Rail Training Conference - Rail Training Through Driving Simulators. Integration of the Human Factor

Rail Training through Driving Simulators. Integration of the Human Factor

a)Baltasar Gil, (b)Pilar Calvo, (c)Antonio Monrocle, (d)Víctor Irala, (e)Iñaki Aliaga c) (d) Renfe Operadora

(a) (b) ESM Institute of Research into Safety and Human Factors (e)

Lander Simulation and Training Solutions, S.A.

Article Information

Keywords: K1, Simulation K2, Human Error K2, Assessment K4, Training

Corresponding author: Baltasar Gil de Egea Tel.: (34) 985 235934 Fax.(34) 985 273832 e-mail: [email protected] Address: C/Martínez Cachero, 12 bajo33013 Oviedo – Asturias – Spain

Abstract

Renfe Operadora, ESM, Institute of Research into Safety and Human Factors, and Lander Simulation and Training Solutions, are aware of the new scenario created by railway interoperability and the latest ERTMS-ETCS driving systems, as well as safety demands coming from European Union Directives, and have detected the need to develop a methodology with simulators capable of identifying and evaluating, in an objective and automatic way, human errors in train driving through simulation training. Based on that need, we have created “multipurpose simulators”, which are capable of evaluating human error in rail safety, while integrating and quantifying Human Factors in the training process. The structure of the teaching methods will be devised to fulfil the training and assessment objectives defined by the instructors of Renfe Operadora. The achievement of these training and assessment goals will make it possible to guarantee that drivers are efficiently trained to perform their task in a professional manner, ensuring that they fulfil the legal requirements in this matter.

1 Introduction Throughout the history and development of

simulation technology (and simulators) for the training of train drivers, the role of safety behaviour training has become more and more significant. This has been made possible by reproducing unusual or risk situations so as to facilitate learning from the simulated experiences, or by forcing trainees to behave in a manner that we would like to reinforce or correct. Accordingly, the scientific community has detected the need to move forward on the integration of Human Factors in simulation technologies aimed at achieving safe behaviour and qualifications capable of guaranteeing the competency of train drivers in efficiency and safety-related issues. Thus, we cannot stress strongly enough up to what point it is important to achieve a competency management system capable of developing, monitoring and assessing competencies in a consistent and reliable manner.

2 Aims Our aim has been to meet such a need through the

incorporation and quantification of Performance Influencing Factors (PIFs) or Human Factors in the training process. We have done this by using training simulators capable of automatically registering the trainee's behaviour and any active errors, whether they be operational, cognitive or communication errors. Besides, we have identified the precursors leading to incorrect behaviour while directing and personalising the training process, trying to bridge the gap currently existing

in the field of Human Factors evaluation via simulators. Our goal is two-fold: to improve the safety-related training process (Human Reliability Training) and to enhance the knowledge of Human Factors leading to human errors (Human Factors Research).

2.1 Human Error Management

Human reliability is a range of knowledge and techniques used to analyse, forecast and reduce the number of human errors in rail operations. A rail system is “reliable” in so far as it is able to fit the purpose for which it has been conceived while minimising the number of potential failures, whether they be technical or human.

It is a well-known fact that human errors are extremely complex, hard to detect, record and measure, possibly much more complex than any other technological element in the system. Therefore, it is necessary to analyse this complexity in a systematic way in order to throw some light on the weaknesses of the “man-machine-infrastructure-organisation” interface in the rail sector.

Human errors are risks which create a loophole in our protection system, compromising safety. Only by learning from errors and by systematically recalling past experience can we discover the multicausality of human and organisational factors, adopt prevention barriers and guarantee an organisation resistant to human error.

Baltasar Gil et al. Rail Training through Driving Simulators. Integration of the Human Factor

April 6th – 8th, 2011, Madrid,Spain Proceedings of the WCRT2011

All the international research studies agree on the fact that human error is involved in 80% of accidents and incidents, not only in the rail sector, but also in aeronautics and the marine sector.

3. The Method To reach this goal in Renfe Operadora we have relied

on Task Analysis Methodology, based on the analysis of drivers’ behaviour and on the various contexts they must face while driving. Consequently, we have taken into account a series of parameters such as the operating conditions (standard, degraded, emergency, etc.), operations and tasks (driving, manoeuvring, problem solving, technical failure management, communications, etc.) and the element in the system affected by the operation/driving.

