”We’re Doing This Together”: An in-Depth Analysis of the

Teamwork between Train Traffic Controllers and Train Drivers

Rebecca Cort

Department of Information Technology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Keywords: Operational Train Traffic, Train Traffic Controller, Train Driver, Teamwork.

Abstract: Operational train traffic is executed by train drivers and traffic controllers operating as a tightly coupled team.

Although separated in time and space, their work is intertwined to the degree that the realisation of the train

traffic depends on successful coordination and collaboration between them. Prior rail research is mostly

focused on either one of these two roles, which leaves the collaboration between them understudied. The

controller-driver dyad is at the core of operational train traffic and their relationship is of major interest in

creating and maintaining a safe and efficient train traffic system. With the use of observations and interviews,

this study investigates and analyses the controller-driver dynamic, how they view each other and their

collaboration. The findings highlight team spirit and trust within the relationship, and at the same time reveal

an underlying relational distance that affects the relationship and their prerequisites for achieving a successful

collaboration. Lack of insights into each other’s work and different priorities generate challenges, just as the

implementation of new technology and its effects on information distribution. Findings are discussed in the

context of obtaining a holistic perspective of operational train traffic, and the fundamental activities that lie

at its core.

1 INTRODUCTION

For many years, the railway domain received little

attention, especially compared to aviation and road

traffic. With increased demands related to a rising

number of passengers and more trains running in the

same envelope of time, aspects such as efficiency and

safety became a topic of interest. However, the non-

technical aspects of the work behind functioning train

traffic is still an understudied area (Andreasson et al.,

2019a). This paper has its focal point on the work

conducted by train traffic controllers and train

drivers—the two most essential roles for the

execution of train traffic. Although separated in time

and space, the traffic controller and the train driver

work in a close dynamic and contribute with their

own discrete functions that are necessary for the

successful execution of train traffic. Given the tightly

coupled dynamic between these two roles, their

relationship and communication structures are at the

core of their work and therefore important to

understand and to take into account when working

towards the train traffic system of the future

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0159-9628

(Andreasson et al., 2019b). However, few studies

have attended to these aspects of operational train

traffic. Accordingly, this study aims to develop a

deeper understanding of the train traffic controller-

driver dyad by identifying how these two roles view

each other and their relationship. The obtained

findings are discussed in the context of achieving a

holistic understanding of train operations as they are

executed in their natural setting, and to highlight this

relationship as one important non-technical

dimension at the heart of the socio-technical system

of train traffic.

2 BACKGROUND

Train traffic control is a complex organisation of

work conducted in a technology-intensive

environment and with fast and safe decision-making

as a core activity. Each controller is responsible for a

predefined geographical area and all the trains

running on the segment of rail within that area. They

are responsible both for monitoring and manually

Cort, R.

”We’re Doing This Together”: An in-Depth Analysis of the Teamwork between Train Trafﬁc Controllers and Train Drivers.

DOI: 10.5220/0010058000960103

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications (CHIRA 2020), pages 96-103

ISBN: 978-989-758-480-0

executing actions that control train paths, points, and

signals, as well as rescheduling the traffic when

delays and disruptions occur. The first of these tasks

is constantly ongoing and supported by the traffic

plan that describes the estimated location for each

train and at which time. The controller is then

responsible for manually adjusting points and signals

in such a way that the traffic plan can be realised. The

second task is done as a problem-solving activity

when the traffic plan can no longer be followed, in

which case the controller have to make fast decisions

to maintain the overall traffic flow and to minimise

the effects of the disruption. The two main tasks have

different characteristics and together they often bring

sudden shifts in cognitive workload.

The train drivers also work in an unpredictable

and highly dynamic environment that requires them

to not just operate the train according to the signs and

signals, but to also pay attention to the information

presented by various technologies inside the cab.

These technologies normally present current speed,

maximum allowed speed, and continuous instructions

on how to uphold an energy-efficient way of driving.

