U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Rail Crew Resource Management (CRM): Survey of 

Teams in the Railroad Operating Environment and 

Identification of Available CRM Training Methods 

Office of Research and 

Development 

Washington, DC 20590 

DOT/FRA/ORD-06/10 June 2006 This document is available to the 

 Final Report U.S. public through the National 

 Technical Information Service 

 Springfield, Virginia 22161 

 
 

Notice 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information 

exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability 

for its contents or use thereof. 

Notice 

The United States Government does not endorse products or 

manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein 

solely because they are considered essential to the objective of 

this report. 
 i 

REPORT DOCUMENTION PAGE Form approved 

OMB No. 074-0188 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, gather and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send 

comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection if information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to 

Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 

22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0702-0288), Washington, D.C. 20503 

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 

June 2006 Research Report 

October 2001 – September 2003 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS 

Railroad Crew Resource Management (CRM): Survey of 

Teams in the Railroad Operating Environment and 

Identification of Available CRM Training Methods 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Curtis A. Morgan, Leslie E. Olson, Tobin B. Kyte, Stephen S. 

Roop, Todd D. Carlisle 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT 

NUMBERS 

Texas Transportation Institute 

The Texas A&M University System 

College Station, TX 77843-3135 

Report 474450-00001 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY 

REPORT NUMBER 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1120 Vermont Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20590 

DOT/FRA/ORD-06/10 

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Research performed in cooperation with ENSCO, Inc. and the Federal Railroad Administration. Research 

Project title, Crew Resource Management in the Railroad Operating Environment.

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 

This document is available through National Technical 

Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. 

13. ABSTRACT 

This report summarizes the work undertaken by the Texas Transportation Institute to document the common teams or 

crews that are present within the rail industry and to evaluate the existing crew resource management (CRM) training 

methods used in other industries for their applicability to those railroad teams. Several railroads were visited in order 

to identify railroad crews, and an extensive literature search was performed to classify the broad variety of CRM 

training methods available. Facilities of five different railroad types were visited to gain a cross-sectional picture of the 

teams in the rail industry. These railroads included an eastern Class I railroad, a western Class I railroad, a shortline 

railroad, an urban commuter railroad, and an inter-city passenger railroad. Methods of CRM training from the 

commercial airline industry, the military, the medical field, the offshore oil production industry, and the nuclear power 

industry as well as existing railroad CRM training courses were examined concerning their application to the existing 

teams found during the site visits. Recommendations regarding the appropriate training methods for each railroad team 

are then made. This report also presents several requirements to develop a fully implemented CRM program in the rail 

industry. 

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

99 

16. PRICE CODE 

17. SECURITY CLASSIF. 18. SECURITY 

CLASSIF. OF THIS 

PAGE 

19. SECURITY CLASSIF. OF 

ABSTRACT 

20. LIMITATION OF 

ABSTRACT 

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 

NSN 7540-01-280-550 Standard Form 298 (Rec. 2-89) 

Prescribed by ANSI/NISO Std. 

239.18 

298-102 
 ii 
Table of Contents 

List of Figures................................................................................................................................ iv 

List of Tables.................................................................................................................................. v 

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... vii 

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 1 

1.0 Literature Review..................................................................................................................... 3 

1.1 Origins of CRM Training..................................................................................................... 3 

1.3 Adoption of CRM Training into Military Aviation ............................................................. 7 

1.4 Beyond Aircrews: The Proliferation of CRM Training...................................................... 8 

1.5 Learning Domains and Training Methodologies............................................................... 12 

1.6 Currently Accepted CRM Training Systems..................................................................... 18 

1.7 Phases of CRM Training.................................................................................................... 20 

2.0 Survey of Railroad Teams ..................................................................................................... 27 

2.1 Site Visits........................................................................................................................... 27 

2.2 Team Member Identification and Classification................................................................ 31 

2.3 Identified Teams ................................................................................................................ 32 

2.4 Transportation Crews......................................................................................................... 33 

2.5 Engineering Crews............................................................................................................. 46 

2.6 Mechanical Crews.............................................................................................................. 57 

3.0 Current Rail CRM Programs ................................................................................................. 67 

3.1 Site Visit Railroads............................................................................................................ 67 

3.2 Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 72 

4.0 Mapping Observed Railroad Teams to Appropriate Training Methods ................................ 75 

4.1 Matching Training Methodology with Railroad Teams .................................................... 75 

4.2 Elemental Teams................................................................................................................ 76 

4.3 Interactive Teams............................................................................................................... 81 

4.4 Use of Combined Team Classroom Instruction................................................................. 82 

4.5 Gaps in Training Methods ................................................................................................. 82 

4.6 Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 82 

References..................................................................................................................................... 85 

Acronyms...................................................................................................................................... 91 

 iii 
List of Figures 

Figure 1. Transportation Crews Chart ......................................................................................... 33 

Figure 2. Engineering Crews Chart ............................................................................................. 46 

Figure 3. Mechanical Crews Chart .............................................................................................. 56 

 iv 
List of Tables 

Table 1. Differing Terminology for Core CRM Skills by Industry............................................... 6 

Table 2. Research Team Visits and Timeframes......................................................................... 27 

Table 3. Rail Companies and Site Visit Locations...................................................................... 28 

Table 4. Freight Road Crew......................................................................................................... 33 

Table 5. Passenger Road Crew .................................................................................................... 36 

Table 6. Track Inspector .............................................................................................................. 38 

Table 7. Yard Crew (Remote Control (RC)) ............................................................................... 39 

Table 8. Yard Crew (Conventional)............................................................................................. 41 

Table 9. Dispatch Crew................................................................................................................ 42 

Table 10. Intermodal Load and Unload Crews............................................................................ 44 

Table 11. Section Gang................................................................................................................ 46 

Table 12. Production Gang .......................................................................................................... 48 

Table 13. Structures (B&B)......................................................................................................... 50 

Table 14. Electrical Bonding Crew.............................................................................................. 51 

Table 15. Catenary Maintenance Crew (AC or DC).................................................................... 52 

Table 16. Signal Gang.................................................................................................................. 54 

Table 17. Signal Maintenance Crew............................................................................................ 55 

Table 18. Hostler Crew................................................................................................................ 57 

Table 19. Locomotive Repair Shop Crew.................................................................................... 58 

Table 20. Locomotive Service Crew ........................................................................................... 60 

Table 21. Inbound-Outbound Train Inspection Team ................................................................. 61 

Table 22. Car Repair Shop Crew................................................................................................. 63 

Table 23. Examples of Interactive Teams within the Rail Industry ............................................ 65 

Table 24. Example of CRM-Based Training Analysis Grid........................................................ 75 

Table 25. Recommended Training Methods for Elemental Teams............................................. 77 

 v 
 vi 
Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to thank Dr. Thomas Raslear, Scott Kaye, Ralph Elston, and David Green 

of the Federal Railroad Administration and Ed Lombardi and Brian Whitten from ENSCO, Inc. 

for the financial and operational support received on this project. The authors would also like to 

thank the participating railroads and their personnel for allowing them to collect information on 

the existing industry teams. Specific individuals who were invaluable in helping to gather 

information for this project include: Alan Lindsey, John Grundmann, Adrian Hertog, and the 

staff of the Johnson County Community College training center from the Burlington Northern 

Santa Fe Railway; John Grewell of Montana Rail Link; Matthew Husar of Chicago Metra; John 

Drake of CSX Transportation; Don Scott, Steve Cavalier, and Richard Phelps of the National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak); Bob Keane of Canadian National; Faye Ackermans 

and Paul Wajda of the Canadian Pacific Railway; and Robert Grimalia and Steve Kenyon of the 

Union Pacific Railroad. 

The authors also would like to thank those in the Texas A&M community for their help on this 

project, including Sharon Thigpin and Marci Avery at the Texas A&M Research Foundation and 

William Lowery of the Texas Engineering Extension Service. Finally we would like to thank 

Todd D. Carlisle for his work at the Texas Transportation Institute while pursuing graduate 

studies. Dr. Carlisle is now employed by Terranova Consulting in California. 

 vii 
 viii 
Executive Summary 

Purpose of this Report 

This report summarizes the work undertaken by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) to 

document the common teams or crews that are present within the rail industry and to evaluate the 

existing crew resource management (CRM) training methods used in other industries for their 

applicability to those railroad teams. TTI visited several railroads during 2002 and early 2003 in 

order to identify existing railroad teams, and an extensive literature search was performed to 

classify the broad variety of training methods available. 

Background of CRM 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and commercial airlines first 

developed CRM as cockpit resource management almost a quarter century ago in order to 

combat the increasing numbers of aircraft accidents that were attributed to pilot error. Research 

into the causal factors of these accidents found that, in many cases, rather than a lack of skill on 

the part of the pilots, the actual performance failure that led to the crash was related to improper 

crew coordination or improper communication of critical information within the crew. CRM 

was created to help crewmembers use all the resources that are available to them (Salas, 

Rhodenizer, and Bowers, 2000). 

Since that early work, CRM training and its concepts have evolved within commercial aviation 

to include not only pilots but the entire flight crew, air traffic controllers, and aircraft 

maintenance personnel. Military aviation, tank, and shipboard crews have all adopted CRM 

training programs as have the commercial shipping, medical, nuclear power, and other industries. 

In all cases, positive safety benefits have accrued from instituting formal training in core CRM 

skills, such as crewmember proficiency, improved communication and teamwork among 

crewmembers, conflict resolution, and maintaining situational awareness. The rail industry has 

taken some initial steps into develop CRM training, but those efforts have largely been limited to 

the operating crafts (i.e., engineer and conductor) and have not included the many other job areas 

that are present. 

Survey of Teams in the Rail Environment 

In this study, one railroad each from five different segments of the U.S. rail industry was selected 

in order to gain a representative cross-section of railroad sizes and types. TTI documented 

existing teams during site visits to these railroads that have a potential for the application of 

CRM principles. The research team visited an eastern Class I railroad (CSX Transportation), a 

western Class I railroad (Burlington Northern Santa Fe), a shortline/regional railroad (Montana 

Rail Link), a commuter railroad (Chicago Metra), and the national intercity passenger railroad 

(Amtrak). At each of these rail companies, TTI conducted observations and interviews to 

determine the size and makeup of work teams in all crafts. The information gathered was then 

used to classify the teams into those that commonly exist or that have common characteristics 

across the industry. 

 1 
Available CRM Training Methods 

A second major focus of this study was to research the literature regarding current CRM training 

in other fields to determine if available training methods could be adapted or applied within the 

rail industry. This research indicated that a large number of methods exist. Two types of 

instruction must be included in CRM training, cognitive and behavioral. Cognitive training 

methods include lecture, film/video instruction, readings and programmed texts, computer-based 

training (CBT), case studies and incident training, and written exercises. Behavioral methods 

include role-play, group exercises, and simulation. Rarely does any CRM course of training 

consist of only one of these methods. Instead they are constructed from the combination of 

several of them. For example, classroom instruction often includes both cognitive and 

behavioral methods, such as lecture, film or video, readings, and role-play exercises. 

This study found that sufficient available training methods exist that more fully implement CRM 

training within the rail industry. Several very real financial and organizational impediments, 

however, exist to rapidly doing so. While the Class I railroads generally have the training 

facilities and resources to conduct CRM training, it would be much more difficult for shortline 

and regional railroads or commuter railroads to do so quickly. In spite of this fact, the value of 

improved safety through reduction of human factors error throughout the various segments 

studied point to the need for continued development and expansion of CRM training within the 

rail industry. 

Current Project Steps 

An extension to the original project was begun in early 2003 that will include development of an 

initial pilot CRM training program for the rail industry. This training program will build upon 

the training methods discovered during the process of the research described in this report. The 

pilot training program should provide introductory awareness of CRM principles. The material 

will be presented in a manner that can be more fully implemented across all crafts within the rail 

industry, not just those involved in actual train operation. 

 2 
1.0 Literature Review 

1.1 Origins of CRM Training 

1.1.1 Early Development 

NASA and commercial airlines originally developed CRM training for use in the aerospace 

industry as a means to decrease the number of airline crashes that were occurring as a result of 

breakdowns in crew performance. Accident investigation often found aircrews made up of 

individuals with excellent individual aviation skills to have made critical errors in teamwork that 

led to crashes. Investigations conducted into these crashes often included pilot error when listing 

out causal factors—both mechanical failures and human factors—that had lead up to the 

accident. 

Repeatedly, such pilot errors were found to be a result of the failure of the flight crew to work 

properly as a team in taking corrective actions or in making flight decisions rather than 

deficiencies in the technical skills of the pilots involved. Critical information known by one 

member of the crew was not passed to others, often due to social or positional barriers related to 

the culture of the airline organization or lack of assertiveness. Research into this problem 

showed that training for pilots and aircrew traditionally focused on technical aspects related to 

flying the aircraft (Prince, Chidester, Bowers, and Cannon-Bowers, 1992), but little or no 

training occurred on how to interact as a crew. Later studies found that, in order for flight crews 

to exhibit exemplary performance, three elements were needed—technical competency, 

CRM/interpersonal skills, and an organizational context or culture that supports crew-based 

rather than individual decisionmaking and that encourages dialogue and feedback among crew 

members regarding safety issues (Bailey and Shaw, 1996). 

1.1.2 Cockpit Resource Management 

CRM began as cockpit resource management rather than crew resource management because 

initially its application was limited only to those members of the aviation industry that were 

present in the cockpit and that made safety of flight decisions regarding the plane and its in-flight 

operations. This flightdeck crew that was the focus of early CRM training was usually limited to 

the positions of pilot, co-pilot, and when applicable, flight engineer. 

At most major airlines, individuals in each of these positions hold pilot’s licenses with either 

commercial or airline transport pilot ratings and have hundreds of hours of flight time 

experience. Each member of this crew has extensive knowledge of the aircraft’s flight 

characteristics, its performance capabilities, and the approved rules and procedures for dealing 

with a given problem (standardized by the use of checklists), but, in a critical or emergency 

situation, conflicting opinions among these highly skilled and trained pilots, miscommunication, 

or failure to pass on vital information within the crew could still lead to selection of improper 

actions, resulting in a crash. 

 3 
Decisions based solely upon the seniority and experience of the plane’s captain (the pilot-incommand) and his/her perception of the problem often resulted in the failure of the flight crew as 

a whole to select the safest course of action to mitigate the problem. At times, this occurred 

despite the initial objection of other crewmembers or the lack of assertiveness of junior 

crewmembers in making their objections known. When such input was given, senior pilots often 

disregarded it, instead counting upon their own perception, experience, and skills. 

Unfortunately, these are not always the most reliable sources of information in making flight 

decisions. 

The traditional airline culture supported the captain in this authoritarian position until several 

costly crashes in which this was a factor took place. Junior crewmembers’ lack of assertiveness, 

failure of the crew to recognize and correct a problem before it became too late, and last words 

such as “I knew you were going to do that” on cockpit voice recorders indicated that something 

had to change. Pilots and the airline industry needed a new way to approach their jobs that 

allowed for more team decisionmaking and encouraged communication between all members of 

the crew so that no essential information would be omitted that could be used to prevent a crash. 

1.1.3 Identified Need for CRM Training 

The initial need for CRM in the aviation industry was, and continues to be, supported by findings 

by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and others that approximately 30-80 percent of all 

aviation accidents result from human error (Lauber, 1987). For example, after studying 169 

accidents that the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) had investigated, the U.S. 

General Accounting Office (GAO) found that 30 percent were caused in part by pilot error 

(USGAO, 1997). In one-third of these accidents, GAO determined that the pilots did not 

correctly utilize CRM principles. Finally, the GAO report concluded that CRM deficiencies 

contributed to 50 percent of the serious accidents where at least one fatality had occurred. 

Since the realization that such a significant percentage of aircraft accidents resulted from human 

error, CRM training has continued to be widely adopted by the commercial aviation industry, the 

military, and other industries, such as medicine, offshore oil production, nuclear power, and 

commercial shipping. Recent FRA statistics attribute human error as a causal factor in 37 

percent of all train accidents not related to highway-rail grade crossings (FRA, 1999). These 

numbers point to the need in the rail industry to examine all possible methods to increase safety 

by predicting and preventing human error accidents. 

1.2 CRM and its Development 

1.2.1 Defining CRM 

CRM training was initially created to improve aviation safety by helping crewmembers to use all 

the resources available to them (Salas et al., 2000). Crew resources can include the training and 

experience of other members of the crew and all information related to the crew’s ability to 

function. Such information can be internal to the crew itself or available from someone outside 

the crew with which they can communicate, such as air traffic controllers or aircraft maintenance 

 4 
specialists at their home base. Failing to consult or take advantage of these resources has been 

found to be a causal factor in too many accidents. 

Likewise, the performance capability of each flight crew member must also be evaluated based 

upon his/her physical, mental, or emotional condition at the time of the flight. This facet of crew 

resources can take into account stress, fatigue, illness, or lack of training in a specific area when 

evaluating the ability of an individual to perform certain tasks. Knowledge of these factors and 

learning to identify cues related to them can allow for better allocation of tasks within each crew. 

Keeping them in mind can prevent many errors before they happen. 

FAA defined CRM in 1989 as “the utilization of all available human, informational, and 

equipment resources toward the goal of safe and efficient flight” (FAA 1989, p. 2). The same 

document further defines CRM: 

CRM is an active process by crewmembers to identify significant 

threats, to communicate, and to carry out a plan and actions to avoid 

or mitigate each threat. CRM also deals directly with the avoidance 

of human errors and the management and mitigation of those errors 

that occur. CRM reflects the application of human factor knowledge 

to the special case of flight crews and their interactions with each 

other, with other groups and with the technology in the system (FAA, 

1989, p. 2). 

This definition asserts that CRM is a process that crew members should use during flight 

operations. The authors define this process based on the mitigation and avoidance of threats and 

human error. Alternatively CRM can be defined as a training method. Salas and his colleagues 

define CRM as a “family of instructional strategies that seek to improve teamwork in the cockpit 

by applying well-tested training tools (e.g., simulators, lectures, videos) targeted at specific 

content (i.e., teamwork knowledge, skills and attitudes)” (Salas, Prince, Bowers, Stout, Oser, and 

Cannon-Bowers, 1999). Besides coming from a training perspective (compared to a process 

perspective), Salas et al. (1999) write about CRM as being really about teamwork. The 

differences in CRM definitions become apparent when one looks at the diverse skills taught in 

various CRM training programs as shown in Table 1. 

1.2.2 Development of Commercial Aviation CRM Programs 

United Airlines was the first commercial airline to adopt CRM training for its cockpit crews, and 

other companies soon followed suit as positive safety benefits became apparent. NTSB and 

FAA took notice of the reduction of crashes and incidents as more and more airline companies 

implemented voluntary CRM training programs. Eventually, on March 19, 1998, FAA officially 

changed its regulations to require CRM training of all airline personnel (Helmreich, Merritt, and 

Wilhelm, 1999). 

Encouraged by the success of CRM training for cockpit crews, commercial airlines began to 

apply it to other disciplines within the aviation industry. It is no longer just the members of the 

cockpit who are undergoing CRM training. Maintenance workers, flight attendants, and aircraft 

 5 
dispatchers must now undergo CRM training. While specific statistics on airline implementation 

of CRM in other skill areas are scarce, those that can be found paint a favorable picture. 

Table 1. Differing Terminology for Core CRM Skills by Industry 

U.S. Navy Commercial 

Aviation 

Bridge Resource 

Management Medical Fields NTSB 

Decisionmaking Decisionmaking Decisionmaking Priority 

Assessment 

Crewmember 

Proficiency 

Assertiveness Pilot Judgment Planning Assertiveness Assertiveness 

Mission Analysis Crew Coordination Stress and Fatigue 

Management Use of Information Crew 

Coordination 

Communication Communication Communication Communication Communication 

Leadership Leadership Error Management Leadership 

Adaptability/ 

Flexibility Teamwork Avoidance of 

Preoccupation Teamwork 

Situational 

Awareness 

Situational 

Awareness 

Situational 

Awareness 

Situational 

Awareness 

Active Practice 

and Feedback Relationship Issues Active Practice and Feedback 

Note: Shaded areas denote common skills listed across two or more industries. 

For example, the U.S. Naval Safety Center cites that, after training two-thirds of its maintenance 

personnel (approximately 1200 employees) in CRM principles, Continental Airlines saw 

maintenance ground damage costs drop by 66 percent and occupational injuries decrease by 27 

percent (Naval Safety Center, n.d.). This type of improvement points to the dramatic potential 

for improvements in safety that can accrue from the development of a CRM training program 

within an organization. 

Generational Changes in Focus of CRM Training 

Since CRM training first began in the late 1970s (see Cooper, White, and Lauber, 1980), CRM 

within the commercial aviation industry has gone through several stages. Dr. Robert Helmreich 

and his colleagues, in their 1999 paper The Evolution of Crew Resource Management Training in 

Commercial Aviation, described these stages in the following manner: 

1st Generation: Mainly a program for correcting for lack of junior officer 

assertiveness and pilot authoritarianism. 

•

•

•

•

2nd Generation: A more team-oriented program including decisionmaking training. 

3rd Generation: Recognition of human factors issues, such as stress and situational 

awareness; extension of training to other teams in the airlines, such as flight 

attendants, air traffic controllers, and maintenance personnel. 

4th Generation: CRM program customization by individual airlines to comply with 

FAA mandates regarding CRM training. 

 6 
• 5th Generation: Restored emphasis upon error management and safety. 

• 6th Generation: Identifying/preventing threats to safety at the earliest possible time 

and managing error. 

Specialized Training Areas within CRM Training Programs 

In addition to this generational change, several specialized topic areas within CRM training have 

also emerged. These include traditional crew coordination training as described in Wiener, 

Kanki, and Helmreich (1993), attitude training (Gregorich, Helmreich, and Wilhelm, 1990), the 

proper use of assertiveness (Jentsch and Smith-Jentsch, 2001), the role of leadership within CRM 

(Helmreich et al., 1999), and team building (Helmreich et al., 1999). Within each of these areas, 

different methods for presenting and reinforcing CRM training have been developed. This 

chapter will discuss these various training methods later. 

Differentiation of CRM Skills/Learning Objectives in Different Applications 

The desired CRM skills or learning objectives may be expressed in a variety of ways for varying 

groups within a single industry, for CRM application in additional industries, and for specific 

training programs. When CRM competencies are compared across several training programs 

and several industries; however, a similar set of key subject areas begins to emerge. This set 

includes subjects such as decision-making, assertiveness, crew coordination, leadership, 

teamwork, situational awareness, and active practice and feedback. While the main CRM 

concepts remain largely the same, these essential elements may be organized and presented in a 

manner that meets the interest of that particular industry. For example, the Naval Safety 

Center’s School of Aviation Safety organizes its CRM training program around seven skills: 

decisionmaking, assertiveness, mission analysis, communication, leadership, 

adaptability/flexibility, and situational awareness. 

