constantly under4983review. Recently, MxV Rail developed and tested a prototype of the4984world's first laser-based rail inspection system. A new in-motion4985ultrasonic rail joint inspection system, also developed by MxV Rail,4986has undergone real-world tests on a major railroad.4987 Several railroads have adopted LiDAR and AI-driven technologies to4988enhance track inspection and asset management.\1\ Norfolk Southern, for4989example, uses railcar-mounted LiDAR and sophisticated AI models to4990create intricate three-dimensional maps of its network, complete with4991the location and dimensions of switches, crossings, and other assets.4992This precise, up-to-date digital map streamlines route planning and4993maintenance, helping to proactively prevent collisions, derailments,4994and other safety risks. BNSF has integrated LiDAR technology into its4995operations by deploying hi-rail vehicles--specialized trucks equipped4996with rail wheels--that use advanced sensors to collect three-4997dimensional data for precise measurements of track geometry, bridge4998clearances, and other critical infrastructure. CSX owns and operates4999several LiDAR systems that continuously scan the railroad's entire500021,000+ mile network, collecting detailed 3D data to support safety5001protocols and infrastructure planning.5002---------------------------------------------------------------------------5003 \1\ LiDAR stands for Light Detection and Ranging, a remote sensing5004technology that uses laser light to measure distances and create highly5005detailed, three-dimensional representations of the environment.5006---------------------------------------------------------------------------5007 In addition, ground-penetrating radar and terrain conductivity5008sensors have been developed that identify problems underground--such as5009excessive water penetration and deteriorated ballast--that make track5010less stable. Similarly, railroads inspect bridges for stability using5011sonar technology to detect underwater erosion and structural5012weaknesses. To improve employee safety and ensure safe operations,5013railroads also use drones across the network to conduct aerial5014inspections of tracks, bridges, and rail yards, providing real time5015data and reducing the need for employees to enter dangerous areas.5016 Locomotives5017 Numerous railroads are testing alternative fuel locomotives to5018reduce emissions and improve fuel efficiency, enhance performance and5019sustainability, and support safer operations. While these locomotives5020are not commercially viable for broad deployment on the vast rail5021network, they hold significant promise for railroads to continue5022providing safe, low-emission, and cost-effective service in the future.5023For example, BNSF and Wabtec, a locomotive manufacturer, demonstrated a502410 percent reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions5025through a demonstration project that combined a prototype battery-5026electric locomotive with two traditionally powered locomotives on a5027single train. Union Pacific, in partnership with rail technology5028company ZTR, completed testing and proof-of-concept work on hybrid5029battery-electric locomotives expected to reduce fuel consumption by up5030to 80 percent and is moving towards field testing the locomotives in5031active rail yard operations. Several railroads, including CSX and CPKC,5032are undertaking pilot programs for hydrogen fuel cell locomotives, a5033potentially promising zero-emission solution for yard switching, short-5034haul, and line-haul operations.5035 This technology is still in the early stages of testing and5036deployment, and these pilot programs are helping railroads assess5037feasibility, safety, performance, and infrastructure requirements.5038Considerable research and development, much of it funded through the5039Department of Energy, is imperative to determine if non-diesel5040locomotives can ultimately become a safe, reliable, and efficient5041alternative to diesel.5042 Rail Operations5043 Railroads today rely on sophisticated technology to manage the flow5044of traffic across vast networks, optimize train routing and scheduling,5045and help ensure efficiency and safety. Many of these technologies have5046been around for several years, including the Rail Corridor Risk5047Management System (RCRMS), which identifies the most secure routes for5048trains carrying hazardous materials, and Positive Train Control (PTC),5049which automatically stops or slows trains before certain accidents can5050occur using GPS, wireless radio, and onboard computer systems. These5051systems use sophisticated algorithms and constant data collection to5052prevent devastating accidents before they can occur, and railroads are5053continually looking for ways to leverage this data to continue5054increasing safety and improving operations along the network.5055 All major railroads also rely on advanced network optimization5056systems to improve efficiency, reduce delays, and conserve fuel. These5057systems calculate the most fuel-efficient speeds over specific routes;5058determine optimal train spacing and timing; and minimize meet-and-pass5059conflicts. Using real-time data, they provide dispatchers and rail5060personnel with dynamic runtime forecasts and decision-support tools5061that enable faster, more accurate adjustments to network conditions. At5062Norfolk Southern, for example, the operating team uses its Operating5063Plan Developer (OPD) to develop detailed operating plans and manage5064assets in a virtual, data-rich environment. OPD helps coordinate5065hundreds of train movements each day while enhancing safety,5066reliability, and service quality--goals shared by the many other5067railroads that deploy similar technologies.5068 Railroads have also developed advanced applications that help5069trucks get in and out of yards quickly at intermodal terminals, which5070reduces fuel consumption and emissions and improves supply chain5071fluidity. BNSF is implementing its Automated Yard Check (AYC) system, a5072cutting-edge solution that combines drones with advanced algorithms to5073collect real-time data on container locations