3.1 The IPSE-Simulator Method

The whole train driving system revolves around human performance, even the most automated parts of the system, such as High Speed and ERTMS equipment. The possibility of human error is a constant risk, the different types and degree of seriousness of which we must detect and analyse with the use of training simulators.

Based on a better understanding of how and why

people act in an efficient way when driving a train, and how and why they make mistakes on particular occasions under particular circumstances, we have set the basis for the appraisal of such events and the implementation of automatic detection of errors into simulators.

Identifying and assessing human error in train

driving is possible. There are numerous techniques available to study human reliability and its involvement in risk. IPSE belongs to a group of techniques which is able to assess the role of human error in rail safety management systems. ESM has developed the IPSE methodology to identify, evaluate and prioritise human errors. This method lets us operate both with data collected in real time during the performance of a task or with recorded data to be analysed at a later stage.

IPSE is based on the application of Generic

Values (GV) and Specific Values (SV) to the errors detected. Generic Value means the relevance of an error

and its contribution to risk and it is independent of the specific circumstances surrounding the event, whereas the Specific Values do depend on the specific conditions leading up to the error in the analysed event.

The application of the IPSE-Simulator to the

railway sector is a software adaptation of the IPSE method acting as an “Automatic Assessment System” for errors occurring in train driving simulators. It can identify, register, classify and weigh errors in an automatic and objective way. It also enables us to compare different trainees’ performances in the simulator and to generate graphic representation of the same.

We must not forget that one of the most critical problems we face when using rail simulators is the objectivity of data and the possibility of comparing results. When using “multipurpose simulators” such as those developed by Lander to train drivers –initial training, advanced training, post-accident training, as well as competence assessment– we require an objective assessment model, so as to minimise the weight of personal bias in the instructor’s subjective analysis. Subjective analysis always implies an extra workload for the instructor and furthermore, it does not enable him to compare results with other trainees in the Renfe rail simulation training systems. A comparison of driver safety training programmes and their contents could facilitate the adoption of best practices, thus greatly improving the training of drivers.

RENFE/ESM/LANDER have been working for a

long time on the development of an Automatic Human Error Assessment Model for multipurpose simulators in the field of rail transport.

Train Simulator Lander Within the European rail sector and given the

awareness of the new scenario created by interoperability and the new ERTMS-ETCS driving systems, the need for objective, automatic assessment has become a priority in the use of simulators. Rail simulators being currently used are underperforming in terms of objective result analysis, assessment procedures and human error analysis.

4. The Training Model In the last few years, we have all seen a number of

changes in the field of training. Up to now, training used to focus on the imparting of a certain amount of knowledge

Underlying errors in management systems

Driver’s active error

Trajectory of Accident

Rules Maintenance and Rolling Stock

Infrastructure

ACCIDENT



from a professional to trainees, and the assessment of how the trainees had assimilated such knowledge. Nowadays, however, with the use of simulators, trainees must prove, not only that they have assimilated theoretical knowledge or that they have a certain number of driving hours under their belt, but also that they have attained a certain degree of competence, that is to say the ability to combine theoretical and practical knowledge to sort out a given difficult situation –both in highly automated situations and in degraded operations. This is why teaching methods, assessment methods and human reliability improvement methods need to move forward.

In this way, simulation training must bring about a change in the situation from which the trainees, whether they are experienced or not, start their training. Improve training by:

• Continuously assessing, on a personal basis,

the level of competence throughout the learning process. This personalised method usually increases personal motivation.

• Identifying inadequate behaviour under certain

driving conditions and learning gaps. This enables further “a la carte” training, which suits the individual needs of trainees better, while at the same time maximising the use of available resources.

• Identifying reliable behaviour with a view to positively reinforcing it, as a model for other trainees.

Acquire new knowledge and abilities or skills by:

• Implementing changes in the exercises. These

changes could contemplate, for example, infrequent or unusual traffic conditions, with a view to highlighting active safety-critical errors and predicting behavioural limits in tasks prone to the generation of human error.

• Training in situations where the trainee must demonstrate reliable behaviour, especially when the task requires him to make a calculated decision between “safety” and “production”, involving critical situations under stress.

• Having the instructor come up with “customised” exercises. He can do so by increasing the level of difficulty according to each individual trainee, by modifying the exercise settings in order to obtain a wider range of situations focused on the same skill, and by aiming at the consistent definition and memorising of procedures, through a well-designed and continuously updated teaching programme.