For rail CRM training programs, NTSB has recommended that training include crewmember 

proficiency, communication, situational awareness, and conflict resolution (NTSB, 1999c). As 

shown in Table 1, CRM programs in the medical arena include skills such as priority assessment, 

assertiveness, use of information, communication, leadership, avoidance of preoccupation, and 

situational awareness. The flexibility to present core CRM concepts in different manners allows 

for a more direct training focus within each industry and the ability to relate CRM to associated 

pre-existing training programs. 

1.3 Adoption of CRM Training into Military Aviation 

The aviation branches of the U.S. military also took notice of the success that CRM training was 

having within civil aviation. The U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy began to develop and 

implement CRM training programs based upon those found at the airlines during the early 1990s. 

As in the airlines, the military’s motive for doing so was to reduce the number of accidents 

attributable to pilot error that were costing them millions of dollars in lost aircraft each year. The 

military’s initial CRM training programs began by training only the pilots of multi-piloted 

aircraft and have since expanded to include other fields in military aviation, such as other aircrew 

members, maintenance personnel, and air traffic controllers. 

 7 
While early training materials were adopted, almost wholesale, from the commercial aviation 

industry, in 1993 the Navy developed its own CRM training program for pilots called Naval 

Aircrew Coordination Training (ACT). ACT goals were to increase mission effectiveness, 

minimize preventable error, maximize aircrew coordination, and optimize risk management 

while ultimately reducing the mishap rate caused by human factors (Naval Aviation Schools 

Command, 2003a). The ACT program was ultimately based on a set of seven common 

behavioral skills that a 1991 Navy research and development effort had identified as central to 

aviation mishaps. In 1993, the Navy implemented an interim ACT program designed to address 

these seven skills to some degree while at the same time improving standardization among flight 

training. This interim program developed into the Integrated ACT program in 1995 when a more 

detailed program was developed. In 1998, the Navy upgraded its ACT program once again to 

include annual ground training and annual flight evaluation requirements regarding CRM (Naval 

Aviation Schools Command, 2003b). 

In its current format, outlined in official Navy documents as OPNAVINST 1542.7C, the Navy’s 

CRM initiative includes additional training components, such as: 

• standardized data collection 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

crew feedback 

performance measurement 

an integrated CRM event-based curriculum (with an emphasis on situational 

awareness and decision making) 

advanced flight instructor skills (with performance assessment and coaching) 

decision skills training (with an emphasis on critical thinking) 

Computer Aided Performance Assessment System (computer analysis of each 

crewmember’s performance in aircraft simulators) 

Tactical Integration/Instructional Systems Design (all designed to teach and 

reinforce CRM concepts and measure resulting behavioral changes) 

Instructors in the program focus upon operational risk assessment and management, aircraft 

flight control, communication skills, decision processes and skills, situational awareness, and 

tactical and standard operating procedures. The Navy has seen positive effects from the 

implementation of its integrated CRM training programs. For example, U.S. Naval helicopter 

personnel trained in CRM were found to score 20 percent higher on behavioral evaluations and 

perform better on a written knowledge test and a scenario-based test than did another group who 

had not received CRM training (Salas, Fowlkes, Stout, Milanovich, and Prince, 1999). 

1.4 Beyond Aircrews: The Proliferation of CRM Training 

Throughout the last decade other industries, such as medicine, military tank and shipboard 

operations, offshore oil exploration, commercial shipping, and nuclear power, have applied CRM 

to crew training for their teams. First the work in these industries is such that, in order for key 

components of the job to be performed, individuals must work together in teams to perform those 

functions. Second, these industries involve high risk and high stress activities, just as the airline 

industry does. Similarly, the rail industry is made up of teams that must work together in a high 

risk, high stress environment. 

 8 
Examples of teams that also perform critical operations are hospital surgical teams, tank crews, 

petroleum and oil platforms crews, crews on a ship’s bridge, nuclear power plant control 

operators, and railroad operating crews. Because many of the incidents that occur to these teams 

are caused by human error just like in the airline industry, CRM training has quickly moved 

outside the cockpit in an attempt to increase safety in these industries. The following discusses 

several of these programs. 

1.4.1 Bridge Resource Management (Military and Commercial Shipping) 

In their 1993 book on cockpit resource management, Wiener, Kanki, and Helmreich note that, 

due to the number of merchant vessels lost at sea each year (an average of over one per day), 

commercial shipping is a prime area for human factors intervention through CRM training. The 

U.S. Coast Guard, in conjunction with the International Convention on Standards of Training, 

Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), has recommended the use of bridge 

resource management (BRM) training as part of a category of safety training for all commercial 

seagoing vessels (United States Coast Guard Website, n.d.). Multiple-day BRM courses are now 

being offered by the Maersk Training Center, the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy’s Global 

Maritime and Transportation School, the Maritime Institute of Technology and Graduate Studies, 

Marine Safety International, Transport Canada, and other instructional facilities, such as 

universities and maritime institutes. Such courses typically consist of classroom instruction and 

bridge simulator training. 

The Navy has also recognized that human factors errors are a large contributor to the number of 

naval afloat mishaps (Naval Safety Center, 2002). Based upon work done by James Reason in 

1997, the Navy classified four different types of human factors error that contribute to accidents, 

such as: 

• Unsafe acts (including errors and violations) 

•

•

•

Unsafe supervision (including inadequate supervision and supervisor violations) 

Unsafe crew coordination (e.g., crew resource management problems) 

Poor organizational influences (both external and internal) 

The Naval Safety Center concluded that 91%, 84%, 56%, and 38% of afloat mishaps could be 

related to each of these factors respectively. BRM training for shipboard crews, analogous to 

that used in naval aviation, has been one way to reduce these percentages and improve the safety 

of naval operations. 

One example of a successful commercial CRM training program in the marine industry is at the 

Maersk Training Centre in Svendbord, Denmark. Maersk’s 5-day training program has different 

tracks which teach navigators and engineers. Skills, such as communication, teamwork, 

leadership, and situational awareness, are covered. Maersk’s use of carefully selected case 

studies and simulator environments make each course relevant to its target audience. For 

example, engineers practice CRM principles and behaviors in an engine room simulator. In 

addition, engine-room case studies, taken from real-life situations, are used to make the concepts 

relevant to the shipboard engineer students. Maersk’s CRM courses are designed to help 

 9 
navigators and engineers better coordinate their tasks in emergency and routine situations 

(Maersk Training Center Website, n.d.). 

1.4.2 Medical Sciences 

Human error is a primary cause of many adverse medical mistakes. For example, between 65-70 

percent of anesthesiology accidents or incidents are caused partly by human error (Howard, 

Gaba, Fish, Yang, Sarnquist, 1992; Pizzi, Goldfarb, and Nash, n.d.). Hospital surgical and 

emergency rooms and other medical settings mirror the conditions found on the flightdeck of an 

airliner in that a group of people has responsibility for human lives, must work with a 

complicated suite of technologically advanced instruments, and must make quick decisions—all 

with a very narrow margin of error. Years of research have shown that many of the same CRM 

training principles that have worked well in aviation CRM will transfer to medical situations. 

Understanding these principles could potentially help surgeons, anesthesiologists, and nurses to 

function in a team environment and to better identify, understand, learn from, and prevent 

medical errors. 

Although no specific program in the medical field is directly analogous to aviation CRM 

(Davies, 2001), training programs based on CRM type skills have recently appeared in the 

medical sciences at a slow but steady rate. One of the first applications of CRM principles in the 

medical arena was at the Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Medical Center in the Department of 

Anesthesiology Services. Howard et al. (1992), working at Stanford University, designed an 

Anesthesia Crisis Resource Management (ACRM) program that was rated highly by participants 

and increased resident anesthesiologist knowledge of ACRM principles (Howard et al., 1992). 

Other ACRM programs have since been developed and are currently taught at Harvard 

University, as well as the Universities of Copenhagen and Toronto (Davies, 2001). These 

programs are different than traditional CRM programs because they are based around patient 

simulations and crisis situations, and the individuals trained in groups are specialists within one 

field (Davies, 2001). In addition to anesthesiology, researchers have also theorized how CRM 

principles could be used to train teams in operating, labor and delivery, emergency, and cardiac 

arrest response situations (Gaba, Howard, Fish, Smith, and Sowb, 2001; Halamek, Kaegi, Gaba, 

Sowb, Smith, Smith, and Howard, 2000; Risser, Rice, Salisbury, Simon, Jay, and Berns, 1999). 

Learning content related to traditional CRM (for example, fatigue), are also being assessed in the 

medical fields in terms of how it affects human error and decisionmaking (Jha, Duncan, and 

Bates, n.d.). 

Despite the need for CRM type skills in medicine, the medical sciences have been slow to 

embrace CRM training, and the dispersion of general CRM principles in medicine has not 

progressed as fast as it did within the aviation industry. Davies (2001) suggests one of the 

reasons for this reduced integration has been that a medical equivalent to a plane crash does not 

exist. That is, a mistake made by a single surgical team does not usually receive national media 

attention or calls for retraining and regulation like a single commercial airline crash may. 

Another reason for the slower acceptance of CRM training in medicine has been that the culture 

of health care professionals is such that medical errors are sometimes ignored (with the hope that 

they will not later be discovered), covered up, or blamed upon others (Davies, 2001). Despite 

the open learning environment that many teaching hospitals foster, doctors are seldom taught to 

 10 
learn from their mistakes, are taught to ignore the performance effects of stress and lack of sleep, 

and are not supported by their colleagues when admitting that they have erred (Davies, 2001). 

1.4.3 Offshore Oil and Gas Industries 

Many of the teams that work in the offshore oil and gas industries, such as emergency response 

teams, crane operation teams, service vessel teams, well control teams, and control room teams, 

have characteristics that are similar to teams in the aviation industry. Flin and O’Connor (2001) 

state that offshore workforces perform “complex and potentially hazardous operations in a 

constrained, isolated, and remote environment” (2001). Similar to other industries using team 

work structures in a similar environment, human error accounts for between 60 to 80 percent of 

failures in offshore systems (Moore and Bea, 1993; Cohea, 1997). Similarly, Mearns, Flin, 

Fleming, and Gordon (1997) reviewed 1268 offshore incidents between 1994 and 1996 and 

discovered that 46 percent of the human factor causes of these incidents were related to CRM 

principles. Although not titled CRM training, training programs utilizing CRM principles and 

targeting areas, such as decisionmaking, communication, stress, and assertiveness, have been in 

place on oilrigs for a number of years (Flin, O’Connor, Mearns, Gordon, and Whitaker, 2000). 

Control room operators, offshore installation managers, and regular offshore rig crews that are 

responsible for a considerable portion of accidents and fatalities in these dangerous operations 

have been trained using these programs which target potential human factors-related failure. 

A number of different offshore companies and training organizations offer CRM training courses 

for offshore drilling teams. For example, Norwegian offshore oil crews have been successfully 

trained in CRM for several years (Flin et al., 2000). These 3-day courses are augmented by a 2-

day refresher course that is required every 2 years. Shell Expro has used CRM training as a part 

of its control room operators’ emergency response training (Flin, 1995). The Scandinavian oil 

company Elf Petroleum Norge has a CRM program titled, “Emergency Resource Management” 

(Grinde, 1994). Additionally, Flin et al. (2000) designed a 2-day course for oil and gas platforms 

that included lectures, group exercises, group discussions, questionnaires, and videos. 

Participants’ reactions to the course have generally been positive; most participants believed they 

would be able to make use of the information they learned in the course in their daily work. 

1.4.4 Nuclear Power Plants 

Because of the catastrophic loss of life that can result from poor decisions in the control rooms of 

these high-risk facilities, CRM’s overall goal of utilizing all available personnel, technical, and 

informational resources seems particularly relevant in this setting. Operators in the control room 

of nuclear power plants face stressors, which could lead to potential disasters on a daily basis. 

These stressors may emanate from environmental, organizational, or operational sources as 

varied as time pressure, accuracy of information, interagency liaisons, and equipment 

malfunctions (Paton and Flin, 1999). Fortunately, teams in nuclear power plants have utilized 

CRM training for over a decade (Harrington and Kello, 1991). For example, British Energy has 

designed a CRM course for its nuclear control room operators (Flin et al., 2000). 

 11 
1.4.5 CRM in the Rail Industry 

CRM training has also recently been applied within the rail transportation industry to reduce the 

number of accidents attributed to human factors. Because of the many parallel functions to those 

in the aviation industry, it would seem that CRM would be readily accepted within the rail 

industry. Little action, however, was taken to do so until the recommendations of an NTSB 

accident report regarding a rail accident in Butler, IN, in 1998. This report resulted in an NTSB 

recommendation that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Association of American 

Railroads (AAR), the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA), 

Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), and other railroads develop a Train CRM program. This 

recommendation was based largely upon the positive benefits that the NTSB had seen from 

CRM programs in other transportation industries. 

In response, AAR and NS jointly developed a CRM training program that consisted mainly of 

video-based instruction that could be tailored and marketed to other AAR member railroads. 

Independent of this effort, the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SP) had developed a 

rail CRM program based upon the one in use at US Air. Rail companies in Great Britain and 

other foreign rail companies have also explored the use of CRM as a means to prevent passenger 

rail disasters. Chapter 3 describes the current state of CRM training at each Class I railroad in 

the United States in greater detail. 

1.5 Learning Domains and Training Methodologies 

The overall goal of training is to increase employees’ knowledge, skills, and/or attitudes toward 

specific job dimensions (Blanchard and Thacker, 1999). Literally hundreds of different training 

methods exist, each one differing in the degree to which they influence knowledge, skills, and/or 

attitudes. Based upon their influence on specific learning objectives, training methods can be 

grouped into two different categories or domains: cognitive methods and behavioral methods 

(Blanchard and Thacker, 1999). These training domains categorize training methods in terms of 

whether they are mainly used to increase a trainee’s knowledge or skills. 

As later sections will discuss in more detail, rarely does a training program involve only one 

training method. In fact, research suggests that a training program should incorporate a variety 

of methods, including information presentation methods and behavioral practice methods (Burke 

and Day, 1986). Many of the traditional and popular training methods, such as classroom 

instruction, are, in fact, not a single method but a collection of methods, systematically arranged 

to facilitate the learning process. Nearly all training programs use a combination of information 

presentation techniques and behavioral practice techniques to aid learning. This report will 

discuss classroom instruction, on-the-job training (OJT), and CBT, separately because of their 

widespread use in organizations today or because of their unique multi-method nature. 

1.5.1 Cognitive Methods 

Blanchard and Thacker (1999), state that cognitive methods “provide verbal or written 

information, demonstrate relationships among concepts, or provide the rules for how to do 

something” (1999). A cognitive training methods’ strength is its effect on knowledge and 

 12 
attitude. Cognitive training methods include (but are not limited to) lectures, video, film, 

readings, and computer-assisted instruction. 

Lectures 

Lectures are the most traditional and widely used method of training delivery. The lecture style 

format has typically been given in a classroom-type setting (Gray, Hall, Miller, and Shasky, 

1997). The benefits of using a lecture format include its ease in imparting declarative knowledge 

to employees and increasing trainee motivation based on an understanding of the perceived 

importance of the training content. Other benefits include the potential to be low- tech (and thus 

low cost), and its flexibility in terms of format and location. 

The disadvantages of lectures include the lack of realism that results from trainees learning 

information in a setting that is not similar to their work environment. In addition, it has been 

suggested that lectures are not always the most efficient format to increase trainee self-efficacy 

or procedural learning (Haccoun and Saks, 1998). Group lectures are also insensitive to 

differences in individuals (ability, attitude, interest) and rarely provide feedback to the trainees 

(Goldstein and Ford, 2002). The communication of information in lectures is generally 

unidirectional (i.e., from trainer to trainees), and proficiency is typically assessed through penciland-paper knowledge tests rather than through behavioral checklists or OJT tests of procedural 

learning. Feedback in the lecture setting, however, can vary depending on the degree of 

interaction between the lecturer and the trainees. This often depends greatly upon the class size 

and the individual characteristics of both the trainer and those receiving instruction. 

Trainees’ ability to ask questions and clarify the content of the lecture can prevent 

misunderstandings, and a group type discussion can aid in the understanding of higher level 

knowledge objectives (Blanchard and Thacker, 1999). Many times what makes or breaks the 

lecture technique are the trainer’s competence, personality, and skill. Lecturers must keep the 

material meaningful and interesting, promote discussion, clarify material, and be aware of 

trainee’s reaction to material (Goldstein and Ford, 2002). 

Film or Video Instruction 

Many times trainees may watch a film or video, which, akin to the lecture method, incorporates 

audio and visual dimensions. The film/video can offer conceptual and factual information to 

trainees by its incorporation of audio narration with written information, illustrations, graphics, 

or animation. The film/video training method allows trainees to observe others in their own 

working environment to learn how they should perform or behave in similar circumstances. A 

film or video is sometimes used along with the lecture method in classroom instruction; 

however, many training programs present a film or video in place of the lecture. Some 

organizations film a live lecture and play it later for other groups of trainees. 

Use of film or video has many advantages including is portability, as well as its capacity to be 

used and reused at a later time for self-paced makeup programs. Taped lectures may also be 

used in the development of refresher training courses or to review specific segments of a training 

course. Although the initial cost of making a video is high, it can be an extremely cost-effective 

 13 
training method in the long run for companies with large numbers of trainees. According to one 

study, approximately 96 percent of organizations with 50+ employees use videotapes in their 

training programs (Training and Development, 1996). The substantial initial production costs of 

video courses can be recouped over an extended period of time if a large enough number of 

students can be trained during the useful life of the video materials. The expected time at which 

the materials in the video production will become outdated due to content or regulatory changes 

should be taken into account when making a decision to invest in video production for training 

programs. 

Readings and Programmed Texts 

Readings and programmed texts are other methods for presenting training content and 

information to trainees. Assigned readings can be from one or more sources, and they can be 

changed quickly to adapt the content or length of a training course or to tailor the course to a 

specific geographic location. For example, a reading segment on railroad operations in sub-zero 

temperatures might not be needed in a course that is being developed for a shortline railroad that 

only operates in the desert southwest. This reading could be deleted from the course syllabus, 

allowing time to expand other readings or replacing it with a reading on desert rail operations. A 

primary advantage of readings is they are self-paced, meaning that the trainee can take his/her 

time in absorbing the material and learn at his/her own pace. Usually a test is given at the end of 

each reading that provides a measure of the subject knowledge that is transferred. A minimum 

passing grade is required before the trainee is given credit for completion of the training. 

A disadvantage of training by assigned readings is that the variance in reading comprehension 

levels across an employee pool may be great, meaning that readings for more than one 

comprehension level may be required in order to reach the entire population. Student employees 

who are not native-English speakers may be especially hard to train in technical matters using 

this training method. Another difficulty is that employees may not understand the material 

included in the readings, and limited opportunities to interact with an instructor to ask questions 

about the material or to clarify misunderstandings exist. 

One variant of the readings method that can be used to overcome some of these disadvantages is 

to organize the material in a programmed text format. In a programmed text, information about a 

topic is given progressively. A small quantity of instructional material, typically one-two 

paragraphs, is presented before quizzing the student on the content. The answer(s) to the 

question(s) is then presented at the beginning of the next section of instructional material. This 

presentation format gives instantaneous feedback to the student. If an incorrect answer is given, 

the student can immediately review the previous section to determine the cause of his/her 

mistake. This method aids comprehension of materials by breaking up the topic and is especially 

helpful to those employees with lower reading skill levels due to limited educational 

opportunities or having a non-English native language. A disadvantage of programmed text is 

that the development of the training materials is work intensive, as extended readings from 

outside sources cannot be used directly. Much effort must be put into converting the materials to 

the programmed text format. 

 14 
CBT 

CBT, also called computer-assisted instruction or computer-assisted learning, can also be used to 

present training content and informational material. Trainees typically complete a computer 

software program on a computer using a keyboard and mouse to input information and set the 

pace of the program while reading the relevant information from a computer screen. An example 

of CBT would be to have a trainee go through a self-paced computer slide presentation on the 

relevant material. 

CBT has many of the same advantages as readings because it is self-paced, and learners can 

complete one or more courses over an extended time period. Unlike readings however, CBT can 

be interactive or can have dialogue with the learner (Wilson, 1999). An interactive CBT course 

can periodically ask the learner questions about the material and the learner will respond to the 

questions. In this sense, CBT is similar to an automated version of the programmed text 

discussed earlier. The computer creates a flexible learning process by interpreting the response 

and adjusting the content and direction of the program based on that response. Unfortunately, 

CBT can also have significant disadvantages depending on the course materials that are to be 

presented. Like the disadvantage of lectures listed earlier, CBT training often lacks the realism 

of training in the actual environment in which the behaviors or skills being taught are to be 

performed. Some specific topics may not be a good match for CBT training. For example, the 

interpersonal communications aspects of CRM do not seem to be supported fully by training 

them in the CBT method alone. Use of CBT for strictly cognitive knowledge training in concert 

with other training methods that allow the student to interact with others may be acceptable. 

Case Studies and Incident Training 

Case studies and incident training consists of the use of real life situations presented through 

lecture, film/video, or written format that have or could occur in which learning objectives of the 

training are reinforced. This method can be used to augment lecture training to add realism by 

requiring students to evaluate the course materials in light of an actual OJT situation. Case 

studies can be used simply to make a connection between the concepts to the student’s daily job 

activities. An example of training in this manner would be to use the findings of an NTSB 

accident report to point out deficiencies in CRM that led to a fatal rail accident. This 

methodology shows how the relevant skill was used or not used, making it more understandable 

to the trainee. Similarly, progressively working through a case study while quizzing the class 

can allow the instructor to measure the level of knowledge that is being transferred to individuals 

in the class. Trainees can thus practice developing verbal or written solutions to problem 

behaviors related to the training concept. 

Written Exercises 

Many times written exercises are included in a training program. For example, a selfadministered personality test could be used as an exercise. This would give an individual a 

better understanding of the way he/she behaves on the job or at home, as well as his/her attitude 

toward the training topic. Answers to such exercises can often give students self-insight, enable 

them to evaluate where they stand in terms of the ability to learn and apply a particular skill, or 

 15 
make the content more understandable as it is presented to them. Written exercises can also be 

used to point out an employee’s own knowledge deficiencies or problem areas that may need to 

be focused upon as the training takes place. 