and significantly5074streamline terminal operations and inventory accuracy. Railroads have5075also deployed mobile apps, like CPKC's CP Fast Pass, to help trucking5076partners with ingate, outgate, on-terminal, and pre-gate procedures,5077reducing wait times and improving overall efficiency. Many intermodal5078yards also have biometric scanners that recognize truck drivers'5079thumbprints; video portals that automatically read truck ID numbers;5080and automatic receipts and digital paperwork as part of automated gate5081systems.5082 Computers and Communication Systems5083 Railroads were among the first industries to use mainframe5084computers. Today the legacy of using sophisticated communication5085systems and computer-based tools continues to help coordinate5086operations and communications across the nationwide rail network. For5087example, CN uses an innovative virtual reality system to take potential5088employees on a virtual tour of a rail yard and illustrate the intricate5089operations and diverse jobs available on a railroad. The technology is5090expected to be used at career fairs and recruitment events across CN's5091network. Railroads also use augmented and virtual reality training that5092allows workers to practice safety procedures, train handling, and5093emergency responses in simulated environments. Union Pacific is using50943D printing in its training programs to create realistic models of key5095rail components with which trainees can practice before entering an5096active rail yard. 3D printing life-size knuckles and drawbars allows5097for hands-on training to help new hires understand the switching5098process and practice with replicas to build confidence and expertise5099from the start.5100 Regulatory Environments that Foster Innovation Improve Safety5101 Railroads have invested billions of dollars in developing, testing,5102and deploying new technology. When combined with the expertise of the5103railroad workforce, this innovation has the potential to improve the5104safety of railroad operations for employees, customers, and communities5105around the country. To take the next great leap forward in safety,5106federal regulators must move beyond a prescriptive regulatory framework5107that stifles innovation and too often gets sidetracked by other5108political issues. Railroads support a regulatory framework that5109supports the effective systems in place today while encouraging and5110supporting investments for the future.5111 Prior administrations have sidetracked the Federal Railroad5112Administration's (FRA) waiver process by focusing on achieving5113unrelated political goals. Refocusing that process on safety is one way5114to build a more technology-focused regulatory environment. A clear5115example of the need for updates to the waiver process is FRA's5116treatment of Automated Track Inspection (ATI). One Class I railroad5117secured a waiver from FRA to test ATI in conjunction with visual track5118inspections. Based on clear safety improvements from these tests, the5119railroad applied for a waiver to expand the use of ATI, and additional5120Class I railroads applied to use similar technology on their tracks. In51212021 and 2022, the FRA, the agency whose core mission is preserving and5122improving the safety of the railroad industry, denied these waiver5123requests despite the demonstrated safety improvements. Eventually a5124court found that FRA's decision was arbitrary and capricious and5125directed the agency to grant the waiver. In 2024, FRA allowed expanded5126use of ATI under a new regulatory framework that allows the use of ATI5127without changes to existing visual inspection rules.5128 FRA's decision seemed to be linked to concerns from railroad5129workers about the impact of technology on jobs. Railroads have been5130clear that the best safety outcomes occur when our highly skilled5131workforce operates in tandem with our advanced technology. BNSF5132recognized that FRA was concerned about the impact of these waivers on5133railroading jobs and worked directly with its local Brotherhood of5134Railway Carmen (BRC) to develop and test a new Brake Health5135Effectiveness (BHE) system. Not only did they see demonstratable safety5136improvements, the BRC members reported additional work as BHE helped to5137identify more brake issues for them to remediate. With the public5138support of its local BRC, BNSF applied for a waiver to expand the use5139of BHE. FRA sat on the request for nearly two years, and BNSF was5140unable to expand the use of safety-improving technology and create5141additional jobs for its highly compensated, highly skilled union5142workforce.5143 FRA should act on waivers in a timely manner consistent with5144statute; make decisions only based on transparent criteria and clear5145science-based data demonstrating improved safety outcomes; consistently5146renew or expand waivers as additional data becomes available; and5147create clear expectations and pathways for adoption of new technology5148and processes by the broader industry when the safety record is5149established.5150 Railroads will continue to develop and implement new technologies5151to improve safety and performance. Achieving the maximum benefits from5152this technology will require a regulatory framework that supports5153innovation and provides flexibility for achieving safety goals.5154Technology mandates locking in specific tools or processes create5155disincentives for railroads to invest in new technology. Relying on5156sound science, clear data, and an articulated need will give railroads5157discretion to innovate and create new ways to incorporate technology5158that improves safety while maintaining strong FRA oversight.5159 Conclusion5160 By investing billions in infrastructure and innovation, railroads5161are constantly modernizing operations to improve safety while meeting5162rigorous global supply chain demands. Railroads look forward to working5163with members of this committee and other policymakers to ensure that5164these new technologies complement the expertise and ingenuity of the5165rail workforce in making our workers, customers, and communities safe5166while serving