Investigating an effective method of using Risk Triggered Commentary Driving and Point & Call checks

There are various techniques which train drivers adopt in order to prevent human errors. Risk-Triggered Commentary driving (RTC) was developed by a consultancy on behalf of Arriva Trains Wales. RTC is a rehearsal technique... [ view full abstract ]

There are various techniques which train drivers adopt in order to prevent human errors. Risk-Triggered Commentary driving (RTC) was developed by a consultancy on behalf of Arriva Trains Wales. RTC is a rehearsal technique where train drivers speak aloud what they are thinking while driving. Furthermore, Point and Call checking (P&C) is a rehearsal technique that has been used in Japan. When using P&C, a driver points their index finger at the object to be checked (e.g. signals) and speaks aloud its state (e.g. clear or danger). RTC and P&C are similar in that they are both rehearsal techniques that require drivers to speak aloud. However, few studies have been conducted regarding how to use these methods effectively. This study investigated how to use these techniques effectively in the UK using train simulators.
Two methods of using RTC were investigated using a train simulator. The first involved continuously repeating the commentary “next signal is red” every two seconds after passing a signal displaying a single yellow aspect. The second method of using RTC was to allow the driver to voluntarily repeat the commentary at intervals they themselves felt suitable to remind them of the impending danger signal ahead. The first method seems to have the advantage that the participants keep the information in their mind easily, due to repeating. In comparison, the second method seems to have the advantage that RTC doesn’t require so many cognitive resources, because the participants need not to repeat constantly.
Similarly, with P&C, the effectiveness of its use in two conditions was investigated. The first condition was the “single signal” situation. Participants drove a train on a route that was designed so they would only ever observe one post-mounted signal at a time. The second condition was the “multi-signal” situation in complex signalling locations in which there were more than two signals in the driver’s view. It seems easier to misread a signal in the multi-signal situations than in the single signal situations. For this reason it was hypothesised that participants would prefer the use of P&C in multi-signal situations as pointing the signal would reduce the likelihood of error.
Nine GB rail train drivers participated in this experiment. There was 6 conditions requiring participants to drive three different routes twice but using different techniques. The first route was the RTC route aimed at exploring the effectiveness of different methods of using RTC. The second route was the single signal route where drivers were asked to use/ not use P&C. The third route was the multi-signal route where drivers followed the same instructions as in the single signal route. After each drive, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire about their use of RTC or P&C.
The results of this experiment indicated that when using RTC, participants preferred the option to voluntarily repeat the commentary rather than constantly repeating. Although the effect of P&C was small, the participants indicated that the multi-signal situation was more suitable for P&C than the single signal situation.