1.5.2 Behavioral Methods 

Behavioral training methods use a simulation of some aspect of the trainees’ normal working 

environment to allow the student to practice specific behaviors. Behavioral methods are mostly 

used to encourage skill development by actual performance of the task, but these methods can 

also be used to modify one’s attitudes regarding a subject (Blachard and Thacker, 1999). Most 

often behavioral training methods and simulation techniques are designed to make individuals 

keenly aware of the connection between the concepts and information learned in prior cognitive 

training and how they can apply it to their OJT duties and activities. Some examples of 

behavioral training methods include role-playing, interactive group exercises, and the use of low 

and high fidelity simulators. 

Role-Play 

Role-play is a training method in which trainees are assigned specific roles and required to act 

out a situation that occurs in the real working environment. The trainee may take on the role 

he/she plays in his/her normal working situation, a traditionally adversarial role, or one with 

which he/she is not particularly familiar but may interact with frequently during his/her work. 

For example, a locomotive engineer could be asked to take on the role of a conductor or 

dispatcher to better understand the decisionmaking process and required information to perform 

these jobs. In such a situation, role-play gives trainees an understanding of different viewpoints 

that they may not have previously considered (Hargreaves and Jarvis, 1998). A role-play 

exercise should be designed to instill the training objective, as well as provide a forum to 

practice reacting to situations and cues that are similar to cues they will face on the job. 

Group Exercises 

Numerous group exercises that can be included as part of a training program, such as group 

brainstorming, small group exercises, group case study, and experiential exercises (McPherson 

and Beard, 1999). A group exercise, compared to an individual exercise, must be completed by a 

group and is designed to have a high degree of group interaction. Many training courses use 

group exercises for the sole purpose of getting group members to communicate with one another. 

Other exercises can be used to develop a particular skill relevant to job, as well as foster 

communication skills. 

An example of an exercise that helps trainees develop specific relevant job skills and 

communication skills is a group decision making/prioritization exercise. Many jobs entail the 

accomplishment of numerous tasks in a given period; in order to perform the job effectively, 

those tasks must be prioritized or accomplished in a specific order. Task prioritization exercises 

are created with this in mind. For example, one exercise that can be used to train task 

prioritization and communication is the group desert survival exercise. In this exercise a group is 

 16 
given a scenario in which they are lost in the desert. The trainees are given a list of different 

items (for example, a mirror, comb, matches) in which they must decide how important each 

item is in terms of increasing their chances of survival. Specific to the skill set of an office 

manager, a group in-basket exercise can be used to prioritize office tasks, as well as practice 

communication skills and get feedback. A similar exercise has been used in railroad CRM 

programs to teach the skill of task prioritization to individual engineers. Railroad crews could 

complete this type of exercises together to engender communication skills, such as assertiveness 

and situational awareness. This group exercise would also be more realistic in terms of how 

decisions are made in the locomotive cab. 

Simulations 

Many consider simulation exercises to be the backbone of behavioral training methods. The 

primary reason for this belief is that they are specifically designed to simulate the real working 

environment. Because simulations typically use real equipment (or training devices that closely 

approximate real equipment), they have a high degree of realism. Simulations require trainees 

“to use the same procedures, movements, and/or decision processes they would use with 

equipment back on the job” (Blanchard and Thacker, 1999). Among the advantages of using 

simulators are that they: allow controlled reproducibility, allow safe practice of dangerous 

behaviors, utilize learning considerations, and typically cost less than training in the real work 

environment (Goldstein and Ford, 2002). Conceptually, a simulator’s learning advantage lies in 

its fidelity or its ability to replicate the actual job setting. A simulator’s physical fidelity is the 

degree to which it resembles the physical aspects of the equipment and operating environment. 

For example, in a high fidelity simulator, the switches and monitors used by trainees in the 

simulator would be exact replicas of the switches and monitors in a real cockpit. The 

psychological fidelity of a simulation refers to the degree in which the psychological aspects of 

the situation are the same in the simulator as they are in the real environment. Psychological 

aspects should be present in the simulation environment that are similar to those that employees 

experience on the job. For example, adding stress and fatigue factors to the simulation exercise 

by scheduling it at the end of a shift or making it a pass/fail event can potentially improve the 

realism of the simulation and therefore the quality of the training transfer. The importance of 

such psychological fidelity in simulations cannot be understated. For example, Kyte (1998) 

noted that a lack of psychological fidelity (anxiety, fatigue, stress) is one disadvantage in the 

New York Police Department’s (NYPDs) use of the Fire Arms Training Simulator (FATS) to 

teach police cadets the proper use of deadly force in police work. 

High fidelity simulators are also used to train many groups, including commercial and military 

aircrews, police officers, military equipment operators, taxi drivers, maintenance workers, 

telephone operators, ship navigators, train crews, and product development engineers (Blanchard 

and Thacker, 1999; Kyte, 1998). One advantage of such simulations is their usefulness in 

training highly important but very infrequent behaviors. For example, flight simulators can be 

used to simulate emergency situations, such as an engine fire, without destroying a valuable 

engine and a police firearm simulator can replicate an attack by a man with knife without putting 

his/her life in danger. 

 17 
In a perfect world, all simulations would be high fidelity; however, realism comes at a price. 

Overall, the more realistic the simulation, the more it costs to develop and maintain the 

equipment (Marquardt and Kearsley, 1999). The most expensive simulators in the world are full 

motion, multi-axis flight simulators used to train aircrews. The enormous costs involved in 

constructing and operating such simulators make time in those that exist hard to schedule due to 

their low availability. 

One alternative is to use low fidelity simulations or simulations that do not match as closely the 

physical environment of the real working space, but that may still have high psychological 

fidelity for supporting cognitive training without as great an expense. It is suggested that a large 

number of training programs can use simpler low fidelity simulations and still generate positive 

results (Marquardt and Kearsley, 1999). Researchers suggest that it is essential that behavioral 

cues that drive performance be identified in the task environment and that these cues be 

emphasized when designing simulations (Swezey, Owens, Bergondy, and Salas, 1998). Adding 

components to the simulation that, while more closely mimicking the job environment, are not 

essential to effective job performance will not add to a simulation’s effectiveness. Transfer of 

training is based on many factors outside of simulator fidelity, including supervisory support, 

organizational climate, and individual level factors. Recent technological advances have made 

simulators an even more useful tool. Teleconferencing, satellite television, high-speed Internet 

connections, and wireless communication now allow simulation technology to mimic real world 

interactions much more closely. For this reason, low fidelity simulators have increased in 

popularity in recent years. 

1.6 Currently Accepted CRM Training Systems 

Although numerous training methodologies are available to safety managers, only a few are 

currently being used when providing CRM training in today’s high-risk industries. Most training 

is accomplished through a training system or a combination of training methodologies. Today’s 

accepted CRM training systems include classroom instruction, OJT and assistantships, and fully 

integrated computer-based training (FICBT) systems. The following discusses each of these. 

1.6.1 Classroom Instruction 

As stated previously, classroom instruction is not a distinct training method per se but a 

collection of training methods organized in a systematic way such that in combination they can 

be used to train individuals in a classroom setting. Classroom instruction uses a combination of 

information presentation techniques and behavioral practice techniques to aid learning. Most 

classroom instruction is anchored by the lecture method but also involves other cognitive 

methods (Gray et al., 1997). These other cognitive methods might include overhead slides, 

examination of case studies, computer presentations, discussions, questionnaires, and multimedia 

demonstrations (e.g., videos). Classroom instruction also has the flexibility to incorporate 

behavioral methods like role-play, group exercises, and computer simulations. Training in a 

classroom setting is so versatile that the training content may be offered to a wide variety of 

audiences including intact work groups, groups of individuals holding the same position in 

varying locations across an organization, general audiences, and instructors of future classes in 

order to train them to do so. Other advantages include that classroom-style training may be 

offered onsite, through distance learning, or at centralized training locations. 

 18 
An important component to consider in selecting the classroom instruction method is the 

importance of the trainer or training facilitator to instill in the trainee the desire and motivation to 

learn the topic. Because trainees in any one class will have a wide range of ability, attitude, 

communication styles, and interests, the multiple training method nature of classroom instruction 

can often improve the knowledge transfer, skill acquisition, or motivation for a wider variety of 

individuals. Like the lecture method alone, however, the competence, personality, and skill of 

the trainer have an enormous effect upon the motivation, and therefore the learning capacity, of 

the trainees. 

1.6.2 OJT and Apprenticeships 

OJT and apprenticeships are different than other training methods because they take place in the 

real working environment, involve the trainee actually working on the task, and entail some 

degree of one-on-one interaction between a trainee and his/her trainer (Rothwell, 1999). One of 

the foundations of OJT and apprenticeships is a reliance on behavioral modeling. With a 

theoretical background in social learning theory (Bandura, 1986), the principle behind behavioral 

modeling is that trainees can learn appropriate on-the-job behaviors and skills by observing those 

who have already mastered the job. 

The quality and extent of OJT effectiveness can vary greatly for almost all jobs have some sort 

of training that takes place while on the job. OJT can be informal, where a trainee watches 

experienced workers perform the job, asks questions, and gradually tries his/her hand at 

performing. It can also be a more formal program, where a carefully designed on-the-job 

instructional system outlines training objectives, and the work environment is especially 

arranged for instruction of employees (Goldstein and Ford, 2002). 

In apprenticeships, a master or subject matter expert introduces and models a new skill set for an 

apprentice or trainee. Gradually the input from the master is reduced, and the student is allowed 

more and more independence. Apprenticeships are a special type on OJT because they are 

reserved for different kinds of skilled trades, such as bricklayers, electricians, sheet metal 

workers, and pipefitters. Federal and State guidelines have specific sets of rules and regulations 

for apprenticeship programs, and they are an integral part of the licensing of many of the skilled 

trades (Goldstein and Ford, 2002). 

The effectiveness of OJT and apprenticeships is largely dependent on the skills, attitudes, and 

motivations of the trainers/mentors. These trainers should be selected based on their skills and 

their ability to be an effective instructor. Employees with the most seniority do not always make 

the best trainers. Instruction in teaching techniques and philosophies, reinforcement, and 

distributed practice should be administered to all trainers/mentors. It is important for 

organizations to select, reward, and reinforce positive behaviors of employees who serve in these 

roles. 

1.6.3 FICBT Systems 

CBT can range from a simple CBT method, as discussed in the cognitive methods section of this 

report, or can be part of a more fully integrated multi-method training approach (Blanchard and 

 19 
Thacker, 1999). This type of fully integrated approach that includes CBT gives a learner 

knowledge of the topic material and “allows individualized instruction with the advantages of 

self-pacing, active practice or rehearsal, immediate feedback, continuous monitoring and 

assessment of learning, diagnosis of learning problems, and remedial assistance when needed” 

(Tannebaum and Yukl, 1992). Recent technology is now being used to design more elaborate 

CBT systems, including interactive features over the Internet, the use of videodiscs and digital 

video discs (DVDs), touch screen technology, voice recognition capability, optical readers, and 

video teleconferencing of training material (Tannebaum and Yukl, 1992). 

1.7 Phases of CRM Training 

Koenig (1997) suggests that training programs in CRM often have three phases: formal 

classroom instruction, practice and feedback, and organizational reinforcement. Similarly, Prince 

et al. (1992) notes that in an FAA circular it was recommended that CRM programs in the 

airlines follow three phases: 

(a) Awareness Phase: Crewmembers complete seminar instruction and group exercises 

to learn the basic components of CRM. 

(b) Practice and Feedback Phase: Crews fly a realistic scenario in a simulator and 

receive feedback on their performance. 

(c) Reinforcement Phase: The concepts become part of the organization’s overall 

training and operation practices. 

Prince et al.’s (1992) research, along with the FAA’s own efforts to integrate CRM into the 

Advanced Qualification Programs of airlines beginning in 1996, suggests that FAA suggested 

training in CRM principles long before they became mandatory in 1998. 

The first phase of CRM training, the awareness phase, is generally accomplished through formal 

classroom instruction. The second phase, practice and feedback, is accomplished through the use 

of a simulation or practice. The third phase is not a phase specific to the training program itself 

but is relevant because, in order for training to work, the culture of the organizations must 

support or reinforce the training. More macro type issues, like organizational commitment to 

training objectives is thought to be one of the most important aspects of long-term training 

effectiveness (Salas et al., 2000). 

1.7.1 Awareness Phase 

CRM Classroom Instruction 

Classroom instruction is currently the most widely used CRM training method in the airline, 

medical, military, oil, marine, nuclear, and rail industries. As stated previously, classroom 

instruction is a conglomerate of several different training methods, usually including many 

cognitive training methods and some behavioral methods. Trainees must have the knowledge 

and understanding of concepts related to CRM before starting to practicing CRM techniques in 

the field. Because trainees most often are unfamiliar with CRM and the concepts behind CRM, 

the cognitive training methods through which the knowledge is transferred is of the utmost 

importance. Historically, the training methodology that is conducive to giving individuals 

 20 
introductory knowledge of a concept is formal classroom instruction. As stated previously, 

classroom instruction methods can vary widely, yet usually crewmembers complete seminar 

instruction or classroom lectures along with group exercises, video presentations, and role-play. 

More interactive methods of learning (for example, group exercises and role-play) can not only 

help trainees learn the concepts (awareness phase), but can also be used to practice some of the 

communication skills required for application of CRM. The instructor can monitor the students’ 

activities and thus get feedback on how well those skills are being transferred (practice and 

feedback phase). Recently, CBT has been used in conjunction with, or even instead of, 

classroom instruction as a means to develop initial awareness of many CRM training concepts. 

CRM training courses using predominantly a lecture-style format can be customized to last 

anywhere from several hours to several days. The length of the course should be based upon the 

current training needs of the individuals, group, and organization as a whole, taking into account 

concerns for costs (including time off from the job) and resource availability (e.g., number of 

classrooms or trainers available). Regardless of the length of the initial training session, it is 

recommended that trainees receive refresher courses in the principles of CRM every 1 or 2 years 

(Flin, O’Connor, Mearns, Gordon, and Whitaker, 2000). FAA recommends that CRM should be 

“sustained over the long term, rather than attempting to implement a ‘quick fix’” (Koenig, 1997). 

Helmreich et al. (1999) note that CRM training should be neither integrated completely into 

other types of technical training nor used as a one-time intervention; rather, CRM should add to 

the continuing culture of safety within an organization. 

Examples of organizations that have used lectures in a classroom instruction format as at least a 

significant component of a CRM training program include Continental Airlines, Marine Safety 

International, the U.S. military, and Maersk (a Danish shipping company). A number of 

university and public and private training centers also offer courses in CRM, including 

Washington State University, the University of Southern California, Texas A&M University at 

Galveston, the Naval Postgraduate School’s School of Aviation Safety, and Marine Safety 

International. 

During the literature review phase of this project only one commercially available CRM training 

program, designed specifically for the rail industry, was identified, and it was classroom-based. 

It was located at the Centre for Rail Training and Technology (CRTT) at the Southern Alberta 

Institute of Technology (SAIT) in Calgary, Canada. A typical format for a course in rail CRM 

was used in this program. The course begins with an overview of general CRM definitions and 

principles and the history of CRM’s recent application to the rail industry. A review of human 

factors issues is provided, which includes a description of three types of human processing 

systems and four types of human errors, discussion of different performance-reducing states 

(e.g., stress, fatigue, etc.), and the demonstration of techniques to reduce the negative effects of 

human factors. Several key competencies of CRM are then explained to trainees, including 

situational awareness, communication, and teamwork. For each competency, a definition is 

provided along with an explanation of when and where each skill could help on the job and 

useful strategies to best utilize each skill. Finally, trainers teach the application of CRM 

principles by presenting a number of railway operation scenarios ripe for CRM utilization. 

 21 
Finally, with the more widespread proliferation of CRM courses, it is helpful to know that 

several resources are becoming available to guide an organization’s training department 

personnel in the creation of CRM training materials for use in the classroom setting. For 

example, the University of Southern California offers a course called Developing a Crew 

Resource Management Program as a part of its Aviation Safety Program. Other resources on 

CRM training design are available through the FAA and the U.S. military branches. Reference 

materials that describe these courses are often available via the Internet. 

1.7.2 Practice and Feedback Phase 

CRM Practice in Simulators 

In the practice and feedback phase, trainees are typically given the opportunity to perform work 

activities in a controlled environment while obtaining feedback from the instructor and/or other 

trainees. Simulations may also be run and videotaped so that trainees can review their own 

performance directly. This allows for immediate feedback on performance of CRM behaviors 

and teaches the student to accept feedback from a variety of outside sources, as well as practicing 

self-evaluation. 

This category of training methodologies includes low-fidelity and high-fidelity simulations, 

group exercises, and role-play exercises. Before any of these methods are used, a complete task 

analysis should be undertaken of the job that is being simulated (Salas et al., 2000). Job tasks 

should be mapped to training objectives and then linked to competencies that have been 

identified as important for successful performance on the job. Training scenarios can then be 

developed which bolster these competencies (Salas et al., 2000). When simulators are used 

specifically to train CRM skills, it is necessary to use facts from normal operating procedures, as 

well as examples of mishaps, to garner information for the simulation’s content. Because CRM 

skills, such as communication, assertiveness, and error management, should be used in everyday 

situations, participants practicing CRM skills in a simulator should be provided with 

opportunities to exhibit mastery of these skills. 

Simulators have been proven highly effective in reducing human factor errors. In the aviation 

industry, a meta-analysis of flight data by Jacobs, Prince, Hays, and Salas (1990) found that 

combining simulator training with training on actual aircraft was more effective than training on 

the aircraft alone. This is true especially with CRM training in the simulated environment. In 

fact, Spiker, Nullmeyer, Tourville, and Silverman (1997) found very high correlations (e.g., r = 

.86) between training participants’ performance on a simulated tactical mission upon completion 

of a comprehensive CRM program. 

An additional advantage of simulator-based scenarios is their usefulness in training highly 

important but very infrequent behaviors. For example, most commercial pilots will complete 

hundreds of hours of actual in-flight training without experiencing an engine fire. Should this 

situation arise, however, a pilot must have the training necessary to respond appropriately. 

Simulators allow this situation to occur and closely mimic the conditions a pilot would face 

inside a real plane, without exposing the pilot to such a potentially dangerous flight condition. 

Another advantage of simulators is that they eliminate the additional wear and tear that occurs 

 22 
when an expensive piece of equipment (e.g., an aircraft or tank) is used over and over for 

training procedures. No fuel, maintenance, or additional support personnel are required for use 

with a simulator, as is necessary when a plane is used for a training mission. Disadvantages in 

the use of simulators include time constraints, availability, and expense. In particular, simulators 

in the railroad industry are not widely available to all crewmembers, so costs are higher and 

availability is lower than for airlines and other industries. 

One possible solution to the availability problem is the use of lower fidelity simulators 

(Motowidlo, Hanson, and Crafts, 1997). Baker, Prince, Shrestha, Oser, and Salas (1993) were 

able to demonstrate that a tabletop computer-based simulator used for CRM training was 

accepted by aircrews as a format and acceptable as a method for training CRM skills. Bowers, 

Salas, Prince, and Brannick (1992) also found a low-fidelity simulation to be an acceptable, 

lower cost alternative to high-fidelity simulations for a helicopter flight task. Finally, lowfidelity simulations have been found to be accurate predictors of future job performance 

(Motowidlo, Dunnette, and Carter, 1990). This trend to lower fidelity simulation has begun even 

within the rail industry as some large railroads have moved from use of full-sized locomotive cab 

simulators to less complicated and less expensive console-based simulators using large computer 

monitors rather than projected images for visual cues. The lower cost of these simulators allows 

for more to be purchased and distributed throughout the railroads’ territory. 

Another way to make the use of simulators more effective for teaching and reinforcing CRM 

skills is to use railroad locomotive simulators to train more members of the crew simultaneously. 

Currently such simulators are used almost exclusively to train only locomotive engineers rather 

than train an engineer and conductor as a crew. Other transportation industries (e.g., commercial 

airlines and shipping companies) and the military tend to train entire crews rather than individual 

members of the crew in their simulations for activities that require more than one person. 

Training in this manner adds to the realism of the simulation and makes it a forum where CRM 

skills can be practiced by both participants and observed by the instructor. Interaction with other 

associated crafts can also be a part of such crew-based simulator use. For example, the use of 

CRM principles in the crew’s communications with a dispatcher can be evaluated if the 

instructor takes on the role of the dispatcher in providing input to the crew. Alternatively, an 

actual dispatcher or dispatcher trainee could be included in a simulator-training scenario that 

would evaluate the crew (e.g., engineer and conductor) and the dispatcher. 

An example of the successful use of a simulator to reinforce CRM concepts is the U.S. Navy’s 

Line-Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) program. LOFT incorporates a broad category of flight 

simulations that may be used for a number of different purposes (Guzzo and Dickson, 1996). In 

a typical LOFT simulation, the entire team that is involved in a mission follows procedures as if 

an actual flight was taking place. These procedures include several phases, such as pre-flight 

preparation, the use of different communication systems, and all necessary paperwork. 

Participants are presented with realistic problems, and they must utilize communication and 

decisionmaking strategies that are essential to CRM (Guzzo and Dickson, 1996). After the 

exercise is complete, the entire team is debriefed on their performance, including feedback on 

when they exhibited proper CRM skills or should have exhibited them. 

 23 
Advanced CBT 

Although not currently in use, an excellent example of how CBT could be put to use for CRM 

training comes specifically from work that has been completed to adapt intelligent tutoring 

systems (ITSs) to train situational awareness (SA), a key component of CRM. Bass (1998) 

explains that ITSs can work to combine the roles of instructor, simulator, and traditional CBT 

formats by “coaching as the student performs, scaffolding the student’s performance until he can 

perform the procedures solo, guiding SA skills by pointing out the relevant cues, and fading 

away as the student masters the skills.” The ITSs help with SA training by providing students 

with feedback during simulations regarding the deviation from the current state of the system 

(i.e., how the student is performing) in relation to what the ideal state should be. After the 

session has been completed, the ITSs can review these discrepancies with the student in a 

debriefing session (Bass, 1998). 

