Skip to main content

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

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) (IEA 2018)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 823))

Included in the following conference series:

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term “SPAD” is used to encompass any scenario where a train has encroached into an area it has no authority and can therefore include non-signalled environments. SPADs are most common in setting which use traditional driving/multi-aspect signalling practices but can also happen in advanced rail networks with sophisticated signalling systems.

References

  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. Singh H, Hanna J (2015) India train derailment: 30 killed, 50 injured, 20 March

    Google Scholar 

  3. ATSB (2012) Australian Rail Safety Occurrence Data, 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2012. Canberra, ACT: ATSB, 2012 Contract No.: RR-2012-010

    Google Scholar 

  4. Indep Trans Saf Regulator (2011) Transport safety bulletin: Focus on SPAD

    Google Scholar 

  5. Naweed A (2013) Psychological factors for driver distraction and inattention in the AU and NZ rail industry. Acc Anal Prev 60:193–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):883–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 76:101–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rainbird S, Naweed A (2016) Signs of respect: embodying the train driver–signal relationship to avoid rail disasters. Appl Mobilities 2(1):50–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Woods D, Hollnagel E (2006) Joint cognitive systems: patterns in cognitive systems engineering. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Curry LA, Nembhard IM, Bradley EH (2009) Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique contributions to outcomes research. Circulation 119(10):1442–1452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferroff CV, Marvin TJ, Bates PR, Murry PS (2012) A case for social constructionism in aviation safety and performance research. Aeronutica 2(1):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  12. Naweed A, Balakrishnan G (2014) Understanding the visual skills and strategies of train drivers in the urban rail environment. Work 47(3):339–352

    Google Scholar 

  13. Klein G, Calderwood R, Macgregor DG (1989) Critical decision method for eliciting knowledge. IIEE Trans Syst Manuf Cybern 19(3):462–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Monk A, Howard S (1998) Rich picture: a tool for reasoning about work context. Interactions 2(5):21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 235

    Google Scholar 

  16. Filtness AJ, Naweed A (2017) Causes, consequences and countermeasures to driver fatigue in the rail industry: The train driver perspective. Appl Ergon 60:12–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. O’Keeffe VJ, Tuckey MR, Naweed A (2015) Whose safety? flexible risk assessment boundaries balance nurse safety with patient care. Saf Sci 76:111–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15(9):1277–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Viegas FB, Wattenberg M, Feinberg J (2009) Participatory visualization with wordle. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 15(6)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anjum Naweed .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Naweed, A. (2019). A Team Drives the Train: Human Factors in Train Controller Perspectives of the Controller-Driver Dynamic. In: Bagnara, S., Tartaglia, R., Albolino, S., Alexander, T., Fujita, Y. (eds) Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). IEA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 823. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96074-6_29

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics