What This Bill Does
This bill would prohibit certain uses of remote-control locomotives in railroad operations. It is aimed at changing how rail yards and freight railroads move trains, with direct effects on railroad workers, rail carriers, and potentially shippers that depend on freight service. The main mechanism is a federal restriction on specified remote-control locomotive operations, rather than a new spending program. In practical terms, it would push railroads toward more conventional crewed operation in the situations covered by the bill.
- Prohibits certain operations of remote-control locomotives
- Would affect railroad yard and switching practices
- Could require more conventional crewed operations in covered situations
- Shifts costs and safety procedures for freight rail carriers and workers
Who This Bill Affects
For most Americans, this bill would not change daily life directly, but it could affect rail workers, rail carriers, and businesses that move goods by freight train. If you work in rail operations or depend on rail service, it could mean stricter limits on remote-control locomotive use, potentially changing staffing, work rules, and yard procedures. If it improves safety, the main benefit would be fewer rail-yard injuries and accidents; the main downside would be possible cost increases or slower operations that could be passed along in freight rates.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisOfficial Source & Bill Facts
BillBoard checks this page against public Congress.gov metadata, then adds plain-English analysis where available.
- Bill
- HR 9409
- Congress
- 119th Congress
- Official title
- To prohibit certain operations of remote control locomotives, and for other purposes.
- Policy area
- Labor & Employment
- Latest action
- Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (June 23, 2026)
- Last updated
- June 24, 2026
Who Supports & Opposes This
- Rail workers and labor unions They are likely to argue that remote-control operations can expose workers to avoidable hazards in rail yards and switching areas. Limiting those uses would be seen as a direct safety measure that reduces the chance of strikes, run-overs, and other workplace injuries.
- Rail safety advocates They would likely support tighter limits because remote operation can reduce situational awareness and create risk in dense, fast-moving yard environments. A prohibition in specified settings could force safer operating rules and clearer accountability.
- Community members near rail yards Residents may favor stricter controls if they believe safer operations reduce derailments, collisions, or other accidents near neighborhoods and industrial areas. They may also see the bill as promoting more reliable oversight of rail activity.
- Freight rail carriers Railroads may argue that remote-control locomotives are a well-established tool that improves efficiency in switching operations. They could say restrictions would raise operating costs, complicate staffing, and reduce flexibility without delivering proportional safety gains.
- Shippers and logistics companies Businesses that rely on freight rail may worry that new operating limits could slow yard throughput and increase shipping costs. Even modest changes in rail operations can ripple into delivery times and inventory planning.
- Railroad management groups They are likely to argue that existing federal safety rules already govern locomotive operations and that a blanket prohibition is too rigid. From their perspective, targeted training and technology standards would be preferable to an outright ban in covered circumstances.
Key Implications
-
““prohibit certain operations of remote control locomotives””
This is the core restriction: the bill would bar specified uses of remote-control equipment in railroad operations. In practice, that means some rail yards or switching practices could no longer rely on remote operation and would need to change procedures.
-
““remote control locomotives””
The bill targets a specific operating method used in freight rail, especially in yard switching. The people most directly affected would be rail employees who work around locomotives, along with railroads that deploy this technology.
-
““and for other purposes””
This standard legislative phrase signals that the bill may include related regulatory or technical provisions beyond the main ban. Those additional provisions would likely be designed to support enforcement or clarify how the restriction applies.
Latest Status
June 23, 2026
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Related Bills
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.