One common misconception regarding CBT is that the introduction of technology to change the 

modality of training procedures will automatically be an improvement on traditional paper-based 

training materials (Oser, Gualtieri, Cannon-Bowers, and Salas, 1999). It is important for the 

training developer to make a clear case for why a training program should be moved on-line or to 

a video or digital format. Traditionally, a disadvantage of CBT has been the cost and time 

involved in developing the software (and sometimes hardware) necessary to run the training 

program. Such cost and time issues have been reduced in recent years thanks to worldwide 

decreases in technology costs and the development of software and programming products that 

allow for customizable training programs. When developing a training program without the use 

of such packaged programs, however, a great deal of expertise is required in a diverse set of 

areas including software (or courseware) design, educational psychology, human development, 

training, human-computer interface, cognitive processes, and the specific subject matter (i.e., 

training objectives) (Bass, 1998; Eberts and Brock, 1987; Muraida and Spector, 1993). One 

challenge that developers of CBT will always face is keeping up with the technology that 

supports their programs (Muraida and Spector, 1993). New and more efficient technologies may 

be developed months or even weeks after a training program has been launched in a particular 

technological format. 

OJT/Hands-On Training 

One training methodology that shows a lot of promise in terms of CRM training is OJT or handson training. As stated previously, OJT is different than other training methods because it takes 

place in the real working environment, involves the trainee actually doing his/her job, and entails 

some degree of one-on-one interaction between a trainee and his/her trainer (Rothwell, 1999). 

Most OJT is associated with technical skills training; however, recently it has been used to teach 

or coach CRM skills in the field once a student has undergone initial training in CRM principles. 

The Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA) is a program method of evaluating, among other 

things, the CRM skills used in cockpits (Helmreich, Klinect, and Wilhelm, in press). More 

specifically, LOSA involves trained observers riding along in actual aircraft cockpits to observe 

threatening situations encountered by the crews, errors made by the aircrew, and how crews 

handle the threatening situations. This observational data, along with pilot/co-pilot interviews, is 

 24 
put into a LOSA database, which can be used to study the actual degree to which pilots are 

employing certain CRM skills and their performance. The observers debrief the crew members 

and give feedback to the pilots in terms of CRM-related skills that they exhibited during the 

flight and opportunities they had to do so but did not. 

Canadian Pacific (CP) railroad plans to implement on-the-job CRM training/assessment in late 

2003. Instructors or coaches will be observing road and yard crew’s CRM skills while riding 

along with them during normal operations (P. Wajda, personal communication, April 03, 2003). 

Following these ride-alongs, the instructors will give feedback to the crew members. Both 

LOSA and CP’s future on-the-job CRM training program’s effectiveness is largely dependent on 

the skills, attitudes, and motivations of the trainers/mentors. As stated previously, these trainers 

should be selected based on their skills and their ability to be an effective instructor. In addition, 

they should receive special training as observers so that they can identify more readily all crew 

actions or inactions related to CRM skills. 

1.7.3 Reinforcement Phase 

Support of CRM Principles within the Organization 

The third phase of CRM training, according to Koenig (1997), involves the supporting of CRM 

principles by the organization in which it is being implemented. Although this phase of training 

is separate from the training itself, it is considered an essential component because it is vital in 

making the awareness and practice/feedback phases of training come to fruition and affect job 

performance (Salas et al., 2000). This third phase of training comes from a systems perspective, 

which looks at training in the larger context of the organization and its environment. Research 

has determined that training effectiveness not only depends on the content that is covered, the 

training methods used, the degree of practice and feedback, or the instructor’s ability, but also by 

other factors that are beyond the immediate training environment. Taking a systems view of 

training helps trainers understand how organizational, situational, and trainee characteristics 

influence training effectiveness by their influence on pre-training and post-training motivation 

(Salas et al., 2000). The motivation to enter into training and an individual’s learning of the 

material can be effected by pre-training organizational, situational, and trainee characteristics. 

For example, a trainee who has a choice in terms of the type of training he/she receives has been 

shown to be more motivated to learn the training material (Baldwin, Magjuka and Loher, 1991). 

Similarly, post-training organizational, situational, and trainee characteristics can influence the 

degree to which trainees are motivated to use what they learned in training, on the job. This is 

the essence of Koenig’s third phase (post-training) support of CRM principles by the 

organization. A number of organizational factors communicate to a trainee that the organization 

is behind CRM. These factors relay to the trainee the importance of CRM principles in the 

organization. Some examples of these factors include supervisor support and participation 

(Baldwin and Ford, 1988), a reward system that reinforces safety compliance along with on-time 

performance (Hackman, 1990), an environment conducive to the positive transfer of the training 

skills to the work space (Tracey, Tannenbaum, and Kavanagh, 1995), and a continued 

commitment to use CRM to enhance an overall safety culture (Helmreich, in press). Fortunately, 

several researchers have developed instruments and measurement systems that measure the 

 25 
organizational transfer climate in relation to CRM (Salas et al., 2000). The results can be used to 

make changes to certain organizational dimensions that might impede the transfer of learning. 

 26 
2.0 Survey of Railroad Teams 

2.1 Site Visits 

2.1.1 Selection of Survey Participants 

One of the primary tasks of this project was to visit a cross section of railroad companies to 

determine the size and makeup of existing teams within the rail industry. While much literature 

exists which describes the functions of individual crafts within the rail industry, little prior work 

seems to have been done to identify the teams that exist within it. The fact that railroad teams 

are often made up of individuals from a variety of crafts, with varied training backgrounds, has 

made teaming studies especially difficult in the past. Likewise, the distrust between labor and 

management within the rail industry has caused suspicion of studies of this type. Obviously, not 

every railroad company could be visited in order to catalog its existing teams, so a representative 

group of rail companies were selected from each major segment of the industry. 

The original FRA proposal outlined the minimum criteria for selecting railroads to visit. These 

included two Class I railroads (one from the east and one from the west), a shortline or regional 

railroad, and a passenger or commuter railroad. TTI also proposed and completed a site visit to 

the National Rail Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) to account for the known and appreciable 

differences in crews involved in the operation of long-distance, intercity passenger train service, 

and either freight or commuter train operations. Each of the site locations provided the research 

team with a good opportunity to observe variety in operating crew forces (e.g., track gangs, 

locomotive crews, mechanical shop crews, and signal and communications maintenance 

workers). The project survey requirements were met by the research teams visits to the 

following railroad companies during the timeframes shown in Table 2. 

Table 2. Research Team Visits and Timeframes 

Railroad Class

Eastern Class I 

Western Class I 

Shortline/Regional 

Passenger/Commuter 

Intercity Passenger Rail 

Rail Company Visited

CSX Transportation 

BNSF 

Montana Rail Link 

Chicago Metra 

Amtrak 

Dates

February 17-20, 2003 

May 20-24, 2002 

October 26-30, 2002 

January 21-24, 2003 

March 24-26, 2003 

2.1.2 Site Visit Locations 

A variety of geographical locations were selected by the research team in conjunction with the 

cooperating railroads in order to account for as much regional crew diversity as possible. The 

selected locations in major terminal areas also provided an opportunity to see as many teams as 

possible during the limited periods available under this study. Table 3 shows the locations that 

researchers observed at each railroad: 

 27 
Table 3. Rail Companies and Site Visit Locations 

Rail Company

CSX Transportation 

BNSF 

MRL 

Chicago Metra 

Amtrak 

Location

Jacksonville Terminal Area, FL 

Kansas City Terminal Area (Argentine Yard), KS 

Missoula Terminal Area, MT 

Chicago Terminal Area, IL 

Wilmington, DE, and Washington, DC 

2.1.3 Site Visit Descriptions 

BNSF 

May 20-24, 2002 

The first site visit to observe, survey, and catalog railroad teams took place the week of May 20-

24, 2002, at BNSF’s Argentine Yard in Kansas City, KS. It was a very successful trip during 

which a variety of teams were identified including, yard and road operating crews, yard and road 

maintenance-of-way (MOW) crews, field and shop car maintenance teams, locomotive shop 

maintenance teams, dispatching center operations teams, and signal maintenance personnel. At 

the end of the visit, the team was able to debrief the BNSF Kansas Division General Manager, 

Manager of Transportation, Director of Administration, and Safety Manager. They showed great 

interest in the project and the potential of CRM in the rail environment, but they had some 

concerns about the costs involved in implementing an across-the-board training program. 

During the visit, the team made observations at the following BNSF sites: 

• Division Headquarters 

• System Engineering and Maintenance Office 

• Dispatch Center–System Support Offices 

• Mechanical–Car Running Repair Shop and Repair-in-Place (RIP) track 

• Signal/Crew Building 

• Signal and radio repair facility 

• On-duty point for mid-shift yard engine crews 

• Terminal Control Tower 

• Road Crew; On-Off Duty Yard Office 

• Hot Seat Trainmaster–Yard Receiving and Departure Trains 

• Mechanical–Locomotive Diesel Service Facility 

• Mechanical–Locomotive Diesel Shop 

• Engineering Yard 

• Maitenance-of-way Office 

 28 
MRL 

October 26-30, 2002 

The team conducted a site visit to observe teams at the MRL headquarters terminal facility in 

Missoula, MT, from October 26 to October 30, 2002. The research team gained great insight 

into how the team structure might be different at shortline and regional railroads based upon this 

visit. The most notable team difference at MRL was its use of two engineers as an operating 

crew rather than an engineer and a conductor. Based upon discussions with MRL personnel, this 

is not common at shortlines and may, in fact, be unique to MRL. In addition to assisting these 

observational efforts, MRL’s Training Rules and Safety Department also provided the team with 

a copy of the course syllabus and video from a CRM training program that they had used during 

annual engineer training approximately 2 years prior to this visit. This information proved useful 

in understanding the state-of-the-art rail CRM training that was used at that time before the 

distribution of the AAR’s program. During the visit, researchers made observations at the 

following MRL sites: 

• Training Center 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Missoula Yard 

Missoula Yard Tower 

Crew Calling Center 

Dispatch Center 

MOW Yard Office 

Missoula Mechanical Shop 

Missoula Tank Car Transfer 

Participated in Ride Along with Local Train Crew 

Chicago Metra 

January 21-24, 2003 

A very productive site visit to Chicago’s Metra commuter rail line took place. The team 

identified several similarities and differences in crew size, makeup, and responsibilities between 

the passenger/commuter rail and the freight rail companies that we had previously visited. The 

team conducted observations and discussions that allowed it to take into account the effects on 

operations, maintenance, and safety that tightly scheduled, highly structured train operations can 

have upon the interaction between train crews and dispatchers. The team was also able to 

identify some additional teams, not existing in the freight environment, mostly those related to 

the operation and maintenance of an overhead, electrically powered rail line. These new 

functions included both catenary MOW crews and dispatching center crews that also served as 

power controllers for specific line segments. This was not something that researchers had been 

able to observe in previous visits to non-electric freight railroads. In addition, the differences in 

the functions of road crews and dispatchers on a passenger railroad in comparison with freight 

railroads were noted. During this visit, observations were made at the following Metra sites: 

Randolph Street Station 

Electric Line Dispatch/Electric Control Center 

 29 
• Union Station 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Electric District 

South Chicago Branch (ride along with local train crew) 

Kensington Yard 

Locomotive Repair Shop 

Car Repair/Maintenance Shop 

Consolidated Control Facility 

CSX Transportation (CSXT) 

February 17-20, 2003 

During this visit to CSXT’s Jacksonville, FL, terminal facilities in February 2003, researchers 

were able to observe a diverse set of railroad teams, including dispatchers, road operating crews, 

locomotive servicing crews, MOW crews, and yard inspection crews. In addition, researchers 

met with several members of the railroad management staff involved with operating practices 

and training. Researchers were able to brief them on the project and some elementary principles 

of CRM. 

This visit afforded members of the team a good deal of time to spend with dispatchers in a 

central operations center in order to observe the full level of the interactions that dispatchers 

have with road crews during operations. Researchers also spent several hours with a track gang 

as they repaired and replaced a switch at the edge of the yard limits. Other carrier’s trains were 

operating on adjacent tracks, and a nearby public rail crossing continued in operation. The team 

was able to observe the MOW crew and its communications from the time of their safety briefing 

at the initial morning meeting. The team also attended the on-site job safety briefing and was 

able to observe the use of track warrants as the crew completed its work. The team also noted 

the interaction between the foreman of the road gang, the yard dispatcher, and local and road 

crews. Other teams were similar to those already identified at the other freight railroads the 

research team had previously visited. 

During the visit, the TTI project director was able to attend the CSXT Safety Leadership Process

class, a training course that has recently been required for all CSXT personnel. This training 

would not be classified as a CRM course per se; however, it includes many of the CRM elements 

relating to communication and conflict resolution. During the visit, researchers made 

observations at the following CSX sites: 

Dispatch Center 

Moncrief Yard 

Locomotive Service Shop 

MOW Office 

Yard Master’s Office 

Train Master’s Office 

CSXT Intermodal Yard 

 30 
Amtrak 

March 24-26, 2003 

On the first day of this visit, researchers conducted an in-depth interview with Amtrak Training 

Center personnel and discussed the current Amtrak CRM training program for engineers at the 

Amtrak Training Center in Wilmington, DE. Copies of Amtrak’s training syllabus and video 

were provided to the TTI team. Subsequent days were spent at Union Station in Washington, 

DC, and at Lorton, VA, observing crew briefings and makeup. The operation of Amtrak trains 

with the engineer as the only crewmember in the cab, as well as the great variance in numbers of 

on-board-service (OBS) personnel, were the most distinctive characteristics discovered during 

this visit. The researchers also noted other differences in communications techniques and 

operational requirements. During the visit to Amtrak, the following facilities were visited: 

• Amtrak Training Center, Wilmington, DE 

• Union Station, Washington, DC 

• Train Crew On-Duty Office 

• Engineering Offices 

• Auto Train Terminal, Lorton, VA 

2.2 Team Member Identification and Classification 

Salas, Dickinson, Converse, and Tannenbaum (1992) define a team as a “distinguishable set of 

two or more people who interact, dynamically, interdependently, and adaptively toward a 

common and valued goal/objective/mission, who have each been assigned specific roles or 

functions to perform, and who have a limited life-span of membership.” 

While Kline (1999) suggests that “there is as yet no common way to talk about different types of 

teams,” others (e.g., Salas et al., 1992) argue that because a lack of consensus over the types of 

teams exists, a discrete taxonomy for defining and classifying teams should not be used. Despite 

these objections, it is possible to describe the nature and identify the members of teams in the 

railroad industry without attempting to place the teams into a specific taxonomy or classification 

tool that may not be applicable to a railroad operating environment. Kline (1999) states that 

recent research has suggested that there are perhaps several “common threads in what 

differentiates team types, including degree of structure of the task, prescriptiveness of the roles 

of the members, nature of the communications between members, nature of the information 

exchange between members, and type and degree of sharing of common goals among the 

members.” 

Using these dimensions, teams in the railroad industry would most appropriately fit into the 

definition of a crew (similar to the air crews) because they have highly structured tasks, 

prescribed roles, well-defined communication links, high but often implicit information 

exchange routes, and common but short-term goals. The dissimilarities between aircrews and 

railroad crews, however, may be just as important as the similarities. For example, although the 

CRM was designed for of aircrews, “decision making in the cockpit is unlike other groupdecision situations. One significant difference is that crew decision making is hierarchically 

 31 
managed decision making; each member of the crew contributes his/her knowledge and 

opinions, and the captain is the final decision-maker” (Guzzo and Dickson, 1996). These authors 

also suggest that flight crews may be more heterogeneous than other groups due to the varied 

levels of experience found in crewmembers. Finally, flight crews work together for only a short 

duration (a few hours to a few days) before being reassigned. This duration is different than 

many traditional teams but may be similar to those in the railroads. As a caveat, if teams in the 

railroad industry are discovered to have a short duration, it would important to understand that 

the training should be conducted not “with the intention of strengthening [a] particular team, but 

rather with the goal of making the individuals more effective in whatever team/crew they find 

themselves” (Guzzo and Dickson, 1996). 

Team formation is the first stage in the life of a railroad team (Hackman, 1990). The amount of 

time involved in and decisions that direct team formation of railroad teams should be assessed to 

understand the nature of team interactions. Relevant questions regarding team formation might 

include: 

• Who is involved in choosing team members for a team? 

• What criteria are used to choose team members? 

• Are different criteria used depending on the type of team (e.g., MOW, operating crew, 

etc.)? 

Spiker et al. (1997) recommend collecting a team member background survey to get a 

descriptive profile of the team before any training be conducted. This survey could assess such 

variables as team members’ age, time in position, previous positions held within the organization 

and in the industry in general, time with organization, and previous training experience (in 

particular with CRM). 

2.3 Identified Teams 

During the site visits to the railroads in this study, the research team was able to identify two 

different types of teams, called elemental and interactive teams in this report. Elemental teams 

are the basic teams that carry out functions at the railroads. Interactive teams are those teams 

that are formed when an elemental team must interact with an outside individual or another 

elemental team(s) to safely carry out an activity. While undoubtedly some variability exists from 

the teams listed here at railroads throughout the United States, the teams listed below are 

indicative of the common types of teams that exist and show the potential for much wider 

application of CRM training within the rail industry. The following common teams from across 

the rail industry were evident from the cross-section of railroads that were visited during this 

study. 

2.3.1 Elemental Teams 

Elemental teams are divided into three areas according to function: transportation, engineering, 

and mechanical. The following will discuss each elemental team’s function and its relationship 

to other teams and CRM. 

 32 
Transportation

Road Crew Yard Crew

Intermodal Load 

& Unload Crew

Dispatch

Yard Crew 

(Remote Control)

Yard Crew 

(Conventional) 

Passenger 

Road Crew 

Freight 

Road Crew 

Track 

Inspector 

Figure 1. Transportation Crews Chart 

2.4 Transportation Crews 

2.4.1 Freight Road Crews 

Table 4. Freight Road Crew 

General job description: To safely move freight train between destinations. 

Elemental team: 2-3; Engineer, Conductor, Brakeman or Switchman. 

Communication within elemental team: Verbal, non-verbal (hand signals), and radio 

communication. 

Team interacts with: Dispatcher, yard crew, MOW crew, Carmen, and/or yardmaster; via 

verbal and radio communication. 

Variability with rail industry and other information: (1) Some railroads (MRL) utilize 

two engineers and no conductors as road crew elemental teams; (2) at some railroads (MRL), 

elemental road crew individuals regularly work as an on-duty team; whereas in most 

railroads, road crews are comprised of different individuals for each on-duty period. 

Appropriate CRM training methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training.

Italics–Not relevant to all elemental teams. 

General Duties 

The general job duty of a freight road crew is to safely operate a freight train from point A to 

point B while complying with all Federal and company rules and regulations. A road crew (also 

called a train crew) is comprised of at least two persons, the train engineer and train conductor. 

The locomotive engineer controls the train’s movement while observing and complying with all 

signal indications and speed restrictions. He or she also ensures that trains are loaded in 

compliance with recognized handling procedures. The engineer also performs all required brake 

tests. The conductor is responsible for the overall operation of the train, including all train 

documentation, any restriction existing on the train, speed requirements, track restrictions, 

classification of the cars in the train, pre-trip planning, and post-trip summaries. Other members 

 33 
of a road crew might include a brakeman (also called a switchman in some operations). A 

brakeman operates car brakes, assists in switching operations, and assists the conductor and 

engineer in the inspection of the train consist. 

Some variability exists in the composition of a freight road crew elemental team within the rail 

industry. As previously stated, the standard freight road crew is comprised of an engineer and a 

conductor; however, a few railroad companies operate with two engineer-qualified personnel 

rather than an engineer and conductor. (One of the railroads visited during this study, MRL, 

operated in this manner.) One engineer is in charge of the movement of the train, while the other 

carries out those duties generally assigned to a conductor at other railroads. The presence of two 

engineer-qualified personnel in the cab allows the crew to switch positions at an intermediate 

stop during a long distance trip or to swap duties for the return trip. 

Another relevant difference in road crew makeup at some railroads is the assignment of 

engineers and conductors by rotation from an assignment board or as semi-permanent crews that 

are assigned to work together over a period of weeks or months. For example, at most railroad 

companies, road crews are assigned to a daily schedule from a board that lists the available 

individuals in each position (e.g., engineer, conductor, brakeman, or extras). The next available 

crew member in each category is assigned to make up the crew for the upcoming trip. Because 

the numbers of available personnel in each craft are unequal (due to illness, leave, job vacancies, 

etc.), the members of an assigned crew are not constant. Over time, all personnel at the terminal 

will rotate through crew assignments with the assigned personnel in the other positions. At other 

railroads, usually those with smaller workforces such as shortlines, crew assignment may be 

much more regular with the same personnel. For example, at MRL particular members of an 

elemental road crew regularly work together as an on-duty team and bid for jobs as a crew rather 

than as individuals. At other shortlines, regular assignment may be more of a function of limited 

personnel in each craft rather than assignment as an on-duty team. The working location of 

crewmembers may also vary. For example, in a freight road crew, the engineer and conductor 

generally work together in the locomotive cab of the train, but occasionally the conductor may 

leave the cab to inspect or adjust train equipment when the train is stopped. 

Communication within the Team 

Freight road crew personnel communicate with one another in a variety of ways. Because road 

crew members spend much of their on-duty time in close proximity to one another in the 

locomotive, verbal face-to-face communication is most frequently used. Hand signals are also 

used to communicate between crewmembers when they can maintain visual contact yet the work 

environment is not suitable for verbal communication. For example, when some distance 

between the members or background noise makes verbal communication dubious. When 

operating at a distance from one another and outside of visual contact, road crew personnel 

commonly use handheld radios to communicate with one another. 

 

Interactions with Other Teams 

A freight road crew interacts with various other teams and individuals throughout their regular 

work period, including yardmasters, carmen inspecting the train, dispatchers, yard crews, and 

MOW crews. Clear and unambiguous communication between the road crew and other 

functional teams and individuals outside the crew is crucial to the overall safety of the 

 34 
workplace. Road crews most often communicate with these individuals and groups via verbal 

face-to-face and/or radio communication. Some railroads may have recently begun using direct 

connect cell phone-based walkie-talkies, which combine the services of a cell phone with a 

walkie-talkie. (The research team noted this practice at Chicago Metra, a passenger railroad, but 

freight crews may also be doing this.) Such phones provide a convenient means of direct 

communication between two workers, although the direct, one-on-one communication link does 

not allow others in the environment to hear the decisions or clearances granted as would open 

radio frequency communication. 