as the engine of America's economy.51675168 Letter of June 24, 2025, from John Schmitter, Co-Founder, Chief5169 Commercial Officer, RailState LLC, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and5170 Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and5171Infrastructure, and Hon. Daniel Webster, Chairman, and Hon. Dina Titus,5172 Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous5173 Materials, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Daniel Webster5174 June 24, 2025.5175The Honorable Sam Graves, Chair,5176House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,51772167 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.5178The Honorable Daniel Webster, Chair,5179Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Sub.,5180House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 2251 Rayburn House5181 Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.5182The Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member,5183House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,51842164 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.5185The Honorable Dina Titus, Ranking Member,5186Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Sub.,5187House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 589 Ford House5188 Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.51895190Via email51915192 Dear Chairs Graves and Webster, and Ranking Members Larsen and5193Titus--5194 RailState thanks you for holding today's Railroads, Pipelines, and5195Hazardous Materials Subcommittee Hearing, ``America Builds: The Role of5196Innovation and Technology in Rail Modernization.''5197 As a part of this hearing, RailState asks that you submit this5198letter for inclusion in the hearing record for use by the Committee as5199it considers how to modernize our nation's rail transportation network5200to enhance safety while facilitating more effective passenger and5201freight movements resulting in increased capacity.5202 RailState's Rail Network Intelligence is the first data platform5203providing in real-time comprehensive, unbiased data and powerful tools5204for complete visibility into rail network operations. In an easy-to-5205understand dashboard, subscribers including public stakeholders,5206logistics teams and planners are provided previously hidden and5207outdated data and insights fostering smarter decisions resulting in5208lower costs, more accurate planning, mitigating challenges ahead of5209time, and responding to issues faster.5210 Proprietary sensors, developed and assembled by RailState in5211Quincy, Massachusetts, capture images of moving trains from outside the5212railroad's right of way. The sensors use high resolution cameras,5213lidar, infrared illumination and other hardware to capture information5214about each car and locomotive on each train passing the sensor.5215RailState software uses AI to interpret visible information on the side5216of each car, compiles it into actionable data and makes that data5217available to users through a web application and API less than 305218minutes after the train passes the sensor.5219 RailState has been providing this service for various public sector5220entities for over five years with 250 sensors located throughout North5221America. These sensors operate in all climate conditions from the5222Canadian tundra to Death Valley. To date, they have tracked thousands5223of trains each day identifying the fluidity of the network, providing5224mobility trends, capturing rail movements at our nation's ports and5225borders, showing train lengths and consists, and spotting cargo fraud5226and railcar vandalism. Establishing and funding a Rail System5227Performance Data Program would greatly assist the Federal government in5228helping to modernize our nation's freight and passenger rail network,5229thus, improving safety and not just improving but growing passenger and5230freight rail capacity.5231 I am more than happy to answer any questions you might have.5232 Thank you for your continued leadership and consideration of this5233most important effort.5234 Sincerely,5235 John Schmitter,5236 Co-Founder, Chief Commercial Officer, RailState LLC.52375238 Appendix52395240 ----------52415242 Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Brigham A. McCown, Founder and5243 Chairman of the Board of Directors, Alliance for Innovation and5244 Infrastructure52455246 Question 1. Please elaborate on how railroads would determine the5247prioritization of repairs to track determined to be noncritical or5248dangerous.5249 Answer. Railroads should consistently adopt a structured, risk-5250based approach to establishing repair priorities. Conditions posing an5251immediate threat, such as defects that could lead to derailments, must5252be addressed and mitigated promptly. This protocol aligns with FRA5253regulations. Defects not requiring immediate repair should be5254prioritized based on severity. These considerations should, at minimum,5255encompass the type of cargo, train tonnage on the segment, speed,5256population density, and environmental factors. Furthermore, Automated5257Track Inspection (ATI) data and predictive analytics increasingly5258enhance repair prioritization through a likelihood/consequence safety5259analysis, conforming to recognized risk-management standards.5260 Recommendation to Congress: Authorize and encourage the USDOT and5261the FRA to pilot decision-support tools that integrate tonnage5262exposure, defect type, and predictive modeling to enhance national5263repair prioritization standards. Urge the USDOT to utilize existing5264programs within other modal administrations to foster intermodal5265collaboration.52665267 Question 2. In his testimony, Mr. Cardwell claimed that the5268American Railroad Waiver Request--FRA Docket #2025-0059--will5269``significantly weaken'' railroad safety by reducing the frequency of5270manual inspections and allow railroads ``up to 72 hours to address''5271track defects exposing ``the American people to imminent danger.'' Is5272this your understanding of the waiver request? How would the waiver5273request, if granted, operate in practice?5274 Answer. My understanding of the