Advertisement

A Team Drives the Train: Human Factors in Train Controller Perspectives of the Controller-Driver Dynamic

  • Anjum Naweed
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 823)

Abstract

Signal passed at danger events (SPADs) impact safety-risk on rail networks, despite the introduction of novel technologies aimed at addressing their cause and effect. Much of the rail safety literature has had a tendency to focus on activities within the cab, placing a spotlight on “errors” within the train driving role. However, a train is not propelled by a single person—is it is propelled by a tightly-coupled team where driving and train controlling activities are distributed but must work in concert. This study set out to understand how controllers perceive the controller-driver dynamic, and how these perspectives impact upon SPAD-risk. Interviews were conducted with 35 train controllers from 6 rail organisations across Australia and New Zealand. Data were collected using the SITT forward scenario simulation method and analysed using conventional content analysis. Eleven different perspectives were identified, ranging in type and varying by frequency, each with implications for the strength of the coupling in distributed cognition between the controller and driver roles and with implications for SPAD-risk. How these perspectives may influence controller-driver dynamics are illustrated using sample scenarios from the data. The findings emphasise key dimensions of the teaming factors in the movement of trains and illustrate how the underlying values and philosophies in different train controlling cultures influence safety. Findings are discussed in the context of obtaining a holistic and more informed model of train driving.

Keywords

Train controllers SPAD-risk Teamwork 

References

  1. 1.
    Naweed A, Trigg J, Cloete S, Allan P, Bentley T (in press) Throwing good money after SPAD? Exploring the cost of signal passed at danger (SPAD) incidents to Australasian rail organisations. Saf Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.05.018
  2. 2.
    Singh H, Hanna J (2015) India train derailment: 30 killed, 50 injured, 20 MarchGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ATSB (2012) Australian Rail Safety Occurrence Data, 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2012. Canberra, ACT: ATSB, 2012 Contract No.: RR-2012-010Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Indep Trans Saf Regulator (2011) Transport safety bulletin: Focus on SPADGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Naweed A (2013) Psychological factors for driver distraction and inattention in the AU and NZ rail industry. Acc Anal Prev 60:193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Naweed A, Rainbird S, Chapman J (2015) Investigating the formal countermeasures and informal strategies used to mitigate SPAD risk in train driving. Ergonomics 58(6):883–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Naweed A, Rainbird S, Dance C (2015) Are you fit to continue? Approaching rail systems thinking at the cusp of safety and the apex of performance. Saf Sci 76:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rainbird S, Naweed A (2016) Signs of respect: embodying the train driver–signal relationship to avoid rail disasters. Appl Mobilities 2(1):50–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Woods D, Hollnagel E (2006) Joint cognitive systems: patterns in cognitive systems engineering. Taylor & Francis, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Curry LA, Nembhard IM, Bradley EH (2009) Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique contributions to outcomes research. Circulation 119(10):1442–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferroff CV, Marvin TJ, Bates PR, Murry PS (2012) A case for social constructionism in aviation safety and performance research. Aeronutica 2(1):1–12Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Naweed A, Balakrishnan G (2014) Understanding the visual skills and strategies of train drivers in the urban rail environment. Work 47(3):339–352Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klein G, Calderwood R, Macgregor DG (1989) Critical decision method for eliciting knowledge. IIEE Trans Syst Manuf Cybern 19(3):462–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Monk A, Howard S (1998) Rich picture: a tool for reasoning about work context. Interactions 2(5):21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Naweed A, Balakrishnan G, Bearman C, Dorrian J, Dawson D (2012) Scaling generative scaffolds towards train driving expertise. In: Anderson M (ed) Contemporary ergonomics and human factors 2012: proceedings of the international conference on ergonomics & human factors 2012. CRC Press, Blackpool, p 235Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Filtness AJ, Naweed A (2017) Causes, consequences and countermeasures to driver fatigue in the rail industry: The train driver perspective. Appl Ergon 60:12–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Keeffe VJ, Tuckey MR, Naweed A (2015) Whose safety? flexible risk assessment boundaries balance nurse safety with patient care. Saf Sci 76:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15(9):1277–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Viegas FB, Wattenberg M, Feinberg J (2009) Participatory visualization with wordle. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 15(6)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Appleton Institute for Behavioural ScienceCentral Queensland UniversityRockhamptonAustralia

Personalised recommendations