 

The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the freight road crew’s work environment are relevant to CRM 

principles and training. On a road trip, the sensory environmental inputs for the road crew 

change relatively infrequently. When a change does occur, it occurs in a manner that is often 

predictable. This predictability and similarity of sensory characteristics can lead to habitual 

behavior and potentially lead to a decrease in situational awareness. Locomotive crews can 

potentially develop undue dependence upon outside cues, such as signals and dispatching, rather 

than maintaining situational awareness of their own environment. Similarly, the long work hours 

of train crews in this environment can cause fatigue, which can also result in loss of situational 

awareness. These factors should be taken into account in developing a CRM training program 

for this elemental team. Other potential CRM-related issues include the uncertainty over who 

has authority over train operations—the conductor who is responsible for movement of the train 

to its destination or the engineer who operates the locomotive and determines train performance 

by adjusting power inputs to make possible that movement. Internal crew conflict over 

suggested actions could occur unless they interact as a crew. For example, the engineer may be 

offended or not take input on how to operate the train from a non-engineer qualified conductor as 

a result of the strictly defined roles. In addition, communication between crewmembers may 

vary due to distractions in the locomotive cab or outside communications, such as calls to the 

dispatcher or cell phone calls. Personality differences or conflict can also lead to temporary loss 

of situational awareness. Working with the same person (or persons) over a period of time may 

improve crew performance because each individual’s capabilities and characteristics are known 

by other crewmembers, but familiarity or assumption that certain actions will be taken by other 

crewmembers can also lead to loss of situational awareness or lack of attention due to 

expectation. 

 35 
2.4.2 Passenger Road Crew 

Table 5. Passenger Road Crew 

Italics–Not relevant to all elemental teams. 

General job description: To safely move passenger train between terminals and to assist 

passengers. 

Elemental team: 2-5; Engineer, Conductor, Brakeman, Switchman, Assistant Conductor(s) 

(Metra and Amtrak), Collector (Metra). (Amtrak trains may have as many as 40 additional 

personnel assigned to OBS crews providing services to passengers. These personnel are 

generally not considered part of the crew but could be called upon to assist the crew in an 

emergency situation.) 

Communication within elemental team: Verbal, non-verbal (hand signals) and radio 

communication. 

Team interacts with: Dispatch, Terminal crew, MOW crew, Terminal Masters, and/or 

Carmen; via verbal, radio and/or cell-based walkie-talkie radio communication (Metra).

Variability within rail industry and other information: On passenger trains the 

conductor is often carrying out his duties in the passenger cars, leaving the engineer as the 

lone crew member in the train’s cab. Amtrak assigns a second engineer if train operations 

are expected to exceed 6 hours. 

Appropriate CRM Training Methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training.

General Duties 

The general job duty of a passenger road crew is to safely move passenger trains between 

terminals and to assist passengers. The passenger road crew is always comprised of at least two 

persons, the engineer and conductor. The engineer controls the train’s forward and reverse 

movement while observing and complying with all signal indications, speed restrictions, and/or 

time tables. The conductor is responsible for the overall operation of the train, including all train 

documentation, any restriction existing on the train, speed requirements, and track restrictions. 

On passenger trains, the conductor is often carrying out his duties in the passenger cars, leaving 

the engineer as the lone crewmember in the cab of the train. The conductor’s duties in the car 

include selling and taking passenger tickets, as well as generally assisting passengers on and off 

of the train. Passenger assistance can also include answering questions or resolving conflicts 

between passengers. 

Other members of a passenger road crew might include a brakeman, switchman, assistant 

conductor(s), and/or collector. A brakeman or switchman becomes part of the passenger road 

crews in situations where the train needs to switch tracks. The brakeman operates the manual 

switches and assists the conductor and engineer in the inspection of the train. The assistant 

conductor helps collect tickets and assists the conductor with his other job duties. The collector 

(as seen at Metra) works on large trains (usually at rush hours) to help collect and sell tickets to 

 36 
passengers. Like the assistant conductor, the collector also assists passengers to board and leave 

the train and answers questions from passengers regarding train rules, station, and timetable 

information. Working together, these people make up a passenger road crew elemental team. 

Another variability in the composition of a road crew within the rail industry is the assignment of 

additional personnel. For example, Amtrak assigns a second engineer to a passenger train if train 

operations are expected to exceed 6 hours. This lets the engineers switch off roles and duties, 

allowing them to rest, thereby counteracting fatigue factors. Engineers on passenger road crews 

are much more likely to be alone in the cab since the conductor is busy serving the passengers 

rather than assisting with train operational needs. 

 

Communication within the Team 

Passenger road crew personnel communicate with one another in a variety of ways. Unlike 

freight road crews, members of a passenger road crew spend much of their on-duty time out of 

one another’s sight. For example, the engineering control booth for Metra’s passenger trains is 

on the second floor on the cars, and the booth is closed for security purposes. The conductor, 

assistant conductors, and collector, however, are usually on the first floor of the cars (where most 

passengers ride). Because of the distance between members of the road crew, members of a 

passenger train use handheld radios, cell-based walkie-talkies, or the train’s passenger intercom 

system. This system is also used to alert team members of emergency situations that might need 

the attention of the engineer or conductors. 

Interactions with Other Teams 

A passenger road crew interacts with various other teams and individuals throughout their 

regular work period. Passenger road crews interact with dispatchers, terminal crews, terminal 

masters, carmen, and various MOW crews. Passenger road crews on long-distance intercity 

railroads interact with these same crews, as well as other crews on the train (for example, OBS 

crews providing food services, cleaning, changes of linens, etc). Clear and unambiguous 

communication between the passenger road crew and other functional teams and individuals 

outside the crew is crucial to the overall safety of the workplace. Passenger road crews most 

often communicate with these individuals and groups via verbal face-to-face and/or radio 

communication. Some railroads have recently begun using cell-based phone/walkie talkies, 

which combine the services of a cell phone with a walkie-talkie (Metra). This provides a 

convenient means of communication between two workers, although the direct, one-on-one 

communication link does not allow others in the environment to hear the decisions or clearances 

granted as would open radio frequency communication. 

The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the passenger road crew’s work environment are relevant to CRM 

principles and training. On a road trip, the sensory environmental inputs for the road crew 

change relatively infrequently. When a change does occur, it occurs in a manner that is often 

predictable. This predictability and similarity of sensory characteristics can lead to habitual 

behavior and a decrease in situational awareness. Similarly, the long work hours of train crews 

in this environment can cause fatigue, also resulting in loss of situational awareness. In 

commuter train operations, crews often run the same route day in and day out leading to habitual 

 37 
behavior and a decrease in situational awareness through expectation. These factors should be 

taken into account in developing a CRM training program for this elemental team. 

2.4.3 Track Inspector 

Table 6. Track Inspector 

Italics–Not relevant to all elemental teams. 

General job description: Examine track and structure in compliance with Federal and 

company rules, and report condition upon completion. 

Elemental Teams: 1-2; Track Inspector, Track Inspector, Lookout. 

Communication within elemental team: Verbal, non-verbal (hand signals) and radio 

communication. 

Interacts with: Road crew, MOW crew, and dispatch; via verbal, written, and radio 

communication. 

Variability within rail industry and other information: Two-person inspection crews at 

Metra report to section gang through engineering rather than being assigned through 

transportation. 

Appropriate CRM training methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training. 

General Duties 

The general job duty of a track inspector is to examine track, roadbed, equipment, and structures 

in compliance with Federal and company rules and to report their condition. He or she will note 

damage, wear, or defective parts, including switches, tie plates, joint bars, and rails, including 

identification of loose bolts and ties. Sometimes track inspectors will activate manual switches 

to determine that they are in good operating condition. The inspector often travels on the track 

via a hi-rail vehicle. He or she might also walk the track checking the condition of the roadbed 

and looking for loose ballasts and determining if they require repacking. 

A track inspector usually works by himself or herself or with one other inspector. When a pair 

of track inspectors is working together in a crew, one inspector takes on the traditional role of 

inspector while the other acts as a lookout. The lookout watches for oncoming trains or other 

work vehicles on the tracks, adjacent tracks, or access roads, and communicates this information 

to the track inspector. 

Communication within the Team 

When two or more track inspectors are working together, they communicate with one another via 

verbal, non-verbal (hand signals), and radio communication. The team dynamics of a track 

inspecting team make it essential that the lookout communicate clearly to the track inspector 

when a train or other vehicle is approaching. 

 38 
Interactions with Other Teams 

Track inspectors interact with various other teams and individuals throughout their regular work 

period. Track inspectors interact with road crews, section gangs, and dispatchers via verbal 

and/or radio communication. The track inspector also communicates with many outside groups 

using written communication. He or she prepares detailed reports that indicate the equipment, 

track, or section of roadbed that is in need of repair. These notes outline the location, nature of 

damage, and post-repair conditions once a section gang has made repairs. Track inspectors most 

often communicate with other individuals and groups (for example, section gangs), via verbal 

face-to-face when on site or at a specific problem area. The track inspector will often call for a 

section gang to repair or replace defective equipment or to reballast the roadbed. The track 

inspector will also inspect completed work to verify that repairs conform to FRA and/or 

company regulations. All of these duties require clear and concise communication in order to be 

safe. 

The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the track inspectors work environment are relevant to CRM principles 

and training. Even though the track inspector or lookout might have a warrant to occupy a track, 

he or she can not get lost in the task that he or she is doing and forget that a train might come by 

on an adjacent track. Communication between the lookout and the inspector must be effective 

and in line with CRM principles. Proper written communication between inspector and section 

gang via writing of a clear and concise repair is necessary so that no misunderstanding occurs in 

terms of the location and nature of the required repair. 

2.4.4 Yard Crew (Remote Control (RC)) 

Table 7. Yard Crew (Remote Control (RC)) 

General job description: To safely assemble and disassemble trains within yard limits using 

remotely controlled locomotives or railcars (MRL).

Elemental Team: 2-3; remote control operator(s), switchman.

Communication within elemental team: Verbal, non-verbal (hand signals) & radio 

communication. 

Interacts with: MOW crew, carman, trainmaster, and yardmaster; via verbal, written, and 

radio communication. 

Variability within rail industry and other information: Remote control may be operated via 

the locomotive or another piece of operating equipment (i.e. modified caboose). 

Appropriate CRM training methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training. 

Italics–Not relevant to all elemental teams. 

General Duties 

The general job duty of a yard crew (RC) is to safely assemble and disassemble trains within 

yard limits using remote controlled locomotive systems. A yard crew (RC) is comprised of at 

least two individuals, a remote control operator and a switchman. The remote control operator 

 39 
controls a switching locomotive within the railroad yard for the purpose of switching railroad 

cars for loading, unloading, and makeup or breakup of trains. He or she is on the ground using a 

handheld remote control device to control the train’s movement. A remote control may be 

operated via the locomotive or another piece of operating equipment (i.e., a modified caboose 

that slave controls an adjacent locomotive). 

The remote control operator gets his/her orders by first reading switching orders from the 

yardmaster or listening to switching orders over the in-cab radio from the yardmaster. He or she 

does so in accordance with railroad rules and regulations. The switchman is responsible for 

throwing track switches within the railroad yard to switch cars for loading, unloading, making 

up, and breaking up of trains. The switchman works with the remote control operator to 

completely follow the switching instructions given by the yardmaster. The switchman also is 

certified and equipped with a remote control device in case the first remote control fails, or the 

remote control operator is unable to perform his/her duties due to a fall or other injury. At 

present, the position of remote control operator can be filled by either a certified locomotive 

engineer or by another employee who has been specifically trained in the use of the remote 

control device. 

Communication within the Team 

Yard crews (RC) communicate with one another in a variety of ways. They use verbal, nonverbal (hand signals), and radio communication. The remote control operator and the switchman 

will use verbal face-to-face communication when within speaking distance from one another. 

They will use non-verbal (hand signals) in circumstances where they are in sight of each other, 

but the distance or environment does not allow verbal communication. Yard crews (RC) will use 

handheld radios to communicate verbally to one another when hand signals are not possible or in 

question.

Interactions with Other Teams 

A yard crew (RC) interacts with various other teams and individuals throughout their regular 

work period, including MOW crews, carmen performing railcar inspections, yard clerks, and the 

yardmaster. They communicate with these individuals or groups via verbal, written, and radio 

communication. Clear and unambiguous communication between the yard crew (RC), other 

functional teams, and individuals outside the crew is crucial to the overall safety of the 

workplace. Yard crews (RC) could also communicate using cell phone-based walkie-talkies, 

which combine the services of a cell phone with a walkie-talkie. This phone provides a 

convenient means of communication between two employees through the direct, one-on-one 

communication link but does not allow others in the environment to hear and be made aware of 

the other actions taking place on nearby yard tracks as would open radio frequency 

communication. 

The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the yard crew’s (RC) work environment that are relevant to CRM 

principles and training. The working environment of a yard crew is very hazardous. Often 

debris such as removed spikes or trash, the large numbers of tracks, and the presence of many 

slow moving trains can make working around the yard quite unsafe if constant attention and 

teamwork are not applied. Yard crews must focus not just upon what they are doing (remotely 

 40 
moving the locomotive), but where they are moving on the ground and the activities taking place 

upon adjacent tracks. The remote control operator and the switchman must remain in constant 

communication to prevent accidents from occurring. Proper job briefing and training for all 

personnel involved in remote operations is essential. Working as a crew rather than as 

individuals to verify that all steps are taken is another aspect of CRM that can be applied to this 

elemental team. 

2.4.5 Yard Crew (Conventional) 

Table 8. Yard Crew (Conventional) 

General job description: To assemble and disassemble trains within yard limits.

Elemental Team: 2-3; yard engineer, conductor, switchman.

Communication within elemental team: Verbal, non-verbal (hand signals), and radio 

communication. 

Interacts with: Carman, trainmaster and yardmaster; via verbal, written, and radio 

communication. 

Variability within rail industry and other information: Specific functions of the yard 

crew may change depending on the location and railroad company. 

Appropriate CRM training methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training. 

General Duties 

The general job duty of a yard crew (conventional) is to safely assemble and disassemble trains 

within yard limits. A yard crew is comprised of between two to three individuals, including a 

yard engineer, a conductor, and a switchman. The yard engineer, also called a switch engineer, 

controls a switching locomotive within the railroad yard for the purpose of switching railroad 

cars for loading, unloading, and makeup or breakup of trains. The yard engineer gets his/her 

orders by first reading switching orders from the yardmaster or listening to switching orders over 

the in-cab radio from the yardmaster. He or she does so in accordance with railroad rules and 

regulations. The switchman is responsible for throwing track switches within the railroad yard to 

switch cars for loading, unloading, making up, and breaking up of trains. The switchman works 

together with the yard engineer to completely follow the instructions given by the yardmaster. 

The specific functions of the yard crew may vary depending on the location and the railroad 

company. 

Communication within the Team 

Yard crews communicate with one another in a variety of ways, including verbal, non-verbal 

(hand signals), and radio communication. The yard engineer and the switchman will use verbal 

face-to-face communication when within speaking distance from one another (for example, when 

in the locomotive). They will use non-verbal (hand signals) in circumstances where they are in 

sight of each other, but the distance or environment does not allow verbal face-to-face 

communication. For example, the switchman on the ground will communicate to a yard engineer 

in the locomotive that a switch is aligned and it is alright to proceed through the switch. Yard 

 41 
crews will use handheld radios to communicate verbally to one another when hand signals are 

dubious. 

Interactions with Other Teams 

A yard crew (conventional) interacts with various other teams and individuals throughout their 

regular work period, including carmen, trainmasters, and yardmasters. They communicate with 

these individuals or groups via verbal, written, and radio communication. Clear and 

unambiguous communication between the yard crew, other functional teams, and individuals 

outside the crew is crucial to the overall safety of the workplace. Some railroads have recently 

begun using cell-based phone/walkie-talkies, which combine the services of a cell phone with a 

walkie-talkie (Metra). This type of phone provides a convenient means of direct communication 

between two workers, although the direct, one-on-one communication link does not allow others 

in the environment to hear the decisions or clearances granted as would open radio frequency 

communication. 

The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the yard crew’s work environment are relevant to CRM principles and 

training. The working environment of a yard crew (conventional) is very hazardous. Often 

debris such as removed spikes or trash, the large numbers of tracks, and the presence of many 

slow moving trains can make working around the yard quite unsafe if constant attention and 

teamwork are not applied. Yard crews (conventional) must focus not just upon what they are 

doing (building and separating trains and moving railcars), but where they are moving on the 

ground and the activities taking place upon adjacent tracks. The yard crew in the cab and the 

switchman must remain in constant communication to prevent accidents from occurring. Proper 

job briefing and training for all personnel involved in switching operations is essential. Working 

as a crew rather than as individuals to verify that all steps are taken is another aspect of CRM 

that can be applied to this elemental team. Frequent changes in crew personnel can also be an 

issue for yard crews. 

2.4.6 Dispatch Crew 

Table 9. Dispatch Crew 

General job description: Authorizes and controls track occupancy for all operations. 

Elemental Team: 2-3; dispatchers plus immediate supervisor (chief dispatcher).

Communication within elemental team: Verbal face-to-face, and telephone 

communication. 

Interacts with: Road crew, MOW crew, signal maintainers, B&B department, block/tower 

operators (Metra); via radio communication. 

Variability within rail industry and other information: The job duties of some 

dispatchers on electrical lines may also include electrical control (Metra’s electric line). 

Appropriate CRM Training Methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training. 

Italics–Not relevant to all elemental teams. 

 42 
General Duties 

The general job duty of a dispatch crew is to authorize and control track occupancy for all 

operations. A dispatch crew is comprised of at least two persons, the dispatcher plus the 

immediate supervisor (chief dispatcher). Train dispatchers control and supervise the safe and 

efficient movement of trains, authorizing the occupancy of main track and sidings for train 

operations and track inspections, as well as MOW personnel. Most train dispatchers use a 

Computer Aided Dispatching (CAD) auto-routing system to track trains. They interact with the 

system as well (for example, recording train delays), ensuring movement of priority trains, as 

well as aligning switches and adjusting signals that are not produced automatically by the 

system. The chief dispatcher supervises dispatchers, making sure that train movements are safe 

and efficient and that trains are moved according to all railroad rules and regulations. Other 

members of the dispatch team include other dispatchers that control adjacent territories. 

Some variability does exist in the composition of a dispatch crew in the railroad industry. For 

example, the job duties of some dispatchers on electrical lines (for example, Metra’s electric 

line) also include electrical control to the segments over which trains are operating. This can 

involve interacting with various electricity suppliers, checking the flow of electricity on the 

control panel, and, if need be, changing the supply of electricity to the system or specific track. 

Communication within the Team 

Dispatchers and the chief dispatcher communicate with one another in a variety of ways, 

including verbal face-to-face and telephone communication. A railroad’s dispatch center layout 

can vary; however, most dispatchers sit close to one another, sometimes separated by cubicle 

walls to keep distractions to a minimum. Dispatchers must communicate to one another when 

passing trains from one dispatcher’s area of responsibility to another. They can communicate 

with the other dispatcher face-to-face by verbally notifying the other dispatcher that a train is 

coming into his territory. Alternatively, a dispatcher can utilize the dispatch radio/telephone to 

speak to him or her and point out the train entering his area of responsibility on the CAD screen 

display. A chief dispatcher will communicate to the dispatch via verbal face-to-face 

communication or the telephone. He or she might notify dispatchers of daily changes in the 

control operations, give them feedback on performance, or answer questions related to the 

control of trains. 

Interactions with Other Teams 

A dispatch crew interacts with various other teams and individuals throughout their regular work 

period, including road crews, MOW crews, signal maintainers, B&B department, and 

block/tower operators (Metra). Clear and unambiguous communication between the dispatchers, 

road crews, other functional teams, and individuals outside the crew is crucial to the overall 

safety of the railroad workplace. Dispatch crews communicate with these individuals and groups 

via radio communication. Although some railroads have begun using cell phone based walkietalkies, dispatchers are not allowed to use them for outgoing calls because they are not recorded. 

Dispatchers must use land line phones that are recorded for outgoing information. 

The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the dispatchers work environment are relevant to CRM principles and 

training. Dispatchers must maintain situational awareness at all times while sitting at their desk 

 43 
observing computer screens for 6-8 hour shifts and must constantly monitor the situation. 

Dispatchers are constantly communicating and must always be clear, thorough, and concise. 

Dispatchers must communicate daily with individuals with different personalities, ethnicities, 

generational attitudes, and cultures. They must know how to handle each of these differences 

effectively as taught in many CRM training programs. Because they control movement of trains 

by granting track access, dispatchers must work to prevent accidents where trains encounter the 

public. Miscommunication or loss of awareness by a dispatcher can thus be a safety concern for 

the general public as well as the railroad. 

2.4.7 Intermodal Load and Unload Crews 

Table 10. Intermodal Load and Unload Crews 

General job description: Safely loads and unloads shipping containers and/or truck 

trailers to and from intermodal cars. 

Elemental Team: 2; lift crane operator, groundsman.

Communication within elemental team: Verbal face-to-face, non-verbal (hand signals), 

and radio communication. 

Interacts with: Mule operator (yard tractor) and yard dispatch; via radio communication. 

Variability within rail industry and other information: Predominantly carried out by 

private contractors; however, may be railroad personnel. Special situations require 

supervision by foreman and may require more than one lift crane operator. 

Appropriate CRM training methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training. 

General Duties 

The general job duty of an intermodal load and unload crew is to safely load and unload shipping 

containers and/or trailers to and from intermodal cars. An intermodal load and unload crew is 

usually comprised of one or two lift crane operators. The lift crane operator sits in an elevated 

control room and uses hand controls to operate the lift crane. He or she quickly and repeatedly 

adjusts the controls of the lift to exact positions. During loading and unloading operations, the 

lift crane operator inspects and compares load weights with lifting capacity to ensure against 

overload. A high degree of manual dexterity and depth perception are needed in order to operate 

efficiently. He or she must also inspect and adjust crane mechanisms and accessory equipment 

to prevent malfunction and wear. The groundsman job is to clear the path for the crane to aid in 

setting the load where it belongs. Additionally, he or she communicates with the lift crane 

operator as to the placement of the container and to secure containers on the chassis. 

Some variability exists in the set up of intermodal load and unload crew elemental team within 

the rail industry. Private contractors, not the host railroad, predominantly carry out intermodal 

yard task functions, including the intermodal loading and unloading of containers onto 

intermodal cars or truck chassis. Railroad personnel, however, may carry out these operations. 

In terms of the variability of the make up of an intermodal load and unload crew, special 

situations require supervision by foreman and may require more than one lift crane operator. 

 44 
Communication within the Team 

Intermodal load and unload crew personnel communicate with one another via verbal, radio, and 

non-verbal (hand signal) communications. Before the work day or a specific job, the lift crane 

operator and the groundsman will have an informal verbal face-to-face meeting to discuss 

specific aspects of the upcoming job and to discuss any special loads. Similarly, they will use 

radio communication to coordinate their efforts once the lift crane operator is in position in the 

crane control room. 