matter is entirely different. It is5275appropriate to assert that safety protocols and procedures should5276incorporate science, technology, and data; otherwise, safety could be5277compromised if decisions are influenced by subjective factors such as5278workforce size. Such decisions are most appropriately managed through5279collective bargaining between the railroads and unions. In practice,5280waivers, such as the one referenced, would facilitate ATI serving as5281the primary inspection instrument.5282 Manual follow-up inspections for anomalies would still need to be5283conducted within the requested 72-hour response period. The proposed528472-hour window itself is part of a waiver petition for ATI5285implementation filed by the AAR in May and has not yet received FRA5286feedback or approval. This provision does not permit neglect; instead,5287it formalizes a precise, data-driven process for verification and5288remediation. ATI systems collect vast amounts of freight rail5289operational data that must be processed into usable information and5290analyzed--a task that takes time but yields insights far beyond what5291human inspectors could achieve. The 72-hour window is a reasonable5292timeframe for this process to be feasible, enabling railroads to detect5293far more, and far smaller, defects sooner than traditional inspection5294methods. Railroads would remain accountable for their decisions, and in5295many instances, manual inspections would be conducted more promptly5296than the maximum allowable time. Continuous ATI monitoring allows5297earlier detection of issues and greater frequency compared to periodic5298manual inspections, thereby enabling timely interventions.5299 As a former regulator myself, I recognize that such arbitrary5300deadlines can be problematic, which is why my recommendation would only5301include a final agency action. That said, in many cases, there is5302simply no reason other than a lack of will within an agency as to why5303the waiver review process cannot be completed within a reasonable5304period, such as 90 days. Acting upon applications from regulated5305entities is indeed a systemic issue across many parts of the Department5306of Transportation. Congress should also ensure the Department of5307Transportation avoids a belt-and-suspenders approach. By this, I mean5308that for a waiver, special permit, or other parts of DOT, applicants5309are often required to go far beyond the existing regulatory framework5310to secure approval. This is not only counterintuitive; it undermines5311innovation and only reinforces the outdated nature of many federal5312regulations.5313 Recommendation to Congress: Establish statutory timelines (shot5314clock) that cannot be stopped for the FRA waiver reviews, and require5315that any waiver approval include measurable safety performance metrics5316for oversight.53175318 Question 3. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) waivers share5319common elements with performance-based regulations. How does the waiver5320process differ from a performance-based regulatory framework? Are5321waivers a substitute for performance-based regulatory framework?5322 Answer. The waiver process offers temporary, case-specific5323exemptions from prescriptive regulations when an applicant demonstrates5324that an alternative approach meets or surpasses safety standards.5325Conversely, a performance-based framework establishes defined safety5326outcomes--such as detection rates or maximum repair times--and provides5327regulated entities with flexibility in achieving these outcomes. While5328waivers are reactive measures, performance-based regulation is5329proactive and sustainable. Ideally, regulatory agencies should5330progressively revise their regulations to shift away from prescriptive5331measures in favor of performance-oriented approaches. This transition5332would eliminate the regulatory delays associated with the current5333rulemaking procedures and would promote more rapid investment in5334innovative solutions by companies and inventors. Moreover, the agency5335should prioritize waivers granted to specific entities and consider5336regional or industry-wide waivers wherever feasible. These waivers5337could subsequently serve as the foundation for a new performance space5338framework, where applicable.5339 I believe there is a strong bipartisan consensus in favor of a5340risk-based approach to regulations, as the standards often set are so5341stringent that they function both as economic deterrents and dissuade5342companies from investing in their assets. This is, of course, not to5343suggest that regulation should be eliminated or that regulated entities5344should be exempt from oversight. On the contrary, more effective5345regulations serve to bring us closer to our objective of zero accidents5346and zero incidents.5347 Recommendation to Congress: Require FRA to review and consider5348permanent rule changes whenever three or more waivers are granted for5349the same provision within five years, ensuring recurring operational5350realities are reflected in regulation.53515352 Question 4. Your organization's recent report, ``Driving Regulatory5353Innovation for Safer Railroading,'' highlighted some very egregious5354examples of the Biden Administration's manipulation of the FRA's waiver5355process, most notably the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth5356Circuit ruling against FRA's rejection of a BNSF waiver.5357 Question 4.a. What are the implications of an agency acting in an5358``arbitrary and capricious'' manner for innovations that improve5359railroad safety and innovation?5360 Answer. The Fifth Circuit's ruling in BNSF Railroad Co. v. FRA5361characterized the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) denial of5362waivers as ``arbitrary and capricious'' due to its failure to consider5363relevant safety data and the absence of a clear rationale for5364prioritizing manual inspections. It is essential to recognize that such5365a standard sets a relatively high threshold; agencies that act5366reasonably--despite expert disagreements--or that are generally upheld5367often meet this criterion. Nonetheless, when