Furthermore, drivers are expected to always be

attentive to events outside the train, anticipate and

react to surrounding factors that might affect the train

(e.g., weather conditions, passenger behaviour at

platforms, and possible obstacles on the rail).

The railway domain presents complex, dynamic

work processes that pose many research challenges.

So far, research concentrated on inquiries related to

understanding the work practices from a holistic point

of view has been scarce. The need for naturalistic

fieldwork to provide insights into how social and

collaborative variables, and the complexity of the

dynamic environment, affect behaviour and

performance have been called for (e.g., Andreasson et

al., 2019a; Wilson & Norris, 2005). To study the

collaborative aspects of work is further motivated by

Naweed (2020) with the statement: “… a train is not

propelled by a single person but by a team”. This is

especially interesting since controllers and drivers

normally receive their training separately and are thus

never exposed to situations during training in which

they can practice their collaborative skills.

Some attempts have been made to map out the

everyday work in the organisation of train traffic but

the research is highly dependent on the national

context. If we turn to the Swedish context, operational

train traffic has first and foremost focused on traffic

control and for a long time, the main focus was to

design and develop decision support systems with

increased usability (e.g., Andersson et al., 1998;

Sandblad et al., 1997). This work resulted in a new

decision support system as well as a new strategy for

the task of traffic control. The new strategy

emphasised a proactive style of work and to plan the

traffic ahead of time, which would impose less

cognitive load on the controller (Kauppi et al., 2003).

Related to this, the train drivers started to receive

attention and the idea of a shared real-time traffic plan

was initiated to remedy the fact that the drivers

worked in what Jansson et al. (2005) described as an

"information vacuum". The idea was to support

successful collaboration by enabling accurate

information at all times. In this research, the

collaborative aspects of operational train traffic were

put forward and Tschirner et al. (2013) described how

the efficiency of operational traffic depends on the

quality of the controller-driver collaboration. More

recently, Andreasson et al. (2019b) identified

processes of coordination and synchronisation

between controllers and drivers essential for the

safety and efficiency of the joint work performance.

The interest in non-technical aspects of work in

the train traffic domain has increased also outside of

Sweden, for example with the study by Rosenhand et

al. (2011) in which it was revealed that drivers and

conductors exhibit characteristics of high performing

teams. This includes to catch and correct each other’s

errors and to actively support each other’s activities

by filling in knowledge gaps and identifying risks.

Naweed (2020) describes how train traffic

controllers and drivers are part of a joint cognitive

system with an intimate and dyadic coupling. He

studies how traffic controllers see themselves in

relation to the train drivers and conclude that the

controllers’ view on the relationship impact how they

perform their work, which in turn affects the drivers.

Naweed focus on so-called SPADs (signal passed at

danger), which means that a train goes past a red

signal. SPADs are a serious safety breach and should

be handled with a carefully developed routine.

However, Naweed (2020) concludes that the

controllers’ view on the relationship with train drivers

results in different ways to handle SPADs. These

findings emphasise that the relationship between

controller and driver is not just the backbone of

operational train traffic but also something that

ultimately could affect the safety. Baysari et al.

(2008) reach a related conclusion in their analysis of

40 rail incidents when they find that a majority of the

incidents were associated with social, cultural, and

organisational processes affecting behaviour and

performance. To gain a deeper understanding of these

subtle aspects of work is therefore critical for

enabling safe and efficient train traffic.

”We’re Doing This Together”: An in-Depth Analysis of the Teamwork between Train Trafﬁc Controllers and Train Drivers

Looking at the literature, it is clear that insights

into the relationship between traffic controllers and

train drivers and their prerequisites for successfully

working together are relevant for maintaining safety

in train traffic. Still, this relationship is to a large

degree an understudied area. The purpose of this

study is to embark on this topic and to provide

insights into the relationship between controller and

driver as interdependent parts of the socio-technical

system of train traffic.

