Automation effects in train driving with train protection systems – assessing person- and task-related factors

Abstract

Signals passed at danger (SPADs) are amongst the most common incidents in railway operations and are largely attributed to human errors. Train protection systems have therefore been introduced to mitigate and prevent SPADs. Overrunning and slipping past stops, however, remains an issue and very little empirical research has looked into the effects of such partial automation systems thereby, especially on the train driver's cognition, behaviour and activation state. To target this issue, an attention related integrative model of two automation phenomena as proposed by Parasuraman and Manzey (2010) was adapted to train driving with a German train protection system. Preliminary results of the derived questionnaire study on person and task related factors presented here revealed some effects regarding task-related competence and control expectations in train drivers that are deemed unfavourable in view of the emergence of attention deficits and automation errors.

Automation-Induced Complacency Potential: Development and Validation of a New Scale

“…Consistent with this, we found moderate correlations between these two scales ( r = 0.54). This supports the contention of Giesemann (2013) that the complacency potential (as traditionally measured) taps attitudes about the use of technologies. However, neither of these two scales significantly correlated with hypothetical complacency behavior.…”

“…Singh et al (1993) performed an exploratory factor analysis on their scale which revealed that the items sorted into four factors which they labeled: confidence (α = 0.82), reliance (α = 0.85), trust (α = 0.89), and safety (α = 0.95). However, it seems relatively common for researchers to compute a total scale score collapsing across the four factors – in other words, the scale is often treated as unidimensional despite the notion that it consists of four factors (e.g., Prinzel et al, 2005; Merritt and Ilgen, 2008; Giesemann, 2013; Leidheiser and Pak, 2014; Mirchi et al, 2015; Pop et al, 2015; Shah and Bliss, 2017). Other researchers have examined the factors separately but have found few clear distinctions among their effects [e.g., Hitt et al, 1999; Kozon et al, 2012 (adapted scale); Verma et al, 2013].…”

When Something Is in the Way: Parameters of Perception and Reaction Speed in Train Drivers

“…The use of train protection systems may also influence driver performance. Train drivers using a PZB train protection system, the point-wise train protection system commonly employed in Germany, were found to allocate less attention to monitoring the tracks and more attention to the driver's desk than those not using the PZB system (Giesemann & Naumann, 2015). Another study found similar results for UK train drivers operating trains equipped with ETCS (Naghiyev et al, 2017).…”