International Railway Journal - January 2008 - (Page 30) Simulation Heads up! The introduction of aviation-style Head Up Display units could streamline the flow of information presented to drivers, allowing them to focus more on the track ahead than their cab interiors. Andrew Roden reveals the results of an ambitious new study into their rail applications. S EVENTY years ago, drivers of steam locomotives spent most of their time with their eyes on the road. Many locomotives had no speedometers, and the only gauges that mattered to the driver were brake pressure and cut-off figures. Contrast this with the cab of a modern locomotive: in addition to speedometer and brake pressure gauges, the driver also has to pay attention to advanced warning and automatic train protection devices, incab radio, train management systems, and in the case of European Train Control System (ETCS), a computer screen carrying a complex array of information. The combined effect of this is that drivers spend much more time looking down at displays rather than out of the windscreen. A similar problem affected the aviation industry, particularly military aviation, in the 1950s and 1960s, as combat aircraft demanded ever greater attention to internal mechanisms such as engines and radar systems from the pilot. Unlike the rail industry, aviation recognised this as a problem and took action to solve it with Head Up Displays (HUD) which presented crucial information to the pilot in front of his face, meaning he could pay more attention to the outside world. Transfer of this technology to rail seems an obvious way of managing a driver’s workload, but until now, few, if any investigations have been made into the suitability of its application to a train cab. That could change thanks to experimental work being conducted by BAE Systems in Britain in conjunction with the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB). While a rail application for HUDs would appear to make sense, BAE Systems was keen to investigate the feasibility, both from an installation viewpoint, and of course, the driver’s. With this in mind, it built a simulator at its Advanced Technology Centre in Bristol to act as a testbed for a HUD installation. Unlike driver training simulators used by many train companies, BAE’s requirements were quite different. With no certain payback, it couldn’t opt for a full-cab simulation of this type as the purchase and running costs can be astronomical. It also wanted something that could be reconfigured for further experiments, so, according to group leader of human factors Kelvin Davies, BAE wanted a cheap flexible solution that was broadly representative of a driver’s cab. Absolute fidelity was not vital, so long as real drivers believed it was credible. The vehicle chosen as the subject of the simulation was a class 390 Pendolino emu used by Virgin Trains, which is amongst the most modern trains approved for passenger operation in Britain at present. In conjunction with the RSSB, Britain’s statutory rail safety body, a study was undertaken into the use of HUDs on rail, using BAE Systems’ simulator and a civilian specification HUD supplied by BAE itself. Implementation A key question for BAE’s human factors team was what information should be displayed on the HUD. It is a delicate compromise between displaying enough critical information that the driver does not need to look down into the cab, whilst not overloading the driver with too much information, much of which might only be needed very occasionally. Things weren’t helped by the British requirement for driver vigilance devices to be installed as a foot pedal, which magnifies the challenge of installing HUDs. This is because the HUD screen has to be positioned so the shortest and 30 IRJ January 2008
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.