Most of the actual communication during the actual loading and unloading of containers is done 

using hand signals. The groundsman will give hand signals (many times subtle) to the lift crane 

operators, who watches closely. These hand signals include commands, such as stop, left, right, 

lower, and higher. The groundsman also uses hand signals to confirm that the container is in 

place before securing it on the chassis. 

Interactions with Other Teams 

An intermodal load and unload crew also interacts with various other teams and individuals 

throughout their regular work period, including mule operators, road crews, intermodal yard 

crews, and yardmasters via radio communication. For example, they communicate with the mule 

operator when they need a string of chassis moved. They communicate with yard dispatchers 

when questions regarding car order or container identification are unclear or confusing. Clear 

and unambiguous communication between the intermodal load and unload crew, other functional 

teams, and individuals outside the crew is crucial to the overall safety of the workplace. 

The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the intermodal load and unload crew’s work environment are relevant 

to CRM principles and training. For example, frequent movement of heavy loads by crane 

requires constant communications and maintenance of situational awareness. The interaction 

between contractor and railroad personnel calls for improved communication and coordination in 

carrying out operations. This could also be a potential area where contractor and railroad rules 

conflict, requiring quick decisionmaking by the team. Adverse winds or weather could affect the 

crane and intermodal equipment’s performance can. 

 45 
Engineering

Maintenance Signals

of Way

Structures 

(B&B)

Signal 

Gang

Signal 

Maintaine

Track Electrical

Figure 2. Engineering Crews Chart 

2.5 Engineering Crews 

2.5.1 Section Gang 

Table 11. Section Gang 

General job description: Performs daily assigned maintenance and repairs of track and right 

of way. 

Elemental team: 4-10; foreman, assistant foreman, trackman laborer(s), truck driver, 

Machine Operator(s), welder and grinder team, speed swing operator, front-end loader, 

dump truck loader, flagman, lookout.

Communication within elemental team: Verbal and non-verbal (hand signals) 

communication. 

Interacts with: Track supervisor, dispatch, yardmaster, signal maintainer(s), road crews; via 

radio and Nextel® radio communication (Metra).

Variability within rail industry and other information: Metra section gangs use Nextel® 

to communicate outside the team almost exclusively. Track inspectors also work more 

directly with section gangs at Metra than roadmasters do at the freight railroads. 

Appropriate CRM training methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training. 

Italics–Not relevant to all elemental teams. 

r

Production

Gangs

Electrical 

Bonding Crew

Catenary 

Maintenance Crew

(AC or DC)

Section Gang 

 46 
General Duties 

The general job duty of a section gang is to perform daily assignments of maintenance and 

repairs of track and rights of way. A section gang is generally comprised of at least four 

persons—a foreman, a trackman laborer, a truck driver, and a machine operator. On a larger job, 

a section gang can be augmented by the addition of an assistant foreman, track supervisor, a 

welder and grinder team, a speed swing operator, a front-end loader operator, a dump truck 

loader, or a flagman or lookout. Furthermore, additional trackman laborers and machine 

operators can be in a section gang. The foreman supervises the section gang and helps with any 

of the work. The foreman is in charge of supervising the section gang, including performing the 

job/safety briefing at the beginning of any job and the beginning of each working day. Track 

laborers, working as a member of a crew, will do a variety of jobs related to installing and 

repairing railroad track. These can include pulling spikes, cleaning and placing plates, cutting 

ties to fit plates, and helping to align rail. A truck driver operates the work truck that carries the 

crew to the worksite. The machine operator most often maneuvers the machinery that moves and 

lays track or rails to construct, repair, or maintain railroad tracks. A welder and grinder work 

together to connect rail. A grinder grinds the end of new rail to achieve a smooth joint; the 

welder then welds the rail together. A speed swing operator operates a piece of heavy equipment 

mounted on the ground or track that is used to place new rail on track and/or hold it while being 

cut. A front-end loader operator uses a front-end loader to pick up and move various objects 

(such as ties, rocks, rail) from one area of the worksite to another. 

 

Communication within the Team 

Section gang personnel communicate with one another in a variety of ways. Because section 

gang members spend much of their on-duty time in close proximity to one another while on the 

jobsite, verbal face-to-face communication is frequently used. Hand signals are also used to 

communicate between crewmembers when they can maintain visual contact, yet the work 

environment is not suitable for verbal communication (for example, when some distance 

between the members exists or background noise from equipment such as a hydraulic spike 

driver, makes verbal communication difficult). When aligning rail for installation, hand signals 

and instruments may be used to communicate to machine operators and others the alignment of 

the rail. 

Interactions with Other Teams 

A section gang interacts with various other teams and individuals throughout their regular work 

period, including dispatchers, track inspectors, signal maintainers, trainmasters, road crews, and 

track supervisors. A track supervisor communicates with the section gang during the work 

session. He or she ensures that the section gang’s work assignment is productive by evaluating 

work progress and reassigning personnel and equipment as necessary. 

They communicate with these teams or individuals via radio and cell phone-based walkie-talkie 

radio communication (Metra). Metra section gangs use cell-based walkie-talkies to 

communicate outside the team almost exclusively. Clear and unambiguous communication 

between the section gang and other functional teams, and individuals outside the crew is crucial 

to the overall safety of the workplace. Track inspectors seem to work more directly with section 

gangs at Metra than roadmasters do at the freight railroads due to their differing organizational 

structure. 

 47 
The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the section gang’s work environment are relevant to CRM principles 

and training. Working in and around tracks, moving trains, industrial equipment and machinery, 

and loose ballast can all be very hazardous if not properly briefed and coordinated. The 

environment is often noisy and has extreme temperatures, leading to increased fatigue. Work 

must be coordinated with other crewmembers to avoid injury or damage to equipment. Track 

authority to do work must be coordinated with dispatchers, and train crews must be made aware 

of their presence in order to prevent accidents. 

2.5.2 Production Gang 

Table 12. Production Gang 

General job description: Installs, rehabilitates, and repairs track in large sections. 

Elemental Team: 10-60; foreman, trackman laborers, truck drivers, machine operators, 

assistant foremen, track supervisor(s), welder and grinder team(s), speed swing operator(s), 

front-end loader(s), dump truck loader(s), flagman, lookout(s).

Communication within elemental team: Verbal face-to-face, hand signals, and radio 

communication. 

Interacts with: Dispatch, road crews and signal maintainers; via radio communication. 

Variability within rail industry and other information: Production gangs are often 

subdivided into specialized surfacing, tie, and rail production gangs that must be 

coordinated within the elemental team. Production gangs are often organized at the system 

level and work seasonally from late spring through mid-autumn to take advantage of better 

weather conditions. 

Appropriate CRM training methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training. 

Italics–Not relevant to all elemental teams. 

General Duties 

The general job duty of a production gang is to install, rehabilitate, and repair track in large 

sections. A production gang is similar to a section gang only their operations take place on a 

larger scale. A railroad will usually take a large section of track out of service for an extended 

period of time to do the work. Production gangs are often organized at the system level and 

work seasonally from late spring through mid-autumn to take advantage of better weather 

conditions. Production gangs are often subdivided into specialized surfacing, tie, and rail 

production gangs that must be coordinated within the elemental team. 

Many of the workers on production gangs are seasonal workers, meaning that they only work 

during specific months of the year. These months are usually in the slower freight or passenger 

season or when weather conditions are most conducive. A production gang is usually comprised 

of between 10 and 60 workers. A typical production gang is comprised of a foreman, trackman 

laborers, truck drivers, and machine operators augmented by the appropriate number of assistant 

foremen, track supervisors, welder and grinder teams, speed swing operators, front-end loader 

 48 
operators, dump truck loaders, and/or flagman lookouts. The foreman supervises the production 

gang and helps direct work activities as necessary. The foreman is in charge of the job briefing 

at the beginning of any job and the beginning of each working day. Track laborers will do a 

variety of jobs, including pulling spikes, cleaning and placing tie plates, and helping to align rail. 

Other members of the production gang operate equipment as described in the previous 

description of section gangs. 

Communication within the Team 

Production gang personnel communicate with one another in a variety of ways. Because 

production gang members spend much of their on-duty time in close proximity to one another, 

verbal face-to-face communication is frequently used. Hand signals are also used to 

communicate between crewmembers when they can maintain visual contact or the work 

environment is not suitable for verbal communication. When some distance between the 

members exists or background noise from equipment, such as a hydraulic spike driver, makes 

verbal communication difficult or impossible, foremen, laborers, and machine operators may 

communicate to one another using hand signals. Unlike the smaller section gangs, production 

gangs cover a large distance of track, and communication between different work groups is 

imperative. The production gang may operate with specialized subgroups, such as surfacing, tie, 

and rail production gangs at some distance from one another. Thus production gangs also 

depend upon radio communication to communicate between workers. 

Interactions with Other Teams 

A production gang interacts with various other teams and individuals throughout their regular 

work period, including dispatch and perhaps passing road crews on adjacent tracks, via radio 

communication. Clear and unambiguous communication between the production gang, other 

functional teams, individuals outside the crew is crucial to the overall safety of the workplace. 

As stated above, many production gangs are fortunate to have all rail traffic halted or re-routed 

around their work area for a period of hours or days while their work is completed. In such 

cases, work progress must be periodically reported to management and dispatching so that future 

operational plans may be adjusted accordingly. Additionally, signal gangs may be working 

nearby to install new or improved signal system infrastructure as the production gang completes 

its work. 

The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the production gang’s work environment are relevant to CRM 

principles and training. Working in and around tracks, moving trains, industrial equipment and 

machinery, and loose ballast can all be very hazardous if not properly briefed and coordinated 

before each job. The working environment is often noisy and subject to extreme temperatures 

leading to increased fatigue. Work must be coordinated with other crewmembers to avoid injury 

or damage to equipment. Track authority to do work must be coordinated with dispatchers, and 

passing train crews must be made aware of their presence in order to prevent accidents. The 

seasonal nature of most production gang jobs also tends to be filled by less experienced or skilled 

workers, thus requiring even more attention to be paid to situational awareness and 

communications training. 

 49 
2.5.3 Structures (B&B) 

Table 13. Structures (B&B) 

General job description: Builds, maintains, and repairs structures limited to bridges and 

buildings (B&B). 

Elemental Team: 5-12; foreman (leadman), carpenter(s), electrician(s), truck driver, crane 

operator, station attendant(s)/janitor(s). 

Communication within elemental team: Verbal face-to-face, hand signals, and radio 

communication. 

Interacts with: Dispatch, road crew(s) and roadmaster via radio communication. 

Variability within rail industry and other information: Janitorial and station attendant 

services in some passenger railroads perform vital tasks, such as snow removal from 

passenger platforms. Team size is dependent upon specific task assigned. 

Appropriate CRM training methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training. 

Italics–Not relevant to all elemental teams. 

General Duties 

The general job duty of a structures crew is to build, maintain, and repair major railroad 

structures, such as bridges or buildings. A structures crew is typically comprised of between 5 to 

12 workers including a foreman (leadman), carpenter, electrician, truck driver, and crane 

operator. Passenger railroads may also consider station attendants/janitors who care for their 

stations or remove snow from platforms as part of the structures crew. The size of these teams 

depends upon the specific task assigned. The foreman (leadman) receives work assignments and 

supervises work completion. The carpenter builds and repairs hardware involved in a structures 

job. He or she uses a variety of tools, including saws and hammers to work with wood, metal, 

and sheetrock. The carpenter must also verify the soundness of the structure. The electrician’s 

duties are principally to maintain and protect electrical equipment used by the other crew 

members and to install and ensure proper rail joint bonding and rail isolation joints on bridge 

structures. Additionally, electricians may install and repair electrical wiring, equipment, and 

fixtures in buildings. Structures crewmembers also receive additional training in working from 

bridges and the specialized safety equipment and techniques that must be used when working at 

elevation. 

Communication within the Team 

Structures crew personnel communicate with one another in a variety of ways, including verbal 

face-to-face, hand signals, and radio communication. They communicate verbally when they are 

a distance from one another to get verbal feedback. Hand signals are also used to communicate 

between crewmembers when they can maintain visual contact, yet the work environment is not 

suitable for verbal communication (for example, when some distance between the members 

exists or background noise makes verbal communication unreliable). When operating at a 

 50 
distance from one another and outside of visual contact, structures personnel commonly use 

handheld radios to communicate with one another. Hand signals also play an important part in 

directing the placement of structural members (e.g., piles, bents, stringers, etc.). 

Interactions with Other Teams 

A structures crew interacts with various other teams and individuals throughout their regular 

work period, including dispatchers, road crews, and yard crews via radio communication. Clear 

and unambiguous communication between the structures crew, other functional teams, and 

individuals outside the crew is crucial to the overall safety of the workplace. Structures crews 

most often communicate with these individuals and groups via verbal face-to-face and/or radio 

communication. Structures workers communicate with dispatchers when working on or near 

active tracks or when exercising/vacating their track warrant authority. They might talk to other 

crews when they need access on or through their work area. 

 

The Elemental Team and CRM 

There are several characteristics of the structure crew’s work environment are relevant to CRM 

principles and training. These include communication between workers, assertiveness in 

correcting observed unsafe conditions while working above the ground on a structure, or 

pointing out faulty job practices. Station attendants may be working in close proximity to live 

tracks. Situational awareness regarding equipment usage or passing trains is important in both of 

these situations. 

2.5.4 Electrical Bonding Crew 

Table 14. Electrical Bonding Crew 

General job description: Performs electrical bonding of track to carry electricity to 

power locomotive on electrically powered rail lines. 

Elemental team: 2-3; inspector, bonder(s).

Communication within elemental team: Verbal face-to-face and radio communication. 

Team interacts with: Dispatcher via radio communication. 

Variability within rail industry and other information: Certain bond repairs may be 

done without contacting dispatcher. 

Appropriate CRM training methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training. 

General Duties 

The primary job duty of a electrical bonding crew is to perform electrical bonding of track in 

order to carry electricity to power locomotive on electrically powered rail lines. An electrical 

bonding crew is comprised of at least two persons; an inspector and a bonder. An inspector 

examines track wiring to determine continuity of electrical connections. A bonder uses a variety 

of welding equipment including gas or electric welders to weld bonding wires across rail joints. 

A larger bonding job can mean an electrical bonding crew may add more bonders to complete 

the work. 

 51 
Communication within the Team 

Electrical bonding crew personnel communicate with one another in a variety of ways. Because 

electrical bonding crewmembers spend much of their on-duty time in close proximity to one 

another, verbal face-to-face communication is frequently used. When operating at a distance 

from one another and outside of visual contact, electrical bonding crew personnel commonly use 

handheld radios to communicate with one another. 

Interactions with Other Teams 

An electrical bonding crew interacts with the dispatcher via radio communication in order to 

ensure authority to work on the tracks. Clear and unambiguous communication between the 

electrical bonding crew, other nearby functional teams, and individuals outside the crew is 

crucial to the overall safety of the workplace. Electrical bonding crews most often communicate 

with these individuals and groups via verbal face-to-face and/or radio communication. Some 

electrical bonds, however, may be done without notification to the dispatcher during times when 

operations are not taking place. In these circumstances however, a lookout must be present. 

The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the electrical bonding crew’s work environment are relevant to CRM 

principles and training. Because of the very high risk involved in working in and around high 

voltage electric lines, teamwork within a bonding crew and with the dispatcher controlling power 

to the line must be highly coordinated. Crewmembers must provide lookout protection while 

others in the crew are working in order to protect one another. Each worker must exercise 

situational awareness in the busy track environment. 

2.5.5 Catenary Maintenance Crew (AC or DC) 

Table 15. Catenary Maintenance Crew (AC or DC) 

General job description: Maintains overhead catenary wires. 

Elemental Team: 2-6; supervisor, electrician(s).

Communication within elemental team: Verbal, radio, and Nextel® radio communication 

(Metra).

Interacts with: Dispatch/electric control; via radio communication. 

Variability within rail industry and other information: AC/DC catenary gangs exist 

only on railroads with electrically powered rail lines. Larger six-person gangs are used 

when working on hot lines. Smaller two- or three-person gangs exist when there is track 

and electric protection. 

Appropriate CRM training methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training. 

Italics–Not relevant to all elemental teams.

 52 
General Duties 

The general job duty of a catenary maintenance crew is to maintain overhead catenary wires; 

thus these gangs only exist on railroads with electrically powered rail lines. A catenary 

maintenance crew is comprised of at least two persons, including one supervisor and an 

electrician. The larger the maintenance job, or jobs in which they are working on hot 

(electrically charges lines), a larger crew works together. A smaller two- or three-person gang 

can work a job if there is track protection (no-trains) and electrical protection (lines are not 

charged). Electricians install new catenary wires, as well as maintaining and repairing old 

catenary wires. 

 

Communication within the Team 

Catenary maintenance crew personnel communicate with one another in a variety of ways. 

Because catenary maintenance crewmembers spend much of their on-duty time in close 

proximity to one another, verbal face-to-face communication is frequently used. Hand signals 

are also used to communicate between crewmembers when they can maintain visual contact, yet 

the work environment is not suitable for verbal communication (for example, when some 

distance exists between the members or background noise makes verbal communication 

questionable). When operating at a distance from one another and outside of visual contact, 

catenary maintenance crew personnel commonly use handheld radios or cell-based phone/ 

walkie-talkies to communicate. 

Interactions with Other Teams 

A catenary maintenance crew interacts with dispatch throughout their normal working period. 

Smaller catenary gangs communicate with dispatch/electrical control over the radio when they 

require the AC or DC wire to be de-electrified or re-electrified. Larger catenary gangs working 

on electrically charged hot lines will communicate with dispatch when a train or other vehicle is 

occupying the tracks or using the wires in which they are working. Clearly, unambiguous 

communication between the catenary maintenance crew and the dispatcher who is controlling 

both power and train movement is critical to the overall safety of the workplace. 

The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the catenary maintenance crew’s work environment are relevant to 

CRM principles and training. Internal communication and teamwork within the catenary 

maintenance team, proper use of tools, and proper protective equipment usage are all important 

on this team. Because of their work with high voltage electric lines, constant awareness of the 

team’s immediate environment is essential and characteristics of the situation must not be 

assumed. Similarly, the environment is one in which a lack of assertiveness in terms of assuring 

safe operations can be extremely unfavorable. 

 53 
2.5.6 Signal Gang 

Table 16. Signal Gang 

General job description: Install and repair signal infrastructure on specific sections of 

track in the context of large projects. 

Elemental team: 10-15; signal supervisor, installers, laborers.

Communication within elemental team: Verbal face-to-face, hand signals, and radio 

communication. 

Interacts with: Dispatch, road crew(s), production gang and MOW crews via verbal faceto-face and radio communication. 

Variability within rail industry and other information: Size and makeup can vary 

depending on the size of project. 

Appropriate CRM training methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training. 

General Duties 

The general job duty of a signal gang is to install and repair signals on specific sections of track 

in the context of large projects. Many times a signal gang works alongside a production gang 

when a railroad has taken a large section of track out of service for major repair or rehabilitation. 

Large signal gangs, however, can also work on signal on track that is not out of service, putting 

in new equipment while existing signals remain in place. Like production gangs, signal gangs 

are often organized at the system level and work seasonally from late spring through mid-autumn 

to take advantage of better weather conditions. 

A signal gang is usually comprised of between 10 to 15 individuals, including a signal foreman, 

electricians, and signal maintainers. The signal supervisor assigns tasks and personnel to the 

jobs required. Furthermore, the signal supervisor performs tests on installed equipment and 

circuits for verification of correct system operation. The signal supervisor in the signal gang 

typically does troubleshooting to correct the installed equipment. The installers carry out the 

task of physically installing wire, cabling, cabinets, pole lines, and fiber optic systems. Laborers 

perform assistance as directed in accordance with instructions for installers or supervisors. 

Communication within the Team 

Signal gang personnel communicate with one another in a variety of ways. Because signal gang 

members spend much of their on-duty time in close proximity to one another in the field, verbal 

face-to-face communication is frequently used. Hand signals are also used to communicate 

between crewmembers when they can maintain visual contact, yet the work environment is not 

suitable for verbal communication (for example, when some distance exists between the 

members or background noise makes verbal communication uncertain). When operating at a 

distance from one another and outside of visual contact, signal gang personnel commonly use 

handheld radios to communicate with one another. 

 54 
Interactions with Other Teams 

A signal gang interacts with various other teams and individuals throughout their regular work 

period, including dispatchers, road crews, production gangs, and MOW crews. They 

communicate with these other groups and individuals via verbal face-to-face and radio 

communication. Clear and unambiguous communication between the signal gang, other 

functional teams, and individuals outside the crew is crucial to the overall safety of the 

workplace. Signal gangs most often communicate with these individuals and groups via verbal 

face-to-face and/or radio communication. 

The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the signal gang’s work environment are relevant to CRM principles 

and training. Because they work in close proximity to the tracks and with other crews so often, 

they must constantly be in communication, both internally and externally to the signal gang 

itself. The intricate tasks involved in building and installing new signal infrastructure, as well as 

the presence of electricity, leads to a hazardous environment in which awareness and teamwork 

are highly necessary. 

2.5.7 Signal Maintenance Crew 

Table 17. Signal Maintenance Crew 

General job description: Maintains the signals on an assigned section of track, applies 

electrical bonding wires to rail, and installs insulated joints for signal system continuity. 

Elemental Team: 1-2; signal maintainer(s).

Communication within elemental team: Verbal face-to-face, hand signals, and radio 

communication. 

Interacts with: Dispatch and road crew, via verbal, written, radio, and Nextel® radio 

(Metra) communication. 

Variability within rail industry and other information: Usually works as an individual 

on assigned territory but can work with another maintainer on specific projects, or when 

required to perform repairs at night. 

Appropriate CRM training methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training. 

Italics–Not relevant to all elemental teams. 

General Duties 

The general job duty of a signal maintainer is to perform periodic maintenance and repairs on the 

signals on an assigned section of track. He or she also applies electrical bonding wires to rail 

and installs insulated joints for signal system continuity. A signal maintainer usually works as an 

individual on an assigned territory but can work with another maintainer on a specific project or 

when repairs are required at night. The signal maintainer will perform minimal troubleshooting 

but carries out comprehensive tests on the signal systems in the field. 

 55 
Communication within the Team 

Signal maintainers communicate with one another in a variety of ways. Because signal 

maintainers often work independently, they are more likely to use radios or other electronic 

means to communicate with other maintainers or other crews. When working with other 

maintainers, they will use verbal face-to-face communication or hand signals. 