Change attitudes by:

• Promoting training in preventive attitudes in usual or unusual operations, so that the

trainees are able to anticipate the consequences even if they have not personally experienced negative consequences before, thus encouraging the development of risk awareness.

• Developing specific exercises aimed at improving risk perception, with a view to recycling agents who show a poor understanding of risk perception or who expect to see a particular set of signals only because they have been exposed to an intense repetition of a particular signal associated with a particular traffic configuration.

5. Assessment Assessment of a training session is based both

on the objective data provided by the system and on the assessment previously issued by a panel of expert instructors, from which all subjectivity has been removed. A training tool, such as a simulator, must have a series of features which are capable of analysing and assessing the exercises performed in it by the trainees, in a comprehensive, precise, and specific way, subject to objective appraisal. Any simulator should, therefore, be able to simplify the instructor’s assessment tasks. This includes predicting and monitoring human errors, as well as increasing drivers’ reliability.

Objective Assessment is based on statistical data and analysis of the simultaneous occurrence of certain variables collected within the parameters of the performance of an exercise in the simulator. In this way, allowing the system to obtain in real time the readings of certain indicators in real time, which then become the criteria on which to assess the trainee’s competences tested in the simulator.

The capacity to collect and process data is one of the areas in which this type of simulator outperforms other more traditional training systems, which show a higher degree of subjectivity. Consequently, we can say that simulation training is more objective and complete. We can then talk about a true Competence Assessment.

However, it is very difficult to assess some factors in situations where the relevant regulations only recommend that “we proceed with care” or words to that effect. In such cases, the instructor must rely on his experience as an added-value tool, introducing data into the system in a quantifiable way, so as not to permit variations even if the data were to be assessed by a different instructor.

In these cases, the instructor must become aware of the situation beforehand, in order to input the quantifiable parameter into the system, in real time or at a later stage. Nevertheless, to facilitate the instructor’s task and level off the criteria of the various instructors, there are a number of categories at their disposal which allow them to analyse, in a comprehensive way, the above-mentioned aspects of driving.



By means of “Automatic Assessment”, simulators incorporating ESM/LANDER technology can meet the training needs of the most demanding railway companies in terms of safety requirements.

Apart from detecting the occurrence of drivers’ errors, the system can automatically quantify and classify them according to a triple matrix: the seriousness of the error, its cognitive nature and its most likely precursors.

6. The Multipurpose simulators (MPS)

The starting point of this project was the traditional equipment known as the Full-Mission simulator. Many examples of these have been in service in many countries (such as Trenitalia in Italy, or DB in Germany), consisting of a real cabin (1:1 replica), a 6 DOF motion platform, an immersive projection system on-board the motion platform and an Instructor’s Station. Renfe itself used to have a Full-Mission simulator (without motion platform) for the high speed train. The first question that we considered was: what is the training scope of these simulators? And then: how many drivers can we reach within the time we actually have for their training? The answers are easy to find:

• Training scope: topics like the following are covered with Full-Mission simulators

o One particular rolling stock model o Correct utilization of cab controls o Driving competencies under any

railroad and weather conditions o Development of safe driving habits and

techniques o Traction and brake management for

energy saving o Detection, identification and

management of malfunctions • Reachable driver population: only one driver can

be trained by an instructor using traditional simulators.

The aim of the project was not to lose the training scope of traditional simulators, but to improve the cost-effectiveness and the reachable driver population per instructor. To achieve that, a specific design of the Trainee’s Station, Instructor’s Station and Training Centre Network was developed, manufactured and commissioned between 2006 and 2008.

MPS: Trainee’s Station (TS) One of the biggest issues in the design of a simulation cab is to maximize the degree of immersion a trainee will experience inside, so that a great transference to real life is achieved by means of simulation based training. For this purpose, a specific cab design was developed, in combination with a front projection solutions to cover a wide range of the front field of view of the driver, as Figure 1 shows.

Figure 1: Simulation cabin with front projection As for the controls and indicators of the driving desk, Lander and Renfe decided to look for a solution that may allow the latter to simulate a wide variety of rolling stock and technologies:

• Rolling stock: locomotives such as Siemens 292 and EMUs such as CAF CIVIA

• ATPs and Signalling systems: ASFA, Digital ASFA and the high speed ETCS and LZB systems

• Communication technologies: GSM-R and traditional train-ground communication systems.

