because expertise matters © interfleet. all rights reserved. the cow with the pantograph a review...

Because Expertise Matters

© Interfleet. All Rights Reserved.

THE COW WITH THE PANTOGRAPHA review of driver-signaller communication for EU interoperability

Beverley Norris, Andy Woodcock, Jane Dobson, Kate Dobson

Interfleet Technology Ltd. and Interfleet Transport Advisory


2

...”une vache avec le pantograph.....”

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCNbhmNqH28cCFYqXGgod5-YLEg&url=http://www.ss-mm.com/y-chanping.html&psig=AFQjCNHpp_uTZhI7VKaQ6vxGtPvGTdjJCA&ust=1441376395469787




3


TSI (NOI) Noise TSI (LOCPAS) Locomotive & Passenger TSI (WAG) Rolling Stock (Freight Wagons) TSI (INF) Infrastructure TSI (ENE) Energy TSI (CCS) Control Command and Signalling TSI (OPE) Operation and Traffic Management TSI (TAF) Telematic Applications for Freight TSI (TAP) Telematic Applications for

Passenger Services TSI (PRM) Persons with Reduced Mobility TSI (SRT) Safety in Railway Tunnels TSI Conformity Assessment Modules

4

Technical Standards for Interoperability (TSIs)

4


5

Standard terminology

Confirming understanding

Single digits 147 One-Four-Seven Phonetic alphabet Standard terms for distance Km, speed Km/h,

time

TSI OPE Appendix C Safety related railway communication methodology

Correct

ErrorI say agai

n

Received

Over WaitI call again


6

Identification phase Read back of key messages Structure and content of emergency &

additional messages Written orders/book of forms

Appendix C Safety related railway communication methodology


7

Compliance withAppendix C?

Non

Ja

Nein

SiNo

AnoNe

Nej

Ja

Nei

Da

TaipNee

OuiJa

Ja

NoSiSim


8

AimsTo understand communication methodologies across EU and compliance with TSI OPE Appendix C:

Review literature for principles of effective safety communication & a link to safety performance

Verify Appendix C is still appropriate

Identify further improvements

ERA commissioned study


9

Methodology

Assessment Framework

Interview Survey

Literature Review


10

Rail and other industries - aviation, emergency response, healthcare and defence

Methodology


Interview Survey

Literature Review


11

Methodology


Interview Survey

Literature Review

Structured questionnaire Individual communication

procedures Attitudes to Appendix C Wider organisational issues such

as: Selection and training Monitoring Safety culture


12

Methodology


Interview Survey

Literature Review

To benchmark communication methodologies and how they link to safety

FINDINGSA review of driver-signaller communication for EU Interoperability


14

Formalised, defined & constrained messages help avoid language failures

A balance is needed Workarounds if very frequent, non-critical

messages are too formal• Structured communication protocols need to

be backed up with ongoing training and monitoring

Joint signaller/driver training is beneficial.

What the literature says about formal communication


15

27 organisations across 9 EU member states 11 Infrastructure Managers

(IMs) 14 Railway Undertakings

(RUs) 2 Standards/Regulatory

bodies Stratified sample to

represent: Passenger and freight National/international operations Purpose built links e.g. Eurostar,

Øresund Bridge Historic cross-border railway

routes e.g. Perpignan – Figueres

Interview sample

1


16

Survey - international rail operations Less than 10

Between 10 and 30

More than 30

Most EU rail networks have over 10 border crossings - up to 50

However a very small proportion of trains operated are on international services (max 3%) = regulatory overkill??


17

There is general good compliance with App. C

But compliance varies across parts of Appendix C

What they say: “Appendix C considered a useful

contribution to railway safety” “Requirements should be

reinforced” “Weaknesses - simplify,

translations to account for different cultures”

Yes

No

In part


18

Standardised date, distance & speed

(89%) International phonetic alphabet,

(81%)single digits

Correct / Error and I say again

(59%) I will call again

(52%)

Compliance with Appendix C


19

Identify lead person

(85%)Emergency messages to be repeated

(81%)High priority messages skip ID

(78%)& send whilst moving

Request read-back

(67%)Glossary

(48%)

Compliance with Appendix C


20

Most organisations have them in their communications framework

But not all comply with App. C requirements e.g. ‘Error and [different form]’ - 36% IMs

Written messages - assumption of accuracy?

Additional messages and written orders/book of forms


21

Recruiting bi/multi-lingual staff problematic Terminology/jargon/dialect differences:

“Bahnbübergang” (Germany) “Eisenbahnkreuzung” (Austria)

What they say: “Bi-lingual border signallers” “A single language for international rail

communications”

Wider issues:Bi/multi-lingual challenges

1 language

2 languages

3 or more


22

Selection, training & monitoring Selection - focus is on language proficiency

rather than communication skills Joint training of signallers and drivers being

introduced, but expensive Monitoring: ~100% of calls are recorded BUT, no. reviewed varies (max 5%)

What they say: “Communication discipline needs to be

maintained – younger versus older drivers”

ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORKA review of driver-signaller communication for EU Interoperability


24App. C & principles of effective

communication

Criteria from Appendix C Austria

Belgium

Czech Republic

France

Germany

Italy

The Netherlands

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

Eurostar

Eurotunnel

Phonetic alphabet X P X P

Standard 24 hour format for time

P P

Standard format for date X X X P P P

Standard format for km & km/h

P

Single digits P P P P

Confirm read back correct X P Pn/a

P P

Glossary of terms P P X P X X P X

Book of forms P P

Written order P

Should be sent at standstill X P P P

Emergency messages to be repeated once

P P X

Lead responsibility

P=complies in part

Good

OK

Could improve

Poor


25Wider organisational issues

Criteria Austria

Belgium

Czech Republic

France

Germany Italy

The Netherlands

Sweden

United Kingdom

Eurostar

Eurotunnel

Are there regular briefings regarding communications (3-6 months)?

1/yr 1/yr

Have there been any communications initiatives/campaigns in last 5 years?

x x

Is there 100% recording of calls? 90% 70%

What % of recorded calls are regularly reviewed?

0-5% ? 0-5% 0-5% 0-5% 0-5% 5-10% 0 5-10%

>20%

0-5%

Is communication competence formally assessed during selection (other than language proficiency)?

X X X X X X X

Is there combined signaller and driver training?

X X X X X X X

Are role play or simulators used during communications training?

X X X X

Is lead responsibility established during the call?

Have any communication aids been developed

X X X

Is communication supported by text messages?

GSMR only

X X GSMR only

GSMR only

X Planned

Is communication supported by email?

X X X X X X X X X

P=complies in part

Good

OK

Could improve

Poor


26

Austria

Belgium

Czech Republic

France

Germany

Italy

The Netherlands

Sweden

UK

Com

plia

nce

with

App

endi

x C

Communication framework

Leading/lagging countries based on all criteria

Size of bubble = % of international traffic in each country

Lagging Leading

Conte

nt

and

str

uct

ure

Organisational factors

Lagg

ing

Lead

ing


27

It is difficult to demonstrate App. C will improve safety performance

Appendix C is useful but needs to be simplified

Basic principles such as the phonetic alphabet and repeat back need to be reinforced

A standard glossary - easy to access in the cab

Translations need to be reviewed- Bi-lingual signallers Communication methodologies need to be

part of wider safety initiatives

Conclusions

because expertise matters © interfleet. all rights reserved. the cow with the pantograph a review...

Documents

safety slide

expertise matters interfleet

expertise matters rail

formal communication

signalling tsi

eu interoperability

review literature

signaller communication