Interactions with Other Teams 

Signal maintainers interact with various other teams and individuals throughout their regular 

work period including dispatch and road crews. They interact with these groups via verbal, 

written, and radio communication. Clear and unambiguous communication between the signal 

maintainers, other functional teams, and individuals outside the crew is crucial to the overall 

safety of the workplace. Signal maintainers most often communicate with these individuals and 

groups via verbal face-to-face and/or radio communication. 

The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the signal maintainer’s work environment are relevant to CRM 

principles and training. Although they often work independently, they can be called to join and 

assist a MOW crew that is repairing rail (for example, to ensure signal continuity or track 

isolation). When performing this activity they must be able to communicate with the others on 

scene to quickly determine the situation. The independent nature of their normal day-to-day 

activity also makes them depend on their own proficiency and that of the dispatchers and other 

teams nearby to keep them informed of changes in their environment. 

Mechanical 

 Locomotive Repair 

Shop Crew 

Car Repair 

Shop Crew 

Cars 

 In-bound/Out-bound

Inspection Team 

Locomotives 

Hostler Locomotive 

Servicing Crew

Figure 3. Mechanical Crews Chart 

 56 
2.6 Mechanical Crews 

2.6.1 Hostler Crew 

Table 18. Hostler Crew 

General job description: Moves locomotives in and out of locomotive repair shop to 

various locations in yard. 

Elemental team: 2; hostler, brakeman (switchman). 

Communication within elemental team: Verbal face-to-face, hand signals, and radio 

communication. 

Team interacts with: road crew, dispatch, yardmaster, locomotive repair shop crew, yard 

foreman, via radio and verbal face-to-face communication. 

Variability within rail industry and other information: Although most hostlers work 

inside designated yard limits, some hostlers can, with special qualifications, work outside 

those yard limits to transfer power to other yards. 

Appropriate CRM training methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training. 

Italics–Not relevant to all elemental teams. 

General Duties 

The general job duty of a hostler crew is to move locomotives in and out of locomotive repair 

shop to various locations in yard. Although most hostler crews work inside designated yard 

limits, some hostlers can, with special qualifications, work outside those yard limits to transfer 

power to other nearby yards. A hostler crew is comprised of two persons, the hostler and a 

brakeman (switchman). The hostler gets his/her instructions from a trainmaster and drives the 

locomotive to designated locations in the rail yard to be cleaned, serviced, repaired, and supplied 

with fuel oil, water, lubricating oil, and/or sand. After the locomotive is serviced, the hostler 

delivers the locomotive to a location for pick up by a yard crew. The brakeman (switchman) 

throws track switches within the railroad yard. 

Communication within the Team 

A hostler crew communicates with one another in a variety of ways. Because much of the work 

done by the hostler crew involves the brakeman on the ground, much of the communication 

between the hostler and the brakeman is done with hand signals or radio communication. Hand 

signals are used to communicate between crewmembers when they can maintain visual contact 

yet the work environment is not suitable for verbal communication (for example, when some 

distance exists between the members or background noise makes verbal communication 

questionable). When operating at a distance from one another and outside of visual contact, 

hostler crew members commonly use handheld radios to communicate with one another. For 

example a hostler may call the switchman via radio when verifying that a switch has been 

thrown. 

 57 
Interactions with Other Teams 

A hostler crew interacts with various other teams and individuals throughout their regular work 

period, including road crews, dispatch, yardmasters, locomotive repair shop crews, and yard 

foreman. Hostler crews communicate with these groups or individuals via radio and verbal faceto-face communication. Clear and unambiguous communication between the hostler crew, other 

functional teams, and individuals outside the crew is crucial to the overall safety of the 

workplace. 

The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the hostler’s work environment are relevant to CRM principles and 

training. The hostler and switchman must work together as a team to safely move the 

locomotive in the yard environment. They must work with the yardmaster and yard dispatch to 

ensure that they remain clear of other yard traffic while doing so. The hostler crew must 

coordinate his efforts to ensure that he/she moves the locomotives in a sequence that does not 

conflict with the maintenance efforts in the locomotive repair shop. Safety in and around the 

shop when taking out a locomotive that has recently been serviced requires attention to detail and 

situational awareness of other ongoing activities. 

2.6.2 Locomotive Repair Shop Crew 

Table 19. Locomotive Repair Shop Crew 

General job description: Inspects, maintains, and repairs locomotive air brakes, diesel 

engines, air compressors, wheels, and trucks.

Elemental team: 3-6; foreman, sheet metal worker(s)/boilermaker(s), machinist(s), 

boilermaker(s), electrician(s), laborer(s), pipe fitter(s), and cab carpenter(s) (Metra). 

Communication within elemental team: Verbal face-to-face and non-verbal (hand 

signals) communication. 

Team interacts with: Carmen, Hostlers, Shop Foreman; via verbal and/or radio 

communication. 

Variability within rail industry and other information: The number and combination of 

crew members depends on the size of the job (daily inspection versus major overhaul). 

Appropriate CRM training methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training. 

General Duties 

The general job duty of a locomotive repair shop crew is to inspect, maintain, and repair 

locomotive air brakes, diesel engines, air compressors, wheels, and trucks. A locomotive repair 

shop crew is comprised of between three to six individuals. A team always includes a foreman; 

however, the range of jobs a locomotive repair shop crew can vary from a daily inspection to a 

major overhaul. Depending of the size and content of the job, the locomotive repair shop crew 

can include two or more of the following: sheet metal workers, machinists, boilermakers, cab 

carpenters, electricians, laborers, and/or pipefitters. 

 58 
The foreman supervises employees in the maintenance and repair of locomotives and equipment, 

troubleshooting of mechanical and electrical systems, and assists in the training of employees. 

The sheet metal worker/boilermaker cuts, bends, blocks, and forms material to repair damaged 

locomotives. He or she uses tools, such as shears, brakes, presses, and welders, to work with the 

material. A machinist works on the locomotive diesel engine carrying out tests and replacing 

parts and components. A machinist might use hand tools, hydraulic pressure gauges and pumps, 

pneumatic impact wrenches, and other power tools in this effort. The cab carpenter maintains 

the interior components in the cab including overhead panels and seats, using a variety of manual 

and power-operated hand tools. Electricians perform troubleshooting tasks to determine what 

locomotive systems require repair or replacement. They install replacement components and 

work with machinists to test the overall locomotive function. (Radiomen (electricians) install 

and maintain locomotive radios in compliance with regulation). Pipefitters maintain air piping 

and fuel lines in the locomotive system using hand wrenches, saws, cutting torches, pipe 

threaders, and benders. Laborers do any variety of manual tasks related to repairing the 

locomotive including working with other individuals on their tasks. While each of these crafts 

has specific assigned tasks, together they act as a team, responsible to the foreman, for 

completely performing the required repairs to the locomotive and returning it to service. 

Communication within the Team 

Locomotive repair shop crew personnel communicate with one another in a variety of ways. 

They communicate their presence to one another on the locomotive through the Federal blue flag 

requirement by attaching their personal blue flag to the blue flag post attached to the locomotive 

cab. Because locomotive repair shop crew members spend much of their on-duty time in close 

proximity to one another in or around the locomotive, verbal face-to-face communication is 

frequently used. Hand signals are also used to communicate between crewmembers when they 

can maintain visual contact, yet the work environment is not suitable for verbal communication 

(for example, when some distance exists between the members or background noise makes 

verbal communication dubious). When working on and around a locomotive, it can be very 

loud, making internal crew communication difficult. 

Interactions with Other Teams 

A locomotive repair shop crew interacts with various other teams and individuals throughout 

their regular work period, including carmen, hostlers, and shop foreman via verbal and/or radio 

communication. Clear and unambiguous communication between the locomotive repair shop 

crew, other functional teams, and individuals outside the crew is crucial to the overall safety of 

the workplace. 

 

The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the locomotive repair shop crew’s work environment are relevant to 

CRM principles and training. Although the members of this crew are carrying out different 

functions, they must coordinate their work with that of the other crewmembers and the foreman. 

The noisy and hazardous environment means that they must be constantly aware of their 

surroundings. Each member of the crew is expected to carry out his or her work in a technically 

proficient manner to prevent injury and error to others in this crew or the operating crew who 

will receive the locomotive once it leaves the shop. Engine function tests must be coordinated to 

make sure that other members of the crew are still inside performing maintenance. 

 59 
2.6.3 Locomotive Service Crew 

Table 20. Locomotive Service Crew 

General job description: Fuels and services locomotive prior to departure of train. 

Elemental team: 2-3; foreman, laborer(s).

Communication within elemental team: Verbal face-to-face, radio, and hand signal 

communication. 

Team interacts with: Hostler, road crew via verbal face-to-face and radio communication. 

Variability within rail industry and other information: May be carried out by senior 

mechanical forces qualified to perform locomotive inspections. 

Appropriate CRM Training Methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training. 

General Duties 

The general job duty of a locomotive service crew is to fuel and service locomotives prior to 

departure of train. A locomotive service crew is comprised of at least two persons, a foreman 

and a laborer. More laborers will be in a crew depending on the size of the job. The foreman 

supervises the personnel carrying out the fueling and servicing of the locomotive. Laborers do a 

variety of tasks related to the fueling and servicing on the locomotive. These include refueling, 

refilling sand reservoirs, and inspecting the locomotive for damage and defects to body, 

mechanical, or electrical components. Laborers may also perform such duties as cleaning the 

locomotive cab and bathroom, as well as refilling train crew amenities (water bottles). The 

locomotive service area may have one or more senior mechanical crew members assigned to the 

area in order to perform locomotive inspections. 

Communication within the Team 

Locomotive service crew personnel communicate with one another in a variety of ways 

including verbal face-to-face, radio, and hand signal communication. Many times the 

locomotive service personal work alone and do not have a great deal of interaction among 

laborers. This is because usually each laborer has a specific job duty to perform, which requires 

little interaction or coordination in order to accomplish a specific task. Circumstances exist, 

however, where locomotive servicing crew members do work together to perform a specific task 

related to the servicing of the locomotive. 

Interactions with Other Teams 

A locomotive service crew interacts with various other teams and individuals throughout their 

regular work period, including carmen and hostlers, via verbal and/or radio communication. 

They interact with hostlers when the locomotive must be moved in or out of the servicing facility 

to other areas of the yard (for example, to the locomotive repair shop). Clear and unambiguous 

communication between the locomotive service crew, other functional teams, and individuals 

outside the crew is crucial to the overall safety of the workplace. 

 60 
The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the locomotive service crew’s work environment are relevant to CRM 

principles and training. Coordination of activities, communication, and technical proficiency are 

the primary areas for this team. Situational awareness can be an important factor in this job as 

well. For example, a crewmember could fall from the locomotive, or a fuel leak or other unsafe 

condition could occur. 

2.6.4 Inbound-Outbound Train Inspection Team 

Table 21. Inbound-Outbound Train Inspection Team 

General job description: Repairing and inspecting railway cars, including identification 

of bad order cars.

Elemental team: 1-2; carmen.

Communication within elemental team: Verbal face-to-face, non-verbal (hand signals), 

and radio communication. 

Interacts with: Train crews, yard crews and yardmaster via verbal face-to-face, non-verbal 

(hand signals), and radio communication. 

Variability within rail industry and other information: Crews are commonly two 

carmen each inspecting one side of train; they may walk or use mechanized transport (e.g., 

ATV or motorized cart) to travel alongside train while inspecting; outbound inspectors may 

also be responsible for applying air to train’s air brake system once inspected and assisting 

with brake checks. 

Appropriate CRM training methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training. 

General Duties 

The general job duty of an inbound-outbound train inspection team is to repair and inspect 

railway cars, including identification of bad order cars. An inspection team can consist of one or 

more carmen. A carman’s duty is to inspect railroad cars for structural defects and test 

mechanical equipment, such as brakes, air hoses, and couplings to ensure that they are in 

operating condition. They may also inspect cars for electrical circuitry problems. They observe 

cars from the ground as they roll by. They may also climb aboard cars to test equipment and to 

locate defects. 

Although an inspection team can consist of only one carman, inbound-outbound inspection 

crews are commonly made up of two carmen, each inspecting one side of train. They may walk 

or use mechanized transport (e.g., ATV or motorized cart) to travel alongside the train while 

inspecting. Outbound inspectors may also be responsible for applying air to trains air brake 

system once it has been inspected and assisting with brake checks. 

Communication within the Team 

Inbound-outbound train inspection team personnel communicate with one another in a variety of 

ways, including verbal face-to-face, non-verbal (hand signals), and radio communication. 

 61 
Carmen, when they are having a job briefing or when they must work together in a specific 

situation, generally use verbal communication. Hand signals are also used to communicate 

between crewmembers when they can maintain visual contact yet the work environment is not 

suitable for verbal communication (for example, when some distance exists between the 

members or background noise makes verbal communication unsure). When operating at a 

distance from one another and outside of visual contact, inbound-outbound train inspection team 

personnel commonly use handheld radios to communicate with one another. Carmen also use 

written communication to pass information on bad order cars to car repair shop crews and other 

yard personnel. 

Interactions with Other Teams 

An inbound-outbound train inspection team interacts with various other teams and individuals 

throughout their regular work period, including road crews, yard crews, and yardmasters. They 

communicate with these other crews and individuals via written, verbal face-to-face, non-verbal 

(signs and hand signals), and radio communication. Carmen communicate to other teams in 

writing by preparing reports on their findings, indicating number of car and type of repair 

required. They may also tag cars in need of immediate repairs. They use non-verbal 

communication for safety purposes (for example, placing flags in front and rear of train to warn 

other workers that inspection is being performed). Clear and unambiguous communication 

between the inbound-outbound train inspection team, other functional teams, and individuals 

outside the crew is crucial to the overall safety of the workplace. 

The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the inbound-outbound train inspection team’s work environment are 

relevant to CRM principles and training. Carmen in the inbound-outbound inspection crews are 

working in and around tracks and moving railcars while performing an inspection. They must be 

constantly aware of their environment and communicating with one another and other crews 

working in the yard. They must be technically proficient, or a defective car could leave the yard 

and cause an accident. 

 62 
2.6.5 Car Repair Shop Crew 

Table 22. Car Repair Shop Crew 

General job description: Rebuilding, repairing, and inspecting rail cars.

Elemental Team: 2-6; carmen/sheetmetal worker(s), pipe fitter(s), and electrician(s) 

(Metra)

Communication within elemental team: Verbal communication. 

Interacts with: Hostlers via verbal face-to-face and radio communication. 

Variability within rail industry and other information: Carmen and electricians usually 

work together, while many times the pipe fitters and sheetmetal workers work independently 

(Metra). The supervision of car repair shop crews is variable. Most crews have an immediate 

supervisor directing their work; however, some railroads employ independent work teams 

(MRL). 

Appropriate CRM training methods: Classroom instruction (lecture, visual aids, roleplaying), CBT, simulator training. 

Italics–Not relevant to all elemental teams. 

General Duties 

The general job duty of a car repair shop crew is to rebuild, repair, and inspect rail cars. A car 

repair shop crew is comprised of at least two persons, including a carman, pipefitter, sheetmetal 

worker, or electrician(s) (Metra). Car repair shop crews can be as large as six, taking on extra 

electricians, pipe fitters, or carman/sheetmetal workers depending on the characteristics and size 

of the job. The carmen/sheetmetal worker replaces or repairs Federal appliances on cars to 

prevent personnel injuries from occurring. He or she also cuts, bends, blocks, and forms material 

for train cars. He or she uses machines such as shears, brakes, and presses for work with the 

material. Electricians install electrical wiring, equipment, fixtures, and other related devices 

related to rail cars. Pipefitters install and repair the pipes in the car airbrake system using saws, 

cutting torches, pipe threaders and benders. Usually the carmen and electricians work together, 

while many times the pipe fitters and sheetmetal workers work independently (for example, at 

Metra). 

Some variability in the supervision of a car repair shop crew elemental team does exist within the 

rail industry. Most car repair shop crews have an immediate supervisor directing their work; 

however, some railroads, for example MRL, employ independent work teams. 

Communication within the Team 

Because car repair shop crewmembers spend much of their on-duty time in close proximity to 

one another around a single rail car, verbal face-to-face communication is almost always used. 

Unlike locomotive repair shop crews, where the noise of the engine can make verbal face-to-face 

communication difficult, the noise level in a car repair shop is much lower except when 

mechanized tools are in use. 

 63 
Interactions with Other Teams 

A car repair shop crew interacts with various other teams and individuals throughout their 

regular work period. They communicate with yard personnel via face-to-face communication 

and hand signals when they are using a locomotive or a mule (car moving equipment) to move 

damaged or repaired cars in or out of the car repair shop. Clear and unambiguous 

communication between the car repair shop crew, other functional teams, and individuals outside 

the crew is crucial to the overall safety of the workplace. 

The Elemental Team and CRM 

Several characteristics of the car repair shop crew’s work environment are relevant to CRM 

principles and training. Carmen working together must coordinate their efforts. Other crafts 

must determine that the car is stable before attempting to carry out work. The car is often placed 

upon jacks to change out wheel sets, resulting in dangerous situations that must be handled 

through situational awareness and technical proficiency. 

2.7.1 Interactive Teams 

As stated above, a large number of interactive teams are also formed throughout the rail industry 

when an individual interacts with an elemental team, or two or more elemental teams work 

together to perform a task. While elemental teams are effectively defined and constant, 

interactive teams are not. In interactive teaming, the team makeup can vary greatly, and the 

teams may only be formed for a short time period and then dispersed. 

Often these teams can exist across organizational divisions within the railroad industry or at great 

geographic distances. Nonetheless, the individuals or elemental teams that come together to 

form the interactive team must communicate and cooperate in much the same way as the 

members of an elemental team must in order to safely complete a task. Table 23 shows 

examples of interactive teams. Although this table is not an exhaustive list, it gives models of 

how CRM principles—such as crewmember proficiency, situational awareness, communications 

and teamwork, and conflict resolution—can be applied at a higher level and not only at the 

easily-identifiable, elemental team or basic crew level. 

It is important to realize that these crews have already received some training or on-the-job 

experience in how to work together. The addition of formalized CRM training has the potential 

to improve this capacity to cooperate by teaching specific skills and cues that indicate a lack of 

understanding or decreased ability to perform. Using CRM skills and recognizing these cues, 

team members can change the way in which they present information or give additional 

information that will aid in safely completing an assigned work task. Chapter 4 will discuss the 

training of interactive teams in CRM principles in more detail; however, one of the better ways 

to accomplish this is to conduct CRM training in groups that include a mix of personnel from 

elemental teams that interact on a regular basis rather than training only with members of the 

same elemental team. This combined training allows sharing of experience from one discipline 

to another, thereby increasing appreciation and understanding of the needs associated with each 

elemental team. 

 64 
Table 23. Examples of Interactive Teams within the Rail Industry 

Interactive Team Team Function or Task/Relation to CRM Principles 

Dispatcher 

Road Crew 

The dispatcher and road crew must constantly communicate 

conditions, intentions, and other information to one another. They 

have a variety of communication methods (e.g., radio, signals). 

Determining what information to pass between elements within 

this interactive team requires knowledge of the needs and 

limitations of each position on the part of the other team member. 

Timeliness and completeness of information is also an issue. 

Dispatcher 

Section Gang 

The dispatcher and section gang must operate cooperatively in the 

use of track warrants so that necessary repairs, as well as 

continued rail operations, can take place. Coordination between 

the gang foreman and dispatcher on activating and vacating of 

track warrants is vital to ensure safety and not unnecessarily delay 

the progress of trains. The dispatcher must notify the gang of 

trains that must pass through the work area and their ETA. 

Dispatcher 

Road Crew 

MOW Crews 

The dispatcher, road crews, and MOW crews must often interact to 

maintain clear and unobstructed train passage. Information must 

pass between all the parties to prevent injury or accident. 

Yardmaster 

Locomotive Repair Crew 

Car Repair Crew 

Hostler Crew 

Yard Crew 

Yard Clerk 

This interactive team and subsets of its members must all 

coordinate movement of locomotives and cars within the yard to 

and from servicing or maintenance facilities. The hostler may 

move a locomotive out of the repair facility and put it in a location 

where it can be picked up by a yard crew, which then takes the 

locomotive to switch and gather bad order cars to move them to 

the repair-in-place tracks (RIP track) where the car repair crew 

repairs them. The yardmaster must organize and orchestrate such 

operations and keep everyone informed through a variety of 

written, telephonic, and electronic means. 

Production Gang 

Dispatcher 

Road Crew(s) 

A production gang must often work cooperatively with a 

dispatcher to allow windows of opportunity when he/she can clear 

the tracks during which trains can pass. The dispatcher must plan 

and line up the trains to take advantage of these pauses in the track 

work and sequence them properly to maximize traffic flow during 

that time. Road crews must be vigilant and responsive as they 

travel through areas where workers are present and speed 

restrictions may be in effect. 

 65 

3.0 Current Rail CRM Programs 

3.1 Site Visit Railroads 

Task 3.0 of this project consisted of a survey of railroad companies to determine if CRM training 

is performed and the methods used. The survey pool consisted of the same railroads contacted 

during Task 2.0 and other Class I railroads. To accomplish this, the research team collected data 

on railroad safety training programs during the Task 2.0 site visits that took place between May 

2002 and March 2003. The other Class I railroads were contacted by mail and followup phone 

calls to determine the status of any current CRM training programs or similar training efforts. 

3.1.1 Railroads Visited during Task 2.0 

BNSF 

Date of visit: May 20-24, 2002 

BNSF does not currently have a systemwide formal CRM training program for transportation or 

operating personnel. In March 2003, however, they initiated a CRM training program for 

operating crew employees in their southern California division. Additionally, BNSF has 

developed a CBT module for CRM that can be viewed by employees systemwide or assigned as 

remedial training. Other safety programs at BNSF also encompass various elements included in 

traditional CRM training programs, specifically the team building and situational awareness 

elements of CRM. 

BNSF incorporates many of the traditional training methods for their labor forces, including 

video, lecture, simulation, and CBT. BNSF also has a formal training program for labor forces 

that is similar to military training courses in which general classroom instruction sessions are 

followed by intensive hands-on training conducted either on-the-job (i.e., OJT) or through the 

use of advanced simulation devices. As a part of the team building and situational awareness 

training, BNSF reinforces the students’ learning with role-playing exercises where appropriate. 

TTI’s observations and review of BNSF’s current training methods, including their indicated 

future emphasis on CBT training, indicates that BNSF can incorporate CRM training into their 

current training programs with little or no training method change. In response to the research 

team’s request for information, members of the TTI team were invited to the BNSF training 

center at Johnson County Community College in Overland Park, KS, where the team reviewed 

their current CRM CBT curriculum and discussed the railroad’s current efforts with CRM. 