an agency considers5368alternative measures to be more suitable, it likely exceeds its5369statutory authority and extends its powers beyond those granted by5370Congress. Cases of this nature are particularly regrettable, as they5371are unnecessary. Frequently, governmental legal representatives are5372aware of more appropriate options but are constrained by policy5373directives or, in certain instances, by political decision-making5374processes.5375 Unfortunately, such conduct erodes confidence by fostering5376uncertainty, which discourages investment in both emerging and5377established safety technologies. Ultimately, this is harmful to the5378public, as it sacrifices the advantages of improved efficiency and5379enhanced safety.53805381 Question 4.b. Were FRA's actions during the Biden Administration5382contrary to the agency's mission to ``enable the safe, reliable, and5383efficient movement of people and goods?''5384 Answer. Rejecting data-supported innovations without a clear5385justification contradicts the FRA's mission ``to enable the safe,5386reliable, and efficient movement of people and goods.'' The primary5387concern, if I may, in this context, pertains to employment, which is5388entirely understandable. As briefly mentioned during the hearing,5389employment considerations are always significant, and sound public5390policy should duly account for this. An effective safety policy should5391not hinder employment. Existing mechanisms are in place through which5392the workforce and the railroads can negotiate compensation packages,5393pensions, and overall security. As I have briefly indicated, history5394shows that employment is not necessarily diminished due to5395technological advancements. Instead, in this context, the workforce5396responsible for locating and repairing defects remains essentially the5397same.5398 It is reasonable to assume that if significantly more defects can5399be identified using more automated technologies than the traditional5400methods, such as the ``Mark 1 Mod 0 Eyeball'' as we would refer to it5401in the military out of pure jest, it would constitute an improvement.5402 Recommendation to Congress: Require FRA to publish, in the Federal5403Register, objective and data-driven rationales for waiver denials,5404including any comparative safety analysis between proposed and existing5405methods.54065407 Question 5. In his testimony during the hearing, Mr. Cardwell5408claimed that technologies like ATI are only 26-27 percent effective at5409identifying defects. Could you explain why this figure may not be5410accurate in describing how ATI works in conjunction with manual track5411inspections?5412 Answer. I do not believe that the cited 26-27% figure accurately5413represents ATI's capabilities. To clarify further, the allegation is5414that ATI is specifically using Track Geometry Measurement Systems,5415which can only identify six of the 23 defect types the FRA requires5416railroads to check for during visual inspections--roughly 26 percent of5417the total categories--meaning this figure reflects the targeted scope5418of defect types ATI measures, not its accuracy within that range.5419 For its accuracy, both the FRA and MxV Rail pilot programs showed5420that ATI reduced defects per 100 miles by 92.2% (from 3.08 to 0.24) \1\5421and lowered derailments on monitored corridors by 72.7%.\2\ ATI shifts5422manual inspection focus on defect types it cannot yet detect, such as5423specific turnout issues, which account for 60-80% of non-geometry5424defects.\3\ ATI also reduces worker exposure to on-track hazards and5425expands inspection coverage without increasing track time.5426---------------------------------------------------------------------------5427 \1\ Association of American Railroads. (2025, April 24). TGMS5428Waiver Petition to FRA (FRA-2025-0059), attachment detailing pilot-5429program defect ratios [PDF letter]. https://www.trains.com/wpcontent/5430uploads/2025/05/FRA-2025-0059-0001_attachment_1.pdf5431 \2\ Federal Railroad Administration. (2021, November 23). Track5432Inspection Test Programs: Report to Congress [PDF]. U.S. Department of5433Transportation. https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2021-543411/FRA%20Report%20to%20Congress-Track%20Inspection%20Test5435%20Program%2011.23.21.pdf5436 \3\ Eruvuru, S. (2023). Railroad Wireless Communications Research5437and Testing. Association of American Railroads. MxV Rail. Retrieved5438from https://www.mxvrail.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/28th-Annual-5439AAR-Research-Review-2023-All-Slides-1.pdf5440---------------------------------------------------------------------------5441 Recommendation to Congress: Direct FRA to integrate validated ATI5442performance data into its rulemaking and consider expanding its5443authorized use for mainline inspections, paired with targeted manual5444follow-ups.54455446 Question 6. The hearing mostly focused on the benefits of5447performance-based regulations on regulated entities. As a former5448regulator at the Department of Transportation (DOT), what benefits are5449the benefits of performance-based standards to Federal regulators?5450 Answer. For regulators, performance-based standards provide:5451 Flexibility to approve innovative solutions without the5452necessity of frequent rule rewrites.5453 Clarity of Outcomes with measurable safety metrics;5454 Efficient Oversight by focusing on results rather than5455method compliance; and5456 Continuous Improvement through feedback from performance5457data.54585459 The PHMSA Integrity Management Program, developed during my tenure5460in federal service, has contributed to a reduction in hazardous liquid5461pipeline incidents, which have decreased by 36% between 2014 and 2024,5462despite an expansion in mileage and increased volumes transported. This5463demonstrates that well-designed performance frameworks can enhance5464safety while fostering innovation.