Committee hears Railway Safety Act requiring wayside detectors, rolls bill for more study

House Transportation, Public Works & Capital Improvements Committee members heard testimony on House Bill 146, the Railway Safety Act, a measure that would require railroads to use wayside detector systems, require reporting of railway safety violations and prohibit retaliatory action tied to reporting.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Hockman Behill, told the committee, “we are enacting the Railway Safety Act, which mandates the use of wayside detector systems. It requires reporting of railway safety violations and prohibits retaliatory action, related thereto, and it also provides administrative penalties for railway safety violations.”

Why it matters: supporters said mandatory detectors and protections for employees who report safety problems would reduce the risk of catastrophic derailments and speed responses when equipment fails. Opponents, chiefly railroad representatives, said mandating a specific detector spacing or technology risks freezing out faster-evolving onboard sensors and could trigger federal preemption challenges.

Supporters, testimony, and rationale

Clem Harris, representing the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, described two central elements of the bill: requiring wayside detectors and prohibiting retaliation against workers who report safety problems. Harris said wayside detectors are already used to monitor hot bearings, sticking brakes and other failures and argued the devices are “the eyes of the railroad.” He cited the East Palestine derailment as an example of how ignoring available detection and reporting can produce large-scale harm: “The overall cost to clean up the community has exceeded 1,000,000,000, and that’s b billion,” he said, and added that allowing employees to report safety issues without repercussion is “critical in a safety sensitive environment.”

John Lipschutz of the New Mexico Federation of Labor said labor stands “in very strong support of this legislation,” telling the committee that union members “deserve a safe workplace.” Harris and Representative Hockman Behill also pointed to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) audits and press reports alleging that at least one Class I railroad had coached employees in responding to FRA inspectors as an argument for stronger state-level protections.

Railroad opposition and technical concerns

Union Pacific public affairs director Raquel Espinosa testified that Union Pacific’s wayside detectors are about 17 miles apart now and said the company planned to reduce spacing to about 15 miles by year-end. “We spend $10,000,000 a day on our infrastructure and technology,” Espinosa said, and urged lawmakers to allow railroads to continue innovating, including future axle-mounted sensors, rather than to mandate a specific technology or spacing in statute.

Registered lobbyists for the railroads echoed that view. Robert Romero, a registered lobbyist for BNSF, told the committee wayside detectors are not mandated by the FRA and said employees already have channels to report safety concerns to the FRA. JD Bullington, registered lobbyist for Union Pacific in New Mexico, warned that the bill currently mandates infrared-based wayside detector technology; he said technology is evolving and soon may rely on different sensors mounted on wheels or axles.

Key technical and fiscal details discussed

- Current practices: railroads set spacing for wayside detectors internally; testimony placed Union Pacific’s average spacing at about 17 miles and BNSF earlier testimony cited 25 miles in some territories. - Sponsor proposal: HB146 would require spacing of about 10 miles between detectors (the 10-mile figure was described by proponents as a compromise point, not a result of a cited definitive study). - Cost estimate: Clem Harris testified that upgrading existing detector locations would be less expensive than installing entirely new detectors; Representative Brown asked about unit cost. Harris provided an estimated range to the committee of roughly $50,000 to $100,000 per new detector as an “educated guess.” - Railroad claims: Union Pacific said it spends roughly $10 million per day on infrastructure and technology (testimony of Raquel Espinosa). - Cleanup precedent: proponents cited the East Palestine, Ohio derailment and cleanup costs cited in testimony as in excess of $1 billion.

Questions from lawmakers

Members pressed both sides on three recurring themes: whether the FRA has authority or standards on detector spacing; whether mandating a specific detector technology would become quickly outdated; and whether the bill imposes an unfunded mandate on state partners or short-line railroads that lease track. Committee members asked the sponsor whether the bill could incorporate transition language to allow future technologies; Representative Hockman Behill and Clem Harris said they were willing to consider wording to allow a phase-in or alternative approved technologies.

Agency engagement and next steps

Clem Harris said he had met informally with NMDOT staff (Mister Serna and Mister Harris were mentioned) and requested that NMDOT remain neutral while the parties negotiated. Several members—including Ranking Member Brown—asked for a formal DOT review and for outreach to short-line railroads, which committee members said had not been part of negotiations.

Outcome

After extended questioning and offers to wordsmith the bill to account for future technologies and short-line impacts, the committee rolled HB146 for additional information. Representative Hockman Behill said the bill would be brought back after committee members’ questions about studies, DOT’s position and short-line impacts were addressed.

Ending

Committee members indicated they supported the bill’s safety aims but wanted more data on detector effectiveness, concrete cost estimates and clear transition language for future sensor technology before voting.