This story has been updated to include a comment from Union Pacific.
A Wyoming locomotive engineer is suing Union Pacific (NYSE: UNP) in federal court, alleging he was injured when an AI computer software system caused two locomotives on the train on which he was working to move at conflicting speeds.
Andrew Kirol was injured in May 2021 when the software gave “incorrect, inconsistent, contradictory and dangerous instructions” to the locomotives powering the train, according to a lawsuit filed April 18 in the District of Wyoming.
Kirol was required to use the software, known as the Leader system. The system’s purpose was to learn how to control locomotives on trains “without input from the Locomotive Engineer,” says the lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages.
“LEADER is not AI — it is a nearly 15-year-old technology that is part of Union Pacific’s Energy Management System and is similar to cruise control on a car,” according to a statement from Union Pacific. “LEADER does not ‘learn’ and make decisions that apply across other locomotives, and the engineer can take control at any time. It uses the topography of land, as well as train length and weight to optimally apply power and speed to the train, saving fuel and decreasing Union Pacific’s carbon footprint.”
Union Pacific calls the system an “energy management system” that “automatically [controls] a locomotive’s throttle and dynamic brake to reduce fuel usage, minimize GHG emissions and optimize train handling.”
The train was hauling freight near Green River, Wyoming, through an area of hills and valleys. Kirol was in the lead locomotive. A middle locomotive was typically controlled remotely by the engineer, but all locomotives were controlled by AI on the day of the incident, according to the suit.
As the train climbed a hill, the system slowed the lead locomotive while at the same time causing the middle locomotive to speed up. This “resulted in the middle locomotive violently pushing the cars between it and the lead locomotive towards the head of the train and into the locomotive where the Plaintiff was situated,” the suit states. “This caused a ‘rear ending’ of the Plaintiff’s locomotive with significant speed and force” by compressing the slack spaces between cars.
The conflicting speeds between the locomotives were “a circumstance which no competent Locomotive Engineer would have allowed to arise under the circumstances,” the suit alleges. Kirol was “violently” tossed around the cab, injuring his lower back.
The lawsuit alleges that Union Pacific didn’t warn Kirol of the possible hazards, didn’t train him adequately on operating the Leader system and failed to inspect the locomotives.
Kirol, who was “a strong and able-bodied man” prior to his injuries, expects to have physical impairments in the future and physical pain “probably permanently,” the lawsuit says.
Stephen Webster
2 small railways in ont that are owned by the companies that ship with them in rural areas have told their customers co op owners this tec is not safe and are keeping 2 people on all their trains . One person is extremely good at the job
The other person maybe a younger person often from another country and with a mechanic background and worked on trains . We need 2 man crews and to limit the use of this tec in all trains and heavy trucks. I my opinion and many computer people this software is not ready to be left without direct adult supervision
Jeff S Douglass
Get rid of this LEADER. This technology is just all for profit and in the end to have 1 man crews. How in the world did freight ever get across the road for the last 175 yrs without DP units and 15k ton 15k foot trains ? UTU and BLET need to finally get together and say NO MORE.
Peter C.Ely
Nobody will be on trains in next 5 years at all.
No unions and no employees to worry about.
Matt Parker
LEADER, and its counterpart, Trip Optimizer, DO NOT optimize train handling. In fact, the train handling by these systems is poor at best and unsafe at worst. The systems are incapable of adjusting to dangerous flaws in train make-up, which still exist regardless of what the railroads claim to the contrary. Any railroad crew forced to utilize the systems, when questioned, would have many stories of being slammed around by the systems’ methods of operation. As for the assertion that these systems save fuel – any Locomotive Engineer who runs their train 4 to 10 miles per hour below maximum authorized speed on average, as these systems do, could likewise save fuel.