\4\5465---------------------------------------------------------------------------5466 \4\ Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. (2024).5467Annual report: Hazardous liquid pipeline performance measures, 2010-54682024. U.S. Department of Transportation. Retrieved from https://5469www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/hazardous-liquid-annual-5470data5471---------------------------------------------------------------------------5472 Recommendation to Congress: Authorize FRA to implement a phased,5473metrics-driven performance-based program--initially as voluntary5474pilots--with periodic evaluation and potential codification if safety5475improvements are verified.54765477 Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Eric Gebhardt, Executive Vice5478 President and Chief Technology Officer, Wabtec, on behalf of the5479 Railway Supply Institute54805481 Question 1. The technologies you are developing seek to leverage5482vast amounts of data and data analysis to shift the paradigm of5483railroad safety from a reactive approach to a proactive approach. In5484your testimony, you also said it will take rail safety ``to the next5485level.''5486 Question 1.a. How important is a consistent and transparent5487regulatory process to enabling this paradigm shift?5488 Question 1.b. Would you agree that the goal of regulations should5489be to achieve a safety outcome, rather than mandate a specific process5490to achieve that outcome?5491 Question 1.c. How is data collected from ATI analyzed and utilized?5492 Question 1.d. How do railroads use this information to determine5493and prioritize track maintenance and repair?5494 Answer to 1.a., 1.b., 1.c., & 1.d. A consistent and transparent5495regulatory process is essential to the successful development,5496demonstration, and adoption of rail safety technologies. When industry5497can anticipate how data-driven solutions will be evaluated, it reduces5498uncertainty and supports broader investment in safety-enhancing5499technologies.5500 Wabtec agrees that the primary goal of regulation by the Federal5501Railroad Administration should be to achieve measurable safety5502outcomes. Prescriptive rules, while well intentioned, can constrain the5503deployment of advanced technologies that may exceed legacy safety5504benchmarks. A performance-based regulatory approach, focused on5505outcomes, including defect detection and predictive maintenance5506efficacy, can provide the flexibility needed for the industry to5507continuously improve while maintaining rigorous safety standards.5508 Automated Track Inspection (ATI) systems collect geometry and high-5509resolution imagery on critical safety components. The data is5510immediately uploaded to secure servers. In near real-time, these tools5511identify anomalies, trends, and potential defects, assigning a severity5512rating and generating actionable alerts for rail operators. Historical5513and trend-based analyses are also performed to detect degradation5514patterns over time--enabling predictive maintenance and asset lifecycle5515management.5516 Capturing and analyzing vast amounts of data allows railroads to5517continuously monitor the state of the equipment and infrastructure,5518spot degradation trends and catch failures before they occur. Many5519failures will have early indications that degradations are in progress.5520With these capabilities, railroads have the ability to catch and5521address these before catastrophic failures occur.55225523 Question 2. Some claim railroads use innovation solely as a means5524of eliminating jobs or otherwise avoid safety regulations.5525 Question 2.a. How do technologies like ATI create new opportunities5526for rail workers?5527 Question 2.b. In your opinion, does rail innovation necessarily5528result in fewer rail worker jobs, or does it shift the composition of5529the rail workforce?5530 Question 2.c. Can you describe other benefits technology can bring5531to workers?5532 Answer to 2.a., 2.b., & 2.c. Our experience demonstrates that5533technology, when deployed thoughtfully, can enhance both safety and5534opportunity for rail workers. For example, inspection technologies5535shift the focus of rail safety personnel from repetitive, manual, and5536sometimes dangerous tasks to higher-value roles in data interpretation,5537diagnostics, and preventative maintenance planning. The talented5538railroad workforce is increasingly being trained to operate and5539maintain advanced diagnostic tools, expanding their technical skill5540sets and improving long-term career prospects in a modernized rail5541industry.5542 We have, in the US, a very valuable rail infrastructure of over5543140,000 miles of track handed down to us by earlier generations.5544Unfortunately, this very desirable historical asset is under-utilized.5545Advanced Technologies have the ability for us to significantly increase5546traffic volume while improving safety. This would have the effect of5547not only relieving pressure on our roads and highways, but for the rail5548worker, it would mean more work to operate and maintain the increased5549quantity of equipment and assets needed to move the increased volume of5550freight.55515552 Question 3. Should regulatory safety standards be solely based on5553measurable and objective technical and engineering criteria? Can you5554describe the negative consequences of introducing subjective factors to5555evaluate regulations and what this means for innovators?5556 Answer. Regulatory safety standards should be grounded in5557measurable, objective technical and engineering criteria. Objective5558standards ensure that safety outcomes are consistent and rooted in5559sound science. They also create a clear and level playing field for5560industry participants, enabling investment, innovation, and continuous5561improvement in rail safety technologies.5562 When subjective factors influence decision-making, similar5563technologies may be treated differently across regions or time periods,5564undermining confidence in the regulatory process. Ultimately, safety5565should never be compromised. But when evaluation criteria are5566objective, transparent, and measurable, the rail industry is better5567positioned to bring forward innovative tools that can meaningfully5568improve safety and performance.55695570 Question 4. How do technologies like ATI facilitate a process that5571promotes continual