Abstract
In an effort to reduce operating costs and increase safety and efficiency, U.S. Class I freight railroads have begun to use remotely controlled locomotives in and around railroad switching yards. To better understand the safety implications of implementing this technology, a human reliability assessment was conducted to compare remotely controlled locomotive operations with conventional (engineer onboard) yard switching operations. This paper discusses application of the Human Error Assessment and Reduction Technique (HEART) with 2 yard switching employee subject matter experts. Each was asked to assess 11 conventional scenarios and 11 nearly-identical remote control scenarios. Human error probabilities were calculated for each scenario. The HEART assessment revealed no overall difference in human error probabilities between the 2 methods of operation. Additional analyses suggest significant variability between the two assessors. This paper explores differences in how assessors used HEART, including differences in selection of generic task types and error-producing conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.