Such a big configurability was made possible with the desk design in Figure 2. That desk is equipped with the following components:

• Desk surface with a set of levers for traction and different brake systems, and a set of pushbuttons and commands for several functions. All of them are common to the different rolling stock models to be simulated.

• Front surface with a set of three TFT touch

screens to simulate those commands that a particular rolling stock may have but were not included as real elements in the desk surface, and those indicators, lamps, communication consoles, HMIs, etc. that the simulated rolling stock may have in that position.

Figure 2: Driving desk design The level of configurability achieved by this solution of driving desk fulfilled the requirements of Renfe. Different configurations can be seen in Figure 3 and Figure 4, demonstrating much greater training possibilities than in a replica cab.



Figure 3: Configuration for ETCS, GSM-R and Digital ASFA

Figure 4: Configuration for LZB, Train-Ground and normal ASFA

MPS: Instructor’s Station (IS) Achieving an immersive and configurable Training Station is a big step forward, but the real user of the simulator is not the trainee, but the trainer. So, a successful simulator must include a very powerful Instructor’s Station from which the real learning can be designed, planned and delivered. This is all about functionalities, but ergonomics and design must not be forgotten. These considerations lead Renfe and Lander to the solution in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Instructor’s Station In terms of functionality, the IS (hardware and software) must allow the instructor to have absolute control over the simulation sessions, and provide the necessary tools to cover all the necessities that the instructor might have during the simulation session. These necessities are of two types:

• Information necessities: the instructor must, at any moment, be able to know with all possible precision, both the state of the simulated machine and the operations that the student executes on it, as well as the state of the surroundings in which the session is developed (scene, traffic, etc.).

• Necessities of control and intervention: in addition to the aforementioned, the instructor also needs tools that allow him to take part in the simulation sessions, generating simulated conditions that will put the drivers in critical situations (or of another type of pedagogical

interest) so that they can learn about how to react in these situations:

o Failures. o Incidences. o Adverse environmental conditions (fog,

rain, etc.). o Etc.

In order to respond to all these necessities, the means that the IS makes available for the instructor are the following (distributed through the 5 screens depicted in Figure 6):

• Replica of the simulator’s visual channels (far right screen in Figure 6). On it, the instructor will be able to contemplate the same image that is being shown by the projection system to the student.

• Replica of the three TFT touch screens of the TS (first three screens from the left in Figure 6). The instructor will be able to see the same images the student does, and also actuate on the virtual controls remotely.

• Simulation control screen (the computer application for simulation management), on which the instructor will have the following:

o Monitoring service, in real time, of the state of all the controls and indicators installed in the driving desk.

o Video image of the cabin’s interior to allow the instructor to observe the actions and attitudes of the driver.

o Monitoring service of the position of the unit within the whole scene.

o Tools to launch incidences, failures, variations of environmental conditions, etc.

o Working documents to use by the student in each exercise of simulation.

• A printer, in order to obtain printed information of

each simulation session, and whichever other documents are needed by the instructor.

• Wireless Keyboard and mouse for a cable cleared writing-desk.

• Microphone and loudspeakers to allow communication with the student while the simulation takes place.

Figure 6: Screens of the Instructor’s Station All driving sessions remain recorded within the system for future playback, in briefing sessions or in further assessment by the instructor if needed. In such situations, the screens of the IS show exactly the same images as they did during real time simulation, since every single detail is recorded, including communications, that can be listened to during a playback session.



Furthermore, automatic assessment tools are installed in the simulator so that a wide variety of non-subjective driving mistakes can be automatically detected by the system and reported to the IS (to be included in a complete final report). For instance, as exceeding the permitted maximum speed of a line is objectively definable and detectable, the IS will automatically report the error, but that will not happen with other categories of more subjective mistakes, such as not stopping the train in the most adequate location for passengers not to have to walk too far to the doors, or similar subjective considerations. For this kind of assessment, the instructor will have a specific environment in his software for a complete evaluation (see p.3 above of this paper ESM methodology). Finally, it is important to highlight that any simulation session must be the result of a previous planning and design effort. This is a very important stage of the training success process, and the simulator aids the Instructor in this task by means of the Planning Mode of the IS software. The Planning Mode offers the instructor comfortable, versatile and intuitive tools to design/edit any aspect of the training plans that he wishes to deliver by means of the simulator. In this way the instructor has the option of arranging the following tasks (all of them can be done at any moment, even when a simulation is running):

• To create, modify and delete exercises. • To organize the exercises according to its

didactic content (or according to the criterion that is considered appropriate) in groups of superior level, like, for example, lessons, training units or courses.