improvement in railroad safety management efforts?5572 Answer. Technologies, like ATI, transform railroad safety from a5573static, compliance-based model, to a dynamic, data-driven process of5574continual improvement. Rather than relying solely on periodic manual5575inspections, inspection systems generate continuous streams of high-5576resolution data on critical components such as wheels, bearings, and5577brake systems, even while trains are operating at track speed. These5578inspection technologies also reduce the potential for human error and5579ensure more consistent safety objectives.5580 When these technologies leverage state of the art Machine Learning5581or other Artificial Intelligence advancements, their models improve5582over time and become more capable and precise. In the same manner as5583humans learn, inspection models are trained and then as models are used5584in the field, they gain observations based on exposure to new5585situations. With this new knowledge, models are continually re-trained5586based on experience. This new knowledge now becomes a permanent part of5587the model, which continuously improves over time. However, unlike5588humans, this knowledge base is consistent across each inspection.55895590 Question 5. Would you agree that the best outcome for railroads,5591their workers, their customers and the public is to allow the adoption5592of new technologies to occur in a competitive market and avoid having5593the government choose winners and losers? Can you briefly describe the5594benefits of a competitive market for your industry?5595 Answer. The most effective and sustainable outcomes for railroads,5596workers, customers, and the public are achieved when technology5597adoption is guided by a competitive, innovation-driven marketplace. At5598the same time, we support continued federal investments in rail5599technology research, development, and deployment, such as the5600Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements grant program.5601These investments play a critical role in de-risking early-stage5602innovation, advancing foundational research and development, and5603accelerating the adoption of next-generation technologies that enhance5604safety and operational efficiency.5605 Looking ahead to the 2026 Surface Transportation Reauthorization,5606Wabtec supports a suite of market-oriented initiatives that preserve5607competition while speeding safe deployment. We recommend establishing a5608SuperRail program at the Department of Transportation, in partnership5609with the Department of Energy, to competitively fund next-generation5610rail technologies across energy efficiency, network optimization,5611advanced materials, and cybersecurity. We also support an FRA research,5612development, and demonstration pilot focused on automated inspection5613and a rail technology and innovation fast-track program to streamline5614testing, evaluation, and approvals. None of these proposals choose5615winners: they set clear outcomes and let rail technology providers5616compete to meet them, while giving railroads practical pathways to5617adopt what works at-scale.56185619 Questions from Hon. Rick Larsen to Eric Gebhardt, Executive Vice5620 President and Chief Technology Officer, Wabtec, on behalf of the5621 Railway Supply Institute56225623 Question 1. Have Railway Supply Institute members seen a benefit5624from the robust and dedicated rail funding in the Bipartisan5625Infrastructure Law?5626 Answer. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided five5627years of predictable, rail-specific funding for critical industry5628supporting programs, including the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure &5629Safety Improvements (CRISI) program. As a result of this five-year5630Surface Transportation Reauthorization, rail suppliers and operators5631have greater certainty to invest in manufacturing facilities, product5632development, and their workforce.5633 These programs, including but not limited to CRISI, have5634accelerated the deployment of advanced safety and efficiency5635technologies developed by RSI member companies, including Positive5636Train Control, railcar telematics, and new and upgraded locomotives.5637Each federal investment triggers follow-on orders for further equipment5638and technology produced by RSI firms and suppliers.56395640 Question 2. Why did Wabtec develop a Tier 4 locomotive? Why aren't5641more railroads replacing their older locomotives with these cleaner5642locomotives?5643 Answer. Wabtec invested over $250 million to develop the Tier 45644locomotive and comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency5645(EPA) Tier 4 emissions standards, which were first promulgated in 20085646and became effective in 2015. Wabtec's Tier 4 locomotive was designed5647to meet these stringent emissions standards without aftertreatment,5648offering a fuel-efficient, lower-emissions alternative to legacy5649locomotives, while maintaining the high-performance demands of freight5650operations. More than 1,100 Wabtec Tier 4 locomotives are in operation5651today.5652 Widespread replacement of older locomotives with Tier 4 units has5653been limited due to significant upfront investment, fleet utilization5654strategies, and operational considerations. Additionally, many Class I5655railroads have opted to modernize existing fleets of line-haul5656locomotives due to their long life of up to 40 years. While not5657achieving Tier 4 compliance, locomotive modernizations still drive5658substantial fuel savings, improve reliability, and reduce emissions at5659a lower cost.56605661 Questions from Hon. Rick Larsen to Tony Cardwell, President,5662 Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division, International5663 Brotherhood of Teamsters56645665 Question 1. Do you support railroads using better technology?5666 Answer. Yes. BMWED supports the use of any technology that improves5667safety, helps identify defects earlier, or gives track inspectors5668better information in the field. Automated inspection tools, drones,5669sensors, and geometry systems all have value when they supplement, not5670replace, the judgment and experience of