3 METHOD

This study was conducted in the domain of Swedish

train traffic with observations and interviews as main

data collection techniques. Approximately 130 hours

of observational data of the work by 19 traffic

controllers and 13 train drivers were collected during

a period of 2,5 years. All participants had 2-30 years

of experience and the observations took place in their

natural work environment, i.e., in the control rooms

for traffic control and in train cabs. All observations

were complemented with informal contextual

interview questions to add clarifications to what was

observed. Field notes were carefully taken and these

were later transcribed and put to analysis.

Additionally, three in-depth, pair-wise interviews

with one controller and one driver per interview

session was conducted to put further emphasis on the

relationship between these roles. Each interview

session was 1,5-2 hours long and the questions

concerned their work, with emphasis on interaction,

communication, coordination, and information-

sharing activities. Out of respect for the somewhat

sensitive topic, direct questions about how the

participants view the relationship with one another

was not posed. However, the participants sometimes

articulated this on their initiative.

During interviews, data were captured using audio

recording equipment, which was later transcribed

and, together with field notes from the observations,

analysed based on the systematic process of thematic

analysis. This process entails to systematically and

repeatedly work through the entire data set to actively

search for meanings and patterns that can shed light

on the posed research question.

4 FINDINGS

In the thematic analysis, three themes with additional

sub-themes were identified (Figure 1). All quotes

have been translated from Swedish and participants

are referred to as TC (traffic controller) or TD (train

driver) followed by an identification number.

Figure 1: Overview of the three identified themes and their

sub-themes.

4.1 Team Spirit

This identified theme concerns the way the

controllers and drivers view their interpersonal

relationship, their separate roles, and responsibilities.

They consider themselves to be colleagues and

members of the same team. They collaborate by

providing each other with relevant information but at

the same time value silence as a sign of everything

running according to plan.

“We’re Doing This Together”. This is not just the

title of the present paper but one of the main messages

derived from the data analysis. The quote is from TD1

who articulated that: “We’re doing this together.

During my workday, the people I talk to are the crew

onboard the train and the traffic controller. Those are

my closest colleagues”. When talking to traffic

controllers and train drivers, it is often mentioned that

they are not able to do their job without support from

each other. ”It’s teamwork. After all, I can't get the

traffic running unless the driver does his job” [TC3].

Even the simplest example of a controller who sets

the signals to “go” requires a driver to act on the

information conveyed by the signal and to operate the

train. This process of work demonstrates how

intertwined the work of controllers and drivers are,

and highlights also how essential the collaboration

between these two roles are to realise a functioning

traffic flow.

Another example of a situation that displays how

the controller and driver work towards a shared goal

was observed at the traffic control centre in which

TC18 received a call from a driver. During the

conversation, the controller expressed: ”Good! Good

suggestion. Thank you.” Once the call had ended he

explained: ”The driver knew that train 637 was late,

which means that he no longer needs to go through so

many switching points. I didn’t think of that, so it was

really good that he called”. This is an example of a

situation in which the controller and driver act as a

CHIRA 2020 - 4th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

back-up for each other and provide reminders or ideas

to the other that may be relevant for solving or

improving the efficiency of a certain traffic situation.

Communication Practices. As in all collaboration,

communication is fundamental. At the control

centres, the telephones are constantly ringing and

information is delivered from drivers to controllers.

Traffic control is highly information-dependent and

the traffic controllers are sometimes forced to make

assumptions regarding, for example, a train’s

equipment and properties. The assumptions usually

prove to be correct but in the case of equipment being

out of order or situations in which the train’s

properties differ from the usual, the controllers

depend on the driver to call and deliver that

information. TD1 gives an example about limited

braking capacity: ”If my top speed is affected for

some reasons, for example, if I had to turn off a brake,

I always call and let the controller know. With a

lowered braking capacity you need to lower the speed

so that you have time to reach a full stop when you’re

supposed to”. Small pieces of information like this are

important for the controllers to take into account since

they, no matter how small, can have large effects on

the overall traffic plan. While some drivers are

proactive and report on situations that they believe are

of importance to the controller, this is not always the

case. TC9 describes: ”Sometimes you notice that a

train [displayed in the digital system for traffic

control] are getting more and more behind the

timetable and you call the driver just to be told that he

has reduced speed capacity today. By the time you

detect the issue… well, that can really create chaos in

the planning". Some drivers are more actively

involved in delivering information to the controllers

than others. This may be the result of drivers not

knowing what pieces of information that the

controllers have access to and what they instead rely

on the drivers to communicate. This is especially

challenged by the fact that it sometimes varies what

type of information the controllers have access to.