The more basic edition level is the one that relates to the exercises. To create an exercise is just to assign values to a series of configurable parameters that the Planning Mode will offer to the instructor:

• Select the rolling stock: o Locomotive / EMU o Passengers / Freight o Initial state of the systems

• Determination of the simulation scenario: o Selection of starting point o Determination of the route to follow by

the train o Define traffic flow of the same line in

both directions o Number of passengers in stations (low,

medium or high) • Initial weather and visibility conditions:

o Setting the initial time of the session, in order to adjust aspects like day or night driving

o Level of snow, rain or fog, with the corresponding influence on the visibility and adherence between the wheel and the track

• Programming of general events, so that they take place during the simulation, at the moment that the instructor defines:

o Change in weather and visibility conditions

o Malfunctions and failures of rolling stock o Incidences (unexpected traffic

conditions, signalling failure, obstacle on the tracks, etc.)

The previous categories of events are also available during the simulation, so that the instructor may include some new event on real-time and alter the original exercise if necessary. The planning mode, however, allows him not to be forced to do so, as all the events can be automatically managed by the system, following the instructions the instructor set in the planning mode. Some of the malfunctions the system is able to simulate are the following:

• Overload at the traction circuit • Shunt at the traction circuit • Overload at the high voltage circuit • Shunt at the high voltage circuit • Compressor failure • Pneumatic leak in brake system • Loss of traction (different levels and conditions) • Pneumatic brake system release failure • Electric brake failure • Dead man’s pedal malfunction • Permanent brake due to failure in ATP system • Passenger alarm • False “door open” while running • Unexpected resistance against traction • Etc.

Some of the incidences the system is able to simulate are the following:

• Power loss in catenaries • Branch hanging from catenaries • Broken track • Lateral deformation of the track • Obstacle on the track • Very low adherence • Works in track • Incorrect switch • Different malfunctions in level crossing systems

and signalling • Car on level crossing • Signal suddenly changing to red • Red signal without reason • Fused signal • Temporary restricted speed • Temporary telephone interlocking • Driving in opposite direction on a double-tracked

section • Approaching a stopped train ahead • False indication of a beacon • Loss of signal in a beacon • Diverse ETCS and LZB infrastructure or

communication failures • Shunts in a station or depot

These incidences are available in the different type of lines simulated, up to 800km:

• Madrid – Seville line with LZB signalling • Madrid – Barcelona line with ETCS level 1

signalling • Non high speed lines with different interlocking:

permissive and absolute blocks, automatic and



non-automatic blocks in single and double-tracked sections, with and without CTC, etc.

MPS: Training Centre Network

Given the low cost of the simulation cabins (the cost of the cab is reduced 10 to 1) and the enhanced automatic assessment module of the IS, a new layout is feasible, in which we forget the traditional one-to-one training and come to a new layout of Training Center, in which more than one cabin can be controlled from a single IS and by a single Instructor, even with all of them working at the same time. The network of Training Centers of Renfe consists of 10 of them, each equipped with a set of Trainee’s Stations, managed from one Instructor’s Station. The global layout is as follows: Training Centres with 3 TS: Madrid (two Centres, see Figure 7) Training Centres with 2 TS: Barcelona (two Centres), Seville, León, Valencia and Bilbao. Training Centres with 1 TS: Miranda and Santiago

Figure 7: IS and two of the three TSs of one of the Training Centres in Madrid The ten Training Centres equipped with multipurpose simulators by Lander, are connected to each other so that they can share databases of students, exercises, assessment reports, training plans, etc.

Cost effective We say that a 100% of immersion is achieved when the driver, after some minutes, is not able to say whether he is performing in a simulator or in a real train. This is a theoretical consideration very difficult to reach, but the truth is that a Full Mission Simulator is the best approach to this. The point now is: is it worth investing such an amount of money on this? Is it really critical for the training of driver? The answer to the previous question may be different depending on the aims of the user. Renfe’s experience in recent years clearly backs the idea of multipurpose simulators and their cutting edge technological advantages:

• Very high immersion level achievement • Not only one but many trains in each simulator

• Not only one but several simulations can take place at the same time with just one Instructor.