qualified track inspectors.5671 Since 2018, BMWED has vigorously attempted to work with the freight5672railroads to find a responsible and safe pathway for integrating new5673technologies while preserving the level of visual oversight required to5674keep the track structure safe. Those efforts have consistently5675emphasized that technology should strengthen inspection programs, not5676weaken them. These attempts were rejected, at every level.5677 Technology can enhance safety, but it cannot replicate the full5678range of conditions inspectors evaluate, such as track components,5679ballast conditions, drainage issues, ties, fasteners, switches, and5680subgrade movement. Our position is simple: technology should make the5681job safer, not serve as a justification for reducing human oversight5682that FRA regulations still require.56835684 Question 2. Does railroad management share information from their5685track geometry measurement systems with track inspectors?5686 Answer. Not consistently. On some railroads, inspectors receive5687partial or delayed TGMS information, or only limited categories of5688exceptions. In many cases, inspectors report that they do not receive5689full exception lists, historical trend data, GPS aligned records, or5690the underlying strip charts that would allow them to fully verify or5691understand an automated exception. Workers have also reported that5692railroad managers sometimes discard or disregard TGMS runs that show5693less favorable conditions, which prevents inspectors from seeing the5694full picture of track health.5695 BMWED has repeatedly raised concerns when railroads use automated5696data to justify reducing visual inspections while not providing5697inspectors with the full set of information needed to properly verify5698defects and protect track safety.56995700 Question 3. Why have freight railroads cut their track inspection5701staff over the last ten years? Are they operating over fewer miles of5702track?5703 Answer. Freight railroads have reduced track inspection staffing5704for reasons that have nothing to do with reductions in track miles. In5705fact, many carriers still operate roughly the same mileage they did a5706decade ago, and traffic density has increased on key corridors.5707 The staffing cuts occurred primarily because of cost reduction5708strategies tied to Precision Scheduled Railroading. Railroads5709consolidated territories, increased the geographic size of inspector5710assignments, eliminated redundant positions, and allowed attrition to5711shrink the workforce. These decisions were financial, not safety5712driven. Over the same period, Class I carriers have reduced their5713overall workforce by roughly 30 percent. This includes safety related5714craft positions such as track inspectors and reflects a systemic5715staffing issue, not a targeted or safety driven adjustment.5716 Despite maintaining similar mileage and in many cases higher5717tonnage, railroads today have fewer inspectors per mile of track. BMWED5718continues to warn that reducing human inspection capacity while5719increasing reliance on automated systems creates gaps, diminishes local5720expertise, and increases safety risk to both workers and the public.57215722Question from Hon. Dina Titus to Tony Cardwell, President, Brotherhood5723 of Maintenance of Way Employes Division, International Brotherhood of5724 Teamsters57255726 Question 1. Can you describe the cooperation between your members5727and the Federal Railroad Administration's 371 safety inspectors? Would5728increasing the number of FRA safety inspectors and modernizing pay to5729retain skilled FRA safety inspectors improve safety for communities,5730passengers, and operations? If so, could you explain how?5731 Answer. Thank you for the question. BMWED members work closely with5732FRA's safety inspectors and view them as essential partners in5733protecting workers, communities, and the traveling public. Our members5734interact with FRA inspectors during routine field inspections, joint5735investigations, incident reviews, and compliance audits. These5736interactions are professional, collaborative, and grounded in a shared5737commitment to ensuring that the national rail network meets the5738requirements of federal Track Safety Standards.5739 FRA's 371 inspectors are responsible for oversight of more than 1405740thousand miles of track, thousands of bridges, and all freight and5741passenger railroads in the country. Their ability to independently5742verify conditions, follow up on reported hazards, and hold carriers5743accountable is critical. However, the ratio of federal inspectors to5744the size and complexity of the national rail system limits how often5745FRA can visit properties and how deeply they can audit track5746conditions, inspection records, and maintenance programs.5747 Increasing the number of FRA safety inspectors, and modernizing pay5748so the agency can recruit and retain individuals with real field5749experience, would improve safety in several ways. It would allow FRA to5750conduct more frequent onsite inspections, verify automated inspection5751data with independent measurements, and follow up more rapidly on5752defects, slow orders, and derailment precursors. It would also5753strengthen oversight of carrier compliance with Part 213 and ensure5754that reductions in visual inspections do not occur without strong5755evidence of safety.5756 Additional FRA capacity would reinforce the work of BMWED5757inspectors on the ground. When FRA is present more often and able to5758independently confirm conditions, it reduces pressure on railroad5759employees to meet unrealistic productivity goals and helps ensure that5760safety decisions are based on conditions, not company targets. That5761improves safety for communities along rail corridors, for train crews5762and maintenance employees, and for passengers who rely on safe track5763infrastructure.5764 BMWED strongly supports increased staffing, improved pay, and5765modernized hiring authorities for FRA's safety inspector corps.57665767 [all]Witnesses
4 witnesses appeared, with 11 papers on file.
Documents
The committee filed 3 documents for the meeting.