Much of the information exchange in the

controller-driver dyad starts with input from the "real

world" outside of the control room. The information

does, however, flow both ways in this dyad and the

drivers regularly receive information from the

controllers, mainly concerning changes to the traffic

plan. It is noticeable that the controllers have access

to more communication channels than the drivers do.

For instance, the controllers can transmit information

via points and signals, while the drivers have to rely

on the telephone. During a ride-along in the train cab,

TD4 observed a stop signal and switching points

guided us onto a sidetrack used to enable two trains

to meet and pass each other. The researcher asked

whether he knew what was happening and the driver

responded: ”I don’t need to know, I have all the

information I need right here”, and pointed to the stop

signal. It is clear that the points and signals controlled

by the traffic controllers play an important part in the

communication practice employed by the controller-

driver dyad as they convey concrete information for

the drivers to act upon.

Trust. At the same time as communication is of

importance, there is great trust in the relationship

between controller and driver and they trust each

other to do what needs to be done. This is displayed

by a lack of all communication not considered

necessary. “On the best day, we do not communicate.

No communication means that everything is working

as it is supposed to." [TC5]. The silence carries a

meaning of the traffic running smoothly and without

larger discrepancies. “As long as everything works,

we do not have contact. I do what I'm supposed to do

and I know that he is doing what he is supposed to do.

And then we continue like that until something

deviates from what is normal” [TD12].

4.2 Relational Distance

Teamwork is a necessity for enabling safe and

efficient railway traffic. However, to maintain a well-

functioning relationship in the controller-driver dyad

is challenged by underlying factors and

organisational structures, which creates a relational

distance between them. That distance is the subject of

this theme along with the differences between the two

work roles, their separate work processes, and

priorities.

Work Process. Although a joint overarching goal,

the traffic controllers and train drivers enact different

work processes due to their separate responsibilities.

They are located at different geographical places and

while the drivers work in real-time, the controllers’

work includes to control points and signals for future

train paths. While responsible for planning and

controlling traffic situations ahead of time, the

controllers shift focus to present time when

something unforeseen happens. For example in the

case of an accident, the driver reports to the controller

and awaits further instructions. While the driver is

waiting, the controller uses the information from the

driver to re-plan the timetable for the train involved

in the accident as well as for other trains that might

be affected. TC1 explains: “There is some waiting

time, especially for the driver. We [the controllers]

are working at high speed while the train just stands

there. And if it is a major accident, it can take hours”.

”We’re Doing This Together”: An in-Depth Analysis of the Teamwork between Train Trafﬁc Controllers and Train Drivers

This statement highlights the separate but highly

related work processes that controllers and drivers are

actively involved in. It also shows how their work

processes, especially in regards to situations out of the

ordinary, often are executed alternately, resulting in

peeks of workload that shifts back and forth between

the two roles.

One important difference between the work of

traffic control and train driving is their separate work

environments. Train drivers are occasionally exposed

to situations with violent passengers, accidents etc.,

while the controllers are distanced from those

situations and perform their work in a control room

from which they can see neither trains nor passengers.

This can sometimes create a mismatch between the

two roles in regards to what they need for their

respective tasks. In a conversation between a traffic

controller and a train driver it was revealed that in the

case of an accident, the driver reckoned that he should

provide information about his location and that this

could be done by describing what he saw from inside

the cab, looking out through the window. The traffic

controllers on the other hand are rarely familiar with

the fist-hand view from the rails but need a different

type of information to determine the train’s exact

location. They need the driver to remember what

number was displayed on the last kilometre sign the

train passed, which means that the driver is asked to

remember a number no longer in sight. This can be

challenging for someone who was just in an accident.