• Logistic problems reduced by installing several Training Centres in different locations so that the organization of training sessions is easier and MUCH CHEAPER

• The complexity of the system is decreased: • No special needs in client’s facilities to host the

simulators. Normal offices are enough. • Lower installation costs. • Extremely little maintenance. • More advanced assessment tools, to raise the

level of delivered training from the point of view of both, Trainer and Trainee.

• The cost of one new train to be simulated on a MPS is much cheaper than a Full Mission.

• If many trains, ATPs, lines, incidences, etc. are included, the development cost is increased. However, the final product will be very cost effective.

7. Findings and Conclusions All the errors registered are treated by using a

series of Human Error Analysis tools, allowing the organization to find out which type or types of errors are safety-critical for each particular operation and to know whether the errors are consistent or random. The link between active errors and their underlying factors or precursors, together with the statistical analysis of the results, encourages us to move forward with confidence in the same direction.

Our simulators are currently operating in the

Renfe Operator geographical zones where driver training is carried out. The results obtained through the Human Error assessment system allow them to devise specific training measures with a view to meeting the needs of each individual trainee in the field of behaviour reliability, obtaining a high degree of acquired competency transfer to the actual work position.

In this way, simulators allow for the integration of Human Factors in hands-on training and the latest safety technologies, facilitating risk management in the absence of real risks. Such integration is our foremost contribution to the design and development of training and research simulation. The train driving simulators developed by the Spanish manufacturer Lander, are the first in the world incorporating the IPSE-Simulator (ESM technology) for the Automatic Assessment of Human Errors.

Renfe Operadora uses a Network of 20 multipurpose simulators distributed across 10 Simulation Centres around Spain. Those Centres host one, two or three simulation cabs, depending on the necessities of the geographical area they must serve. Regardless of the number of simulators of the Centre, there is always a single Instructor's Station to control them all and monitor the training sessions.

The multipurpose simulation cabs have been designed and manufactured by the Spanish company LANDER Simulation & Training Solutions. Each cab is equipped with a set of commands and pushbuttons on the driver's desk, in combination with virtual representations



of indicators, lamps, HMIs, etc. represented by means of three touch screens in the front desk. The simulation includes train units and locomotives (freight and passengers). Simulation of the signaling is automatic. Malfunctions, incidents and adverse weather conditions can be simulated. The training includes ordinary and emergency protocols, communications, regulations... Automatic mistake detection and playback mode are also available. So far, Renfe has delivered training with MPSs to more than 5,000 drivers including topics such as courses for beginners (candidates to get a driving licence) driving licence renewal courses, recycling courses on ETCS, LZB and other safety and signalling systems, etc.

8. References Building a Safe, Interoperable Railway: A Methodological Guide to Integrating Human Factors. UIC. 2004. Espié, S. Research on Human Factors using Simulators. International Congress on the Use of Simulators. Leon, Spain. 1999. European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation. ESARR Advisory Material/Guidance Document (EAM2/GUI8): Guidelines on the Systemic Occurrence Analysis Methodology (SOAM). 2005.

Farmer, E., et alt. Handbook of Simulator-Based Training. Ed. Ashgate. 1999. Gil de Egea, B., Simulation and Human Reliability. International Congress on the Use of Simulators. Leon, Spain. 1999.

Ian Noy, Y., Ergonomics and Safety of Intelligent Driver Interfaces. In Human Factors and Transportation. Ed. Barry H. Kantowitz1997.

Meyer, G., Eligiendo un simulador: mundo virtual versus realidades económicas y electrónicas: consideraciones para la evaluación de la formación. International Congress on the Use of Simulators. Leon, Spain. 1999. Schmitz, M., Maag, C., Pechoucek, J., et alt. 2Train-Benchmarking Report on computer-based Railway Training in Europe: Training of Train Drivers in safety-relevant Issues with validated and integrated computer-based Technology. Marcus Schmitz and Christian Laag Ed. 2008.

Rail Safety and Standard Board. Understanding Human Factors. A Guide for the Railway Industry. 2006. Wilson, J., Norris, B., Clarke, T., and Mills, A. People and Rail Systems. Human Factors in Road and Rail Transport. 2007.

Wilson, J., Norris, B., Clarke, T., and Mills, A. Rail Human Factors. Supporting the Integrated Railway. Ashgate Ed. 2005.

Wittingham, R.B., The Blame Machine: why Human Error causes Accidents. Ed. Elsevier. 2003.

Documents

Rail Training Conference - Rail Training Through Driving Simulators. Integration of the Human Factor