BNSF officials have shown a strong desire to improve their CRM training and expand it to 

include those teams outside the train operating crews. BNSF is working with the FRA Office of 

Safety and this research team to implement a limited pilot CRM training program at a terminal 

location in Fort Worth, TX. As noted above, BNSF has also recently begun a large CRM 

training effort in one of its regions. 

 67 
CSXT 

Date of visit: February 17-20, 2003 

CSXT does not currently have a system-wide formal CRM training program for transportation or 

operating personnel. CSXT incorporates many of the traditional training methods for their labor 

forces, including video, classroom, simulation, and CBT. CSXT has self-paced training 

available for all employees with specific courses on teams and team leadership through their 

Employee Development Program. The self-paced learning material is presented in book, 

audiotape, and CBT formats. CSXT also uses formal training for scheduled employees that is 

similar to military training courses with instruction sessions followed by intensive hands-on 

training. TTI expects CSXT could readily incorporate CRM training into their current training 

programs with little or no training method change. 

CSXT management has recently begun several new efforts to focus on safety at their railroad. 

Many of these programs are related to training in selected CRM principles and incorporate many 

of the characteristics of CRM without assigning the formal name of CRM. The most prominent 

program underway at CSXT of this type is the CSXT Safety Leadership Process training 

program that was observed and evaluated during the TTI team’s site visit to the Jacksonville 

terminal area. One member of the research team attended a day-long CSX Safety Leadership 

Process class, spoke with the instructors, and reviewed the student handout materials. 

CSXT management and the DuPont Corporation’s safety division initially developed this 

training program. Since that time, CSXT has internalized the program and developed initial 

classroom instruction for all employees that emphasizes the communications and situational 

awareness skills often contained in CRM training programs. One member of management and 

one labor safety representative who have been trained specifically in this subject area facilitate 

the class. This training was to be completed by every employee in the Jacksonville Division by 

March 31, 2003. This existing training program could likely be expanded to include additional 

elements of CRM training. 

Chicago Metra 

Date of visit: January 21-24, 2003 

Metra is a commuter railroad serving Chicago and its suburbs. Its trains run according to strictly 

scheduled operating plans to bring commuters to and from the downtown Chicago metropolitan 

area. The morning and evening rush hours allow little time for training and maintenance during 

those hours. The operational slow-down for several hours during mid-day is used for routine 

maintenance functions and is the time during which many training activities take place. Over a 

set period of days, all of the rolling stock on a particular commuter line will cycle through the 

line’s maintenance facility during these mid-day hours. 

Many of the lines that Metra operates were once operated by freight railroads and have since 

been taken over by the public agency. Subsequently, the majority of the operating employees are 

trained (qualified) railroad personnel that were retained and have continued to operate trains over 

the same line as when they were employees of the freight railroads. In fact, several of Metra’s 

commuter routes use the track of a major freight railroad. On these routes, Metra owns the 

passenger equipment, but freight railroad employees trained as passenger train operating crews 

 68 
operate it. As retirement and attrition have taken place, new hires have been trained and/or 

promoted through the traditional apprenticeship method. 

CRM is not currently a part of the Metra training program. In spite of this, Metra does 

incorporate different elements of CRM in its roadway worker and operating rules safety training 

and testing program. Although no CRM training program presently exists, CRM could be 

incorporated into the existing training and testing program over an extended period of time. 

MRL 

Date of visit: October 26-30, 2002 

MRL is a relatively new railroad company, yet the physical property and its employees generally 

represent an existing railroad labor contingent from the BN’s former Northern Pacific Railroad, 

from which MRL was created in 1987. Most new engineers hired by MRL have been previously 

trained and qualified at other railroad companies. Furthermore, MRL is somewhat unique 

because it operates trains with crews of two qualified locomotive engineers rather than an 

engineer and a conductor. 

MRL does not have an ongoing CRM training program for their train crews. MRL, however, did 

conduct a one-time CRM training program for their locomotive engineers in approximately 1998 

or 1999 as part of its engineer re-certification training program. MRL management and safety 

officials support CRM and its concepts. Due to the railroad company’s small size, low hiring 

frequency, limited formal training program, and their high crew workload at the present time, 

however, it would be quite difficult for MRL to effectively incorporate a formal CRM training 

program. Expanding CRM to incorporate other crews at such a small railroad would also be 

difficult due to limited staff and training facilities. It is likely that certain aspects of CRM 

training programs would need to be tailored specifically for regional and shortline railroads, 

taking into account their more limited training capacity in personnel time and training facilities. 

Amtrak 

Date of visit: March 24-26, 2003 

Amtrak has a formal CRM training program for its locomotive engineers. The program is based 

upon the materials supplied and developed by AAR in conjunction with NS. The basic AAR 

CRM program resulted from a NTSB recommendation that all U.S. railroads should conduct 

CRM training for operating (transportation) personnel. Amtrak supplied specific video clips and 

logo materials for inclusion in the materials presented to engineers to enhance identification with 

actual Amtrak activity. The training program was first presented to a class of new hire student 

engineers in 2000. 

The existing training video and materials, as supplied to Amtrak, are structured to be presented 

in a single training cycle. Amtrak’s engineer training personnel, however, have modified the 

delivery schedule of the program and present it in four segments over a 4 to 6 week period to 

newly hired engineers. Amtrak’s engineer training officers are convinced that CRM training 

needs to be periodic, allowing for reinforcement of the concepts, rather than a single session 

where the student may see the concept as a one-time introduction and fail to grasp the continuous 

applicability of CRM to his or her personal and working life. Annual engineer refresher training 

on CRM is a 1 to 2 hour session in which CRM is included along with other training topics. 

 69 
Amtrak uses the traditional railroad training means of OJT (i.e., helper-apprentice qualification) 

and other training methods, including classroom lectures, video, overhead or electronic slide 

presentations, and CBT. The existing facilities and training capabilities of Amtrak make it 

possible that an expansion of CRM training to other crafts and teams could be developed over 

time. 

3.1.2 Other Class I Railroads 

NS 

Norfolk Southern (NS) supplied the research team with a letter response in which they stated that 

they were currently using the AAR-CRM training program developed jointly by NS and AAR in 

2000. In this letter they state: 

At NS, CRM is included in the training provided to employees in our Accelerated 

Conductor Training program and to new dispatchers. The concepts are reviewed 

annually in book of rules classes and are included in numerous training initiatives 

involving train, engine and dispatcher personnel. Our approach to CRM is that it is 

an on-going process that positively influences safety of operations in the railroad 

industry (C.J. Wehrmeister, personal communication, October 3, 2002). 

Additionally, they state: 

The AAR-CRM training program provides the railroad industry with a 

comprehensive and high quality product that contributes to our efforts of achieving 

continuous improvement in safety of operations (C.J. Wehrmeister, personal 

communication, October 3, 2002). 

CP 

CP has a rather well advanced and implemented CRM program in comparison to most other 

North American railroads. In responding to the research team’s request for information, CP 

outlined in detail the extent of their efforts with CRM on different divisions of their rail system. 

CP’s implementation of CRM began with their Canadian territories in 2001 with a 4-hour 

training program, including elements of both CRM and the FRA’s Switching Operations 

Fatalities Analysis (SOFA) principles. Within Canada, their program has advanced after several 

years, from classroom instruction to its present form in which “an Instructor/Coach will be riding 

with each running trades employee and will observe their performance. The coach will provide 

feedback on their performance and pay particular attention to the way the train and yard crews 

apply the CRM principles on the job” (Paul Wajda, personal e-mail communication, April 3, 

2003). 

Similarly, CP initiated CRM training in the United States during 2001 by conducting a 2-day 

CRM/SOFA training program for all running trades employees in its Chicago and Saint Paul 

service areas. A 4-hour training session on CRM was provided to the CP employees in its 

Northeastern Service Area (the former Delaware and Hudson). Both areas responded positively 

to the training. CP reports that employees primarily expressed interest in the SOFA and 

 70 
situational awareness topics. In 2002, CP embedded elements of CRM into its annual 

recertification programs. Specifically, communication and situational awareness factors were 

incorporated into the trip simulation portion of the training. Additionally, CP states that all newhire conductors in Canada and the United States receive the 2-day CRM program (Paul Wajda, 

personal e-mail communication, April 3, 2003). 

KCS 

KCS does not currently provide a CRM training program. It has shown great interest in CRM 

principles, however, and has taken several steps toward participating in a broad CRM training 

program. Members of the research team have met with KCS officials and briefed them on this 

project. In conducting these meetings, researchers found that KCS had reviewed the AAR CRM 

training program materials and had attended CP’s CRM training to assess its applicability to 

KCS. It is their feeling that the existing CRM training programs would need to be modified to 

meet the needs of their railroad. FRA’s Office of Safety has responded to KCS’s strong interest 

and asked that TTI include KCS’s input as part of its development of a pilot CRM training 

program that is ongoing with BNSF as an extension to the project described in this report. 

UP 

UP supplied the research team with a copy of the CRM program material that they present to 

their employees. The material is the standard AAR developed CRM training program. Based 

upon the material provided and subsequent inquiries to UP, it is the research team’s 

understanding that this CRM course is used by UP to train all train and engine service 

employees. It is provided on a one-time basis with no formal ongoing refresher courses. UP 

instead provides for followup consultations and in-cab CRM technique implementation through 

at least semi-annual one-on-one sessions with supervisory train and engine personnel. UP 

indicates the one-on-one sessions between the employee and the supervisor provide a more 

effective means of reinforcing the formal CRM training than merely providing further classroom 

instruction sessions of CRM on a repetitive basis (i.e., every 2 years). 

Under UP’s Total Safety Culture approach to operations, field managers present structured or 

pre-prepared subjects to train service employees as part of the ongoing schedule of regular safety 

meetings. UP’s Training Department has prepared several topical modules for field managers to 

present at the train service safety meetings that address cab communications, conflict resolution, 

and situational awareness. These pre-prepared topics are designed for focused application of the 

subject matter versus a broad-brush discussion of the theory. 

CRM principles are generally applied throughout UP’s scheduled crafts training materials. It is 

not UP’s practice, however, to formalize the material presentation into a specific course of 

presentation directed to CRM. The principles are a general subset of the Total Safety Culture 

climate at UP and are most identifiable in the Mechanical Department training at this time 

according to UP. UP does emphasize that the cultural awareness and application of CRM 

principles are gradually being absorbed into the Engineering and Transportation Department’s 

training programs as well. The focus is on topical presentation of each principle as it can be 

applied to the different department’s functions and situations. 

 71 
CN 

CN employs the standard AAR CRM training program as the basis for a train and engineman 

CRM training program. TTI was supplied with a complete copy of the CN program, including 

the course leader guidebook, computer presentation, student worksheets, and video. The 

program is used in Canada and the United States on CN system roads, including the Illinois 

Central (IC) portion of the company. A substantial amount of leeway is allowed for presentation 

of this program to CN-IC crews. It is arranged in a manner allowing the program to be presented 

in either one continuous session or in several segments, as time allows at the location of 

instruction. 

Currently, the CRM program is presented as part of the CN new hires program and in rules 

training, which occurs on a biennial or quadrennial basis. CN is presently reevaluating its CRM 

training program for possible improvements. Part of this process is centered on formalizing its 

presentation of CRM skills as a distinct training element. The current system allows supervisors 

to incorporate CRM concepts into regular, ongoing briefings, but employees often answer no 

when asked if they have received CRM training by NTSB during accident investigations. When 

employee training records are checked, it has been documented that they have actually 

undergone CRM training. When asked again, the employees are able to explain concepts of 

CRM and remember undergoing that training, but fail to identify it with CRM. CN is also open 

to using CRM in its other crafts (i.e., MOW, mechanical, etc.), but efforts to date have focused 

mainly on training road crews. 

3.2 Conclusions 

Based upon the findings observed or determined during the site visits made for this project, it is 

apparent that none of the U.S. Class I railroads currently have a comprehensive formal CRM 

training or awareness program that covers all employee crafts. Those railroads that have active 

formal CRM training programs, with the sole exception of NS, restrict CRM training to train and 

engine service employees. NS also includes dispatchers in their CRM training courses, including 

regular annual classroom refresher training. 

Many CRM principles and skills are taught to the broad employee base throughout the rail 

industry but not through any formal training that is called CRM. Teamwork is often taught as a 

value, and the associated actions relating to many of the teamwork skills contained in formalized 

CRM programs are provided throughout many different training courses. The idea of teamwork 

within a CRM framework, however, is not necessarily taught. Situational awareness is another 

principle of CRM that may be taught industry-wide but not in the context of CRM and its other 

precepts. 

The training systems and support network of educational materials and methods available 

throughout U.S. Class I railroads and their training departments is capable of implementing 

CRM more fully through improved and formalized training courses using existing methods. The 

same capacity to quickly implement CRM is not apparent in the shortline and regional railroad 

segment of the industry. Commuter railroads may also have difficulty in fully implementing 

CRM in the short term due to limited training opportunities related to their more dynamic 

operational schedule. In order for the railroad industry to expand its use of CRM training 

 72 
beyond the operational crews, as the airline industry and others have, labor and management 

must recognize that important safety benefits that flow from CRM training can also bring 

economic benefits to the industry, as a whole. as a byproduct of lower accident rates. Federal 

support of CRM training is also essential if it is to be fully implemented through all crafts at the 

railroad. 

 73 

4.0 Mapping Observed Railroad Teams to Appropriate Training Methods 

4.1 Matching Training Methodology with Railroad Teams 

Up to this point in this report, the different methods for delivery of a CRM training and the types 

of team members who would receive CRM training have been reviewed. In order to maximize 

the effectiveness of CRM, it is necessary to properly match the teams to a specific training 

method or group of methods. Making this decision should require a team of employees from the 

railroad who have a thorough understanding of both the jobs and teams involved, as well as 

experts in the field of learning and training (who are not necessarily employees of a railroad). 

Often a combination of training methodologies will provide the best coverage of CRM skill sets. 

For example, a CRM training program might begin with a 1-day lecture and group discussion on 

the basics of CRM followed by work and evaluation in a simulator. To guide in the decision of 

what training methods should be implemented in a training program, Haccoun and Saks (1998) 

recommend using what they call a training analysis grid (TAG). Modified below to fit CRM 

training specifically, the TAG would have a list of CRM competencies as row headings with 

training modalities/activities as different column headings as shown in Table 24. A trainer could 

then ensure that each of the components of CRM was getting coverage across the training 

activities. 

Table 24. Example of CRM-Based Training Analysis Grid 

Desired CRM 

Competencies Lecture Simulator 

Group 

Discussion 

Case 

Study 

Interactive 

Video 

Interactive 

Training 

Communication X X X X 

Assertiveness X X X 

Crewmember 

Proficiency X X X X X 

Team Work X X X X 

Situational 

Awareness X X X X X X 

Crew 

Coordination X X X X 

Active Practice 

and Feedback X X X 

It is also important to supplement less traditional training methodologies with those that have 

been commonly accepted and time-tested in the industry of choice. For example, the U.S. 

Minerals Management Service, which regulates the training practices of oil and gas drilling 

operations, allows for alternative training methods, such as computer-based learning and videos, 

but recommends that these methodologies be reinforced with demonstrations and hands-on 

training (Federal Register, 2000). 

 75 
4.1.1 Effectiveness of CRM Training Methods for Different Types of Teams 

One of the benefits of CRM training has been its applicability to training at the team rather than 

simply individual level (Seamster and Kaempf, 2001). CRM has been found to be effective for 

crews or other teams that, at least on certain occasions, must make decisions quickly (Koenig, 

1997). Seamster and Kaempf (2001) suggest that resource management skills will be well suited 

to teams, which perform “complex, time-constrained, and critical tasks.” Examples of such 

teams would include surgical teams, nuclear power plant teams, cockpit crews, and tank crews. 

CRM has also been used effectively in teams where assertive behavior can help a team to “pool 

[their] ideas, observations, and concerns to reach decisions that have far-reaching financial 

implications for their organizations” (Jentsch and Smith-Jentsch, 2001). 

4.2 Elemental Teams 

Table 25 includes the recommended training methods for elemental teams. The table lists 

possible training methods for each team based upon those identified and in use in other industries 

for similar teams. The listings of training methods are in order of desirability; however, not all 

railroad companies will have the resources to apply certain methods. For example, not all 

railroads will have a locomotive simulator available to practice CRM skills in such cases; the 

railroad should look for other methods in the list, such as OJT, as a method to teach and reinforce 

CRM. Likewise, CBT may not be available, but film or video might be. Training departments at 

railroads should have the flexibility to choose the best method for their situation. That being 

said, almost all existing CRM training programs begin with an instructor/facilitator-led 

classroom instruction period during which basic CRM principles are presented and practiced. 

 76 
Table 25. Recommended Training Methods for Elemental Teams 

RECOMMENDED TRAINING METHODS Elemental Team Cognitive/Knowledge Behavioral Recurrent 

Freight Road Crew • Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• Locomotive 

Simulator 

• OJT 

• Locomotive 

Simulator 

• OJT 

• FICBT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

Passenger Road 

Crew 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• Locomotive 

Simulator 

• OJT 

• Locomotive 

Simulator 

• OJT 

• FICBT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

Track Inspector • Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• OJT 

• OJT 

• FICBT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

Yard Crew (Remote 

Control) 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• Hands-on 

Training 

Simulator 

• OJT 

• Hands-on 

Training 

Simulator 

• OJT 

• FICBT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

 77 
RECOMMENDED TRAINING METHODS Elemental Team Cognitive/Knowledge Behavioral Recurrent 

Yard Crew 

(Conventional) 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• Locomotive 

Simulator 

• OJT 

• Locomotive 

Simulator 

• OJT 

• FICBT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

Dispatch Crew • Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• Dispatch 

Training 

Simulator 

• OJT 

• Dispatch 

Training 

Simulator 

• OJT 

• FICBT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• Computer-based 

training CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

Intermodal Load 

and Unload Crew 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Intermodal 

Load and 

Unload 

Simulation 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• OJT 

• Simulation 

• OJT 

• FICBT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

Section Gang • Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• Hands-on Rail 

Simulation 

• OJT 

• Hands-on Rail 

Simulation 

• OJT 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• FICBT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

 78 
RECOMMENDED TRAINING METHODS Elemental Team Cognitive/Knowledge Behavioral Recurrent 

Production Gang • Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• OJT 

• OJT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

Structures (BandB) • Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• OJT 

• OJT 

• FICBT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

Electrical Bonding 

Crew 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• Electrical 

Bonding 

Simulation 

• OJT 

• Electrical 

Bonding 

Simulation 

• OJT 

• FICBT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

Catenary 

Maintenance Crew 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• Catenary 

Simulation 

• OJT 

• Catenary 

Simulation 

• OJT 

• FICBT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

 79 
RECOMMENDED TRAINING METHODS Elemental Team Cognitive/Knowledge Behavioral Recurrent 

Signal Gang • Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• OJT 

• OJT 

• FICBT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

Signal Maintainer • Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• Simulation 

• OJT 

• Simulation 

• OJT 

• FICBT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

Hostler Crew • Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• Locomotive 

Simulator 

• OJT 

• Locomotive 

Simulator 

• OJT 

• FICBT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

Locomotive Repair 

Shop Crew 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• Hands-on 

Simulation 

• OJT 

• Hands-on 

Simulation 

• OJT 

• FICBT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

 80 
RECOMMENDED TRAINING METHODS Elemental Team Cognitive/Knowledge Behavioral Recurrent 

Locomotive Service 

Crew 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• Hands-on 

Simulation 

• OJT 

• Hands-on 

Simulation 

• OJT 

• FICBT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

Inbound-Outbound 

Train Inspection 

Team 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• Train 

Inspection 

Simulations 

• OJT 

• Train Inspection 

Simulations 

• OJT 

• FICBT 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

Car Repair Shop 

Crews 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• FICBT 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

(Role-Play) 

• OJT 

• Car repair 

simulation 

• OJT 

• FICBT Systems 

• Classroom 

Instruction 

• Role-Play/ 

Scenarios 

• CBT 

• Film or Video 

Instruction 

4.3 Interactive Teams 

While each of the above training methods is available for specialized training to the elemental 

teams, the preferred method of presenting CRM training is through the use of a combined 

training forum in which members of several closely related elemental teams are trained 

simultaneously. As mentioned in Chapter 2, this type of combined training allows sharing of 

experience from one discipline to another, thereby increasing the appreciation that CRM skills 

can be applied throughout all aspects of the rail industry and are not limited to only those internal 

to each elemental team. 

 81 
4.4 Use of Combined Team Classroom Instruction 

Of the training methods discovered during this project, perhaps the most promising is the use of 

classroom instruction to train a variety of employees, representing several elemental teams, that 

have been grouped according to similar job functions. This model has been used at Maersk 

Shipping and the U.S. Navy for their initial CRM training programs. As an example, this report 

has grouped the identified elemental teams into three groups—transportation, engineering, and 

mechanical—as shown in Chapter 2. Each of these areas could become a training group under 

which individual tracks of training materials could be developed. Films or videos and 

incidents/scenarios related directly to the daily activities of those in that particular training group 

could then be selected and tailored to their specific needs. Selecting such examples and 

balancing the content across all of the participants in each training group would ensure that the 

trainees remain engaged and attentive. This specialization of the training program allows for 

trainees to more readily accept the CRM concepts and put them into practice. Training in this 

manner allows for the different railroad crafts to interact and share insights or work procedural 

knowledge that could be useful in fostering better teamwork and improved safety. Once the 

initial awareness training phase is complete, practice and feedback could take place on an even 

more specialized, elemental team basis, as well using the methods described above. 

4.5 Gaps in Training Methods 

One task that was specifically assigned as part of this study was the identification of any gaps in 

available training methods for CRM in the railroad environment. Based upon the literature 

review and survey of railroad teams, a shortage of training methods does not appear to exist; a 

problem does exist with the general availability of certain training resources. This lack of 

available resources is due to several factors, including geographic proximity of some railroad 

crew locations to designated railroad training centers, the funding levels dedicated by Class I 

railroads for training compared to that which can be dedicated by smaller rail companies, and the 

costs associated with purchase and maintenance of advanced simulation/CBT devices (or 

rental/travel/lost work time costs necessary to gain access to such devices). 

Current CRM programs in the rail environment such as that produced by AAR are a positive 

first-step towards training railroad personnel. The lack of emphasis on non-operating crafts in 

the examples and application of CRM in such programs, however, limits its effectiveness in 

moving CRM principles into other crafts. Just as the airline industry first applied CRM in the 

cockpit and later applied it to other areas, the railroad industry too needs to seek such a change in 

the focus of its CRM programs. Creative use of the available training methods