A Streetcar Undesired: Investigating Ergonomics and Human Factors Issues in the Driver–cab Interface of Australian Trams

Anjum Naweed , Helen Moody

Urban Rail Transit ›› 2015, Vol. 1 ›› Issue (3) : 149 -158.

PDF
Urban Rail Transit ›› 2015, Vol. 1 ›› Issue (3) : 149 -158. DOI: 10.1007/s40864-015-0021-x
Original Research Papers

A Streetcar Undesired: Investigating Ergonomics and Human Factors Issues in the Driver–cab Interface of Australian Trams

Author information +
History +
PDF

Abstract

Australia is home to the biggest light rail network and the industry is currently undergoing a renaissance. However, there is littleresearch to indicate the extent to which well-informed human factors and ergonomics practises are being incorporated into tram cab design. A lack of standardised features may create transfer conflicts between cabs, as well as operational issues and concerns for occupational health. The aim of this paper is to improve our understanding of the socio-technical complexity of light rail and to enhance how design standards are informed in this domain. Various human factors methods were used, including observational cab rides, objective force assessments, interviews, and focus groups. Data were collected across two sites and analysed thematically. Analysis of data suggested a substandard level human factors and ergonomics input in the design of the cab and driver interface that violated many key tenets of established design guidelines. These were particularly concerned with the usability of the master controller (i.e. throttle lever) and various issues in the design of the tram driver workspace. Findings also revealed a number of subtle yet significant features associated with delivery of service that created safety-performance conflicts. In conclusion, very little human factors input of tram driving, and the ergonomics considerations of the driver’s workplace in general, appear to be going into the design of tram cabs. This may be related to the practice of using non-specific standards for developing trams and/or poorly integrating human factors and ergonomics into their specification processes. Some considerations for future work are given.

Keywords

Modern tram / Traffic and transport safety / Light rail / Interdisciplinary transportation research / Cab design / Interface design

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
Anjum Naweed, Helen Moody. A Streetcar Undesired: Investigating Ergonomics and Human Factors Issues in the Driver–cab Interface of Australian Trams. Urban Rail Transit, 2015, 1(3): 149-158 DOI:10.1007/s40864-015-0021-x

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户 忘记密码

References

[1]

Currie G, Burke M (2013) Light rail in Australia—performance and prospects. Paper presented at the Australasian Transport Research Forum, Brisbane, Australia

[2]

Australasian Railway Association Capital metro: Canberra’s light rail project in a global context, 2015, Canberra: Author

[3]

Nye B (2015) Light rail in Australasia: the economic, social and environmental case. In: Proceedings of 2015 light rail conference, NSW, AU March 5–6 2015

[4]

Macdonald A, Coxon S (2011) Towards a more accessible tram system in Melbourne—challenges for infrastructure design. Paper presented at the Australasian Transport Research Forum, Adelaide, Australia

[5]

Alstom Transport (2011) What will your Citadis be? Author. http://www.alstom.com/transport/products-and-services/trains/tramway-citadis/

[6]

Good Design Australia Good design awards 2014, 2014, Surfers Paradise: Crowther Blayne

[7]

Carey A (2012,) Tram cop a low blow as report slams design flaws. The Age (July 14)

[8]

Wickens CD, Hollands JG. Engineering psychology and human performance, 2000 3 Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall

[9]

Mitra B, Al Jubair J, Cameron PA, Gabbe BJ. Tram-related trauma in Melbourne, Victoria. Emerg Med Australas, 2010, 22(4): 337-342

[10]

Middendorp C (2010) Hop on tram for on hell of a scary ride. The Sydney Morning Herald, December 23

[11]

Union Internationale des Chemins der fer (2009) Driver machine interfaces for EMU/DMU, locomotives and driving coaches—functional and system requirements associated with harmonised Driver Machine Interfaces. Author, Paris, France

[12]

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

[13]

Gould JD, Lewis C. Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Commun ACM, 1985, 28(3): 300-311

[14]

Norman D. The design of everyday things, 1988, New York: Basic Books

[15]

Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H. Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction, 2002, New York: Wiley

[16]

Foot R, Doniol-Shaw G. Questions raised on the design of the “dead-man” device installed on trams. Cogn Technol Work, 2008, 10(1): 41-51

[17]

Cooke NJ. Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques. Int J Hum Comput Stud, 1994, 41(6): 801-849

[18]

Naweed A. Investigations into the skills of modern and traditional train driving. Appl Ergon, 2014, 45(3): 462-470

[19]

Naweed A, Balakrishnan G, Bearman C, Dorrian J, Dawson D (2012) Scaling generative scaffolds towards train driving expertise. In: Contemporary ergonomics and human factors 2012, pp 235–236

[20]

Naweed A. Psychological factors for driver distraction and inattention in the Australian and New Zealand rail industry. Acc Anal Prev, 2013, 60: 193-204

[21]

Huberman MA, Miles MB. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Data management and analysis methods. Handbook of qualitative research, 1994, Thousand Oaks: Sage 209-219.

[22]

Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis, 2006, London: SAGE Publications Ltd

[23]

Naweed A, Rainbird S, Dance C. Are you fit to continue? Approaching rail systems thinking at the cusp of safety and the apex of performance. Saf Sci, 2015

[24]

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 235–236

[25]

Powell C. The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs, 2003, 41(4): 376-382

[26]

Hsu CC. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval, 2007, 12(10): 1

[27]

Edworthy J, Hellier E, Noyes J, Aldrich K, Naweed A, Metcalfe GR. Good practice guide for the design of alarms and alerts, 2008, London: Rail Safety Standards Board

[28]

Branton P. Investigations into the skills of train-driving. Ergonomics, 1979, 22(2): 155-164

[29]

Cœugnet S, Naveteur J, Antoine P, Anceaux F. Time pressure and driving: work, emotions and risks. Transp Res Part F, 2013, 20: 39-51

[30]

MoD Human factors integration: an introductory guide, 2000, London: HMSO

[31]

Bisantz A, Roth Boehm-Davis DA. Analysis of cognitive work. Reviews of human factors and ergonomics, 2008, Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 1-43.

AI Summary AI Mindmap
PDF

146

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

AI思维导图

/