Technology Implications of a Cognitive Task Analysis for Locomotive Engineers

Roth, Emilie M.; Multer, Jordan

doi:10.1037/e621382011-001

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fatigue, monotony and boredom seem to be issues related to normal and thus routine operation conditions (Edkins & Pollock, 1997;Wilde & Stinson, 1983;Buck & Lamonde, 1993;Dorrian et al, 2006). A high cognitive workload, on the other hand, is also being discussed in the context of driver information systems (Tappan, 2011;Kecklund et al, 2001;Roth & Multer, 2009). What is striking is that very little empirical research has looked into the role of automation, especially for the train driver's cognition, behaviour and activation state, and how this could be related to critical incidents.…”

Section: Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Giesemann¹

2013

Rail Human Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Giesemann¹

2013

Rail Human Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Systems-based models provide a snapshot of the entire system and the driver's position within it (e.g. 18,19). On the other hand, skill-based models of train driving focus more on the train driving process itself, though they have a tendency to emphasise the objective and quantitative features of the environment (e.g.…”

Section: How Do Train Drivers Conceptualise Risk?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The art of train driving: Flexing the boundaries to manage risk within an inflexible system

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trains are the heaviest of land vehicles. In terms of design, railways are the most efficient and optimal way of mobilising these behemoths, but the task necessarily attracts risk. Human drivers are crucial to safe rail operations, but train driving is deceptively difficult. Although tracks guide the manoeuvrability of a train, very lengthy stopping distances mean that drivers must prepare to stop at places they cannot see. This is a safety concern, and inaccuracies and failures in this process create the risk for one of the largest safety issues in rail – the “SPAD”, or Signal Passed at Danger. A SPAD is an occurrence where a train passes a signal displaying a stop indication without the authority to do so (1). SPADs describe a situation where a train has travelled beyond its envelope of safety, and in more technical terms, entered into a critical failure mode. Based on figures available for public consumption, over 1,000 SPADs happen on Australia’s railways every year (2, 3). SPADs carry a huge financial burden associated with loss of services, missed shipping windows, timetabling disruption, follow-on impact to other traffic, incident investigation, retraining, and regulator fines. They are seen as a major threat to system safety and have corresponding effects on the network and for driver welfare.

show abstract

“…The following list of human factors issues were identified from a cognitive task analysis of PTC (Roth & Multer, 2009). These issues are primarily concerns (one positive feature) voiced by locomotive cab engineers.…”

Section: Comparison Of Rail and Aviation Industriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting Human-Automation Interaction in the Rail Industry by Applying Lessons from Aviation

Sebok

Wickens

Laux

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes a project to identify lessons learned from human automation interaction and the aviation industry and apply them to the rail industry. Specifically, the project addresses positive train control (PTC) automation in the locomotive cab. The aviation industry has decades of experience implementing automation on the flight deck. In particular, the flight management system (FMS) has offered numerous challenges and provided many lessons learned that can be applied to the rail industry. Experiences with the FMS indicate that mode complexity and mode transitions are particularly challenging. The current PTC designs have only two modes of operation, thus bypassing many of the FMS challenges. However, the possibility of mode confusion exists. This can occur if the engineer believes that PTC is active, when in fact it is not. Mixed equipage on rail lines, where some -but not all -segments of track are instrumented with PTC equipment, make this mode confusion a relevant concern.

show abstract

Technology Implications of a Cognitive Task Analysis for Locomotive Engineers

Cited by 7 publications

References 13 publications

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

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

The art of train driving: Flexing the boundaries to manage risk within an inflexible system

Supporting Human-Automation Interaction in the Rail Industry by Applying Lessons from Aviation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About