Although understandable, it is troublesome that the

controllers sometimes need information that can be

difficult for the drivers to retrieve from memory.

To further add to the complexity of different work

processes, the controllers and drivers of Swedish

railway are employed by different organisations,

which does not favour their possibilities to

collaborate successfully. It also creates a reality in

which these two roles, colleagues as they consider

themselves to be, rarely (if ever) have visited each

other at work and thus have limited insights into each

other’s’ work processes. “I visited the control centre

once during the train driver education. It was good,

but back then I had no idea what the reality looked

like… and I wasn’t experienced enough to ask the

right questions. Also, that was 30 years ago now... a

lot has changed” [TD7]. The situation is similar for

the controllers that rarely get the opportunity to ride

along in the cab and when the opportunity presents

itself, it is usually during their training and when they

are new to traffic control.

The controller-driver dyad has an underlying

distance in their relationship that derives from them

not knowing enough details or depth regarding the

challenges and different situations affecting the other

role. However, they all agree that a mutual

understanding and knowledge-base is something to

strive for to facilitate the collaborative aspects of their

work.

Priorities. During data analysis, it became clear

that controllers and drivers have separate priorities

and that these sometimes result in disagreements

between them in regards to how a certain situation

best should be handled. The main difference seems to

be that the drivers focus solely on their train with the

goal to bring that train to each stop in accordance with

the timetable while providing the passengers a

comfortable ride. The traffic controllers on the other

hand prioritise the overall traffic flow, and all trains

are treated as equally important. This can sometimes

entail to purposely delay one train to improve the

overall traffic flow from a more holistic perspective.

Their different priorities sometimes create grounds

for conflict in the controller-driver dyad. TD6

explains: "Our roles are different from each other. I

have my train. That's it. But the controllers see the

whole picture. Maybe not all drivers understand that

controllers sometimes have to make a decision that

seems to be very negative for me to resolve a traffic

situation somewhere else".

The controller-driver dyad does not always agree

on what should be the main priority; however, it is

important to acknowledge that both roles are facing

challenging situations and do their very best given

their unique prerequisites. This mutual respect for

each other’s challenges is described by TD2: “It is

important that we think of us as a team working

together, and that we understand each other's difficult

situations. I sometimes feel stressed when I’m falling

behind the timetable. But if I think about the situation

for the controllers… with many trains to consider.

Although I only have one train to care about, I might

have 500 passengers on that train. So, without a

doubt, our two situations are both challenging but in

very different ways”. The dissimilar challenges faced

by controllers and drivers can pose a hinder for

enabling a successful collaboration. In the end, much

comes down to the feeling of being in control of one’s

situation. More on this in the next section.

4.3 Control

This theme concerns the feeling of being in control,

which is constantly sought by both traffic controllers

and train drivers. These two roles are part of separate

work situations, which brings different possibilities

when it comes to control. These differences

sometimes affect the controller-driver dynamic and

CHIRA 2020 - 4th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

100

how the workers decide to execute their individual

tasks

Information is Power. While the train driver is the

only one with real-time information about his/her

train and its journey, the controllers have access to

comprehensive information about the whole train

traffic situation in Sweden. This involves status on the

trains that are currently running as well as the plan for

all trains that will departure within the next 24 hours.

This means that viewed from a holistic perspective,

the controllers have an advantage when it comes to

making strategic decisions for how the traffic should

be executed. This sometimes puts the drivers in a

situation where they feel left out and without control

over their work situation. TD7 expresses that ”I have

to stand where he [the controller] puts me”. This

statement displays how information, or the lack

thereof, can result in feelings of being out of control

or even feelings of being a pawn in the traffic

controllers’ game.

The controllers are constantly required to make

changes and adjustments to the traffic plan and rarely

have time to discuss the decisions with all concerned

drivers beforehand. Rather, they have to make the

decisions and act fast when executing and

implementing them into the traffic plan, and only

have time to inform concerned parties afterwards.

This can occasionally cause conflicts in the

controller-driver dyad. TC4 says that ”Sometimes

you get calls from angry drivers questioning your

actions: “Why do I have a stop signal here…?”. We

try to call everyone and explain what is happening

and why, but we don't always have the time". Due to

the separate work situations of controllers and driver,

they come across different types of information.

Whether the information is derived from the physical

surroundings that a driver oversees or from the digital

traffic information displayed to the controller, the

intertwined nature of the work by the controller-

driver dyad makes it essential for them to frequently

engage in information-sharing activities. For

example, when an accident happens, all information

lies with the train driver. However, as soon as the

driver hands over the relevant pieces of information

to the controller, the driver cannot do anything but

await further instructions from the controller, which

is then the one with all the information (and control).

Time is often a factor that works against this dyad,

especially in the occurrence of something out of the

ordinary, which tends to result in a long row of tasks

that need to be done more or less simultaneously. This

is especially true for the controllers that often need to

call multiple drivers, one after the other, to inform

about a situation and how it will be handled. In this

process, the controllers can sometimes underestimate

how valuable their information is to the drivers. TD2

explains the importance of updated traffic

information: “You constantly have to adapt the way

you drive. If I receive information about a stop signal

later on, I can lower my speed and avoid having to

make a full stop when I arrive at that signal. Then the

passengers won’t notice anything.” This example

highlights the power of information and the

importance of updated information flowing back and

forth between the individuals in the controller-driver

dyad.

Unforeseen Effects of New Technology. The

controllers have long worked in a technology dense

environment and recently, the drivers have also

gained access to multiple information technologies.

Increased use of IT within a socio-technical system

brings changes to the information structure and

aspects such as who is reached by what information,

when, and how. One example of equipment

implemented in the cabs, often referred to as driver

advisory systems (DAS), provide drivers with

information about the train’s planned route, its

current location, and upcoming stops. Sometimes it

also presents similar pieces of information

concerning other trains located in the nearby

surroundings. Sweden’s largest railway undertaking

has developed a driver advisory system that, in

addition to the previously mentioned functionalities,

also support the driver with recommendations for

how to operate the train in a way that optimises

energy consumption. TD2 explains how the DAS has

affected his work: “In terms of information, it is like

a new world. We don't need to call and ask the

controller as much as we used to.” Although the DAS

is used by drivers only, the addition of information

available to them affects how they do their work—as

shown by the description of fewer phone calls to the

controllers. Hence, changes to the drivers’ work

practice have in turn brought changes to the whole

controller-driver dynamic.

Although the DAS brings more information than

ever before to the drivers, it can only display current

traffic situation, which means that it cannot display

changes made by the controllers before these changes

are realised into actual running traffic. This is

problematic in cases when drivers use the real-time

information they are presented with to adapt their

driving behaviours, while unaware of planned

changes that may make their information obsolete. In

fact, uncommunicated deviations from the original

traffic plan are put forward by participants as a source

of conflict in the controller-driver dyad. One example

of a situation like this is when a driver adapts his

”We’re Doing This Together”: An in-Depth Analysis of the Teamwork between Train Trafﬁc Controllers and Train Drivers

101

speed to facilitate a train meeting at another meeting

place than what was originally planned for. Due to

mostly single-track lines, the planning of such a

meeting without imposing unnecessarily long waiting

time for the train that is first to arrive at the place of

the meeting is a complex task for the controllers. For

this reason, uncommunicated changes to the location

or time of a train meeting can quickly make the traffic

plan in need of major re-planning. “We have noticed

that the tablet is used to take own initiatives as a

driver. That can create huge problems… To make

decisions when you don’t have the full picture…”

[TC1]. This is an example of a driver that makes use

of the information at hand to optimise his situation

without considering, or being aware of, the fact that

all trains are part of a much larger puzzle and that

even small changes can bring large effects on the

overall traffic flow.

The drivers have long been working in an

“information vacuum”, as it was described by Jansson

et al. (2005), and when this now starts to change it is

easy to see why they want to use their increased

access to information to gain more control of their

work. However, from the controllers’ perspective,

they find it difficult to understand what has changed

and why. In one of the observation sessions, TC15

ended a phone call with a driver and turned to her

colleague, bursting out with amazement: “He knew

that the train he was supposed to meet is cancelled.

How can he possibly know that?” The controllers

have never been formally introduced to the drivers’

new routines and information structures. The

controllers describe how they, based on conversations

with the drivers during normal work activities, have

concluded that the drivers must have gained access to

more information. However, they are unaware of

what kind of information. This makes it difficult for

the controllers to know what information they need to

share with the drivers and what pieces of information

the drivers already have access to. ”I can see the

whole traffic situation in my systems, but I don’t

know what the drivers are seeing” [TC3]. It was clear

during this study that the controllers are curious about

the DAS as they, during the pair-wise interviews,

posed questions about the system and asked the

drivers to demonstrate it (which they gladly did). This

spontaneous questioning suggests that the controllers

want to be informed about the current information

situation for the drivers. Considering that controllers

and drivers are highly dependent on each other to

perform their separate work responsibilities, they may

not only want insights about each other's work

situation, but they may need it to be able to feel in

control of their tasks and to do their jobs.

5 DISCUSSION

This study is the initial step to deepening the

understanding of the controller-driver dyad of

Swedish operational train traffic. The analysis shows

that they view themselves as colleagues, working as

a team towards a shared goal. There is also a good

portion of trust at the core of their relationship, which

is mirrored in how they communicate with each other

and especially regarding what they choose to

communicate. However, the controller-driver

dynamic is severely challenged by limited insight into

each other’s work situations. They are also facing

what seems to be unforeseen effects caused by the

implementation of new technology, which has not

only brought changes to the information structure

within the socio-technical system of operational train

traffic but also changed the overall way of work. In

conclusion, the functional dynamics of the

relationship between controller and driver can either

contribute to successful outcomes or create barriers

and destabilising factors, which in turn can impact the

functionality of the whole socio-technical system.

Though to a large degree informal and

undocumented, the work practices for

communication and collaboration discussed in this

paper are central for the safe and efficient

performance of operational train traffic. This points

to the importance of analysing the social and

behavioural aspects of work to understand what work

practices are at play and how these can be supported

and maintained through organisational changes and

development. Changes to work processes, such as

introducing new technology, can either enhance

effective teamwork or disrupt the naturally emerging

informal work processes crucial to coordinate work

and ensuring safe operations (Roth et al., 2020). In the

present study, the DAS is a good example of IT that

supports the driver to operate the train, but that is

poorly adapted to support the informal work practices

for communication and collaboration between driver

and controller. Implementing a new piece of

technology brings changes to the overall process of

work in the socio-technical system and should thus

not be viewed solely as system development but

rather as organisational development. The Federal

Railroad Administration (FRA) points to the

importance of not just developing technology that

supports the main tasks but also the activities

associated with aspects of teamwork—such as

communication and coordination (Roth et al, 2020),

which is in line with the results of the present study.

To conclude: team spirit is persevering in the train

traffic controller-driver dyad despite a lack of

CHIRA 2020 - 4th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

102

prerequisites to sufficiently foster a successful

collaboration. The key to the successful outcomes

that we normally see is the skilled traffic controllers

and train drivers and their informally developed work

practices of collaboration and knowledge-sharing. It

is essential to understand how their skills and

experiences can be integrated with new technical and

organisational systems.

Further, we see that a systems perspective on the

work practices benefits the understanding of

informal, but critical, processes of teamwork. Insights

into these social and behavioural aspects of work

should be utilised to avoid situations where changes

to work structures inadvertently disrupt critical

teamwork processes. Future work should therefore

make efforts to facilitate communication and

coordination among the workers so that common

ground can be directly fostered and, in the long run,

contribute to safety and efficiency of work. This is a

challenge and something that needs to be addressed

by both railway companies as well as the research

community. The former need to adopt a systems

perspective to realise the intertwined nature of the

overall task and to see how changes in one part of the

system will affect other parts as well. A systems

perspective provides a holistic understanding of

work, which supports the task of enabling and

maintaining a successful collaboration in which both

roles are allowed to contribute with their expertise. As

for the research community, a theoretical lens such as,

for example, activity theory (e.g., Engeström, 2000)

could contribute to a deepened analysis of the work

and support operational traffic as it moves into the

future. Another relevant agenda is to facilitate

successful coordination and communication activities

in the controller-driver dyad by arranging a learning

arena for them to share experiences and knowledge.

Joint workshops or, if possible, simulation-based

environments could prove valuable in learning these

non-technical skills. By supporting the team aspects

of the operational work and enabling increased

insights into each other’s work situation, the

possibilities for the controller-driver dyad to

successfully work together as a team can be further

strengthened.

REFERENCES

Andersson, A.W., Sandblad, B., Nilsson, A., 1998.

Improving interface usability for train dispatchers in

future traffic control systems. Proceedings of

International Conference on Railway Engineering

Design and Operation.

Andreasson, R., Jansson, A.A., Lindblom, J., 2019a. Past

and Future Challenges for Railway Research and the

Role of a Systems Perspective. In: Bagnara S., Tartaglia

R., Albolino S., Alexander T., Fujita Y. (eds)

Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International

Ergonomics Association (pp 1737-1746). Springer,

Cham.

Andreasson, R., Jansson, A. A., Lindblom, J., 2019b. The

coordination between train traffic controllers and train

drivers: a distributed cognition perspective on railway.

Cognition, Technology & Work, 21(3), 417-443.

Baysari, Melissa T., McIntosh, Andrew S., Wilson, J. R.,

2008. Understanding the human factors contribution to

railway accidents and incidents in Australia. Accident

Analysis & Prevention, 40(5), 1750-1757.

Engeström, Y., 2000. Activity theory as a framework for

analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics 43, 960–

974.

Jansson. A., Olsson, E., Kecklund, L., 2005. Acting or

reacting? A cognitive work analysis approach to the

train driver task. In: Wilson JR, Norris B, Clarke T,

Mills A (eds) Rail human factors: supporting the

integrated railway (pp 40-49). Ashgate Publishing

Limited, Aldershot.

Kauppi, A., Wikström, J., Sandblad, B., Andersson, A. W.,

2006. Future train traffic control: control by re-

planning. Cognition, Technology & Work 8, 50–56.

Naweed, A., 2020. Getting mixed signals: Connotations of

teamwork as performance shaping factors in network

controller and rail driver relationship dynamics.

Applied Ergonomics, 82.

Rosenhand, H., Roth, E., Multer, J., 2011. Cognitive and

Collaborative Demands of Freight Conductor Activities

Results and Implications of a Cognitive Task Analysis.

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics

Society Annual Meeting, 1884-1888.

Roth, E. M., Rosenhand, H., Multer, J., 2020. Teamwork in

Railroad Operations and Implications for New

Technology (No. DOT-VNTSC-FRA-15-03). United

States. Department of Transportation. Federal Railroad

Administration. Office of Research, Development, and

Technology.

Sandblad, B. Andersson, A.W., Frej, I., Gideon, A., 1997.

The role of human-computer interaction in design of

new train traffic control systems. Proceedings of World

Congress of Railway Research.

Tschirner, S., Sandblad, B., Andersson, A., Hellström, P.,

Isaksson-Lutteman, G., 2013. Analysis of collaboration

applied to train drivers and train traffic controllers in

Sweden. In: Dadashi N, Scott A, Wilson JR, Mills A

(eds). Rail human factors: supporting reliability, safety

and cost reduction (pp. 389-398). London: Taylor &

Francis.

Wilson, J.R., Norris, B.J., 2005. Rail human factors: past,

present and future. Applied Ergonomics, 36(6), 649–

660.

”We’re Doing This Together”: An in-Depth Analysis of the Teamwork between Train Trafﬁc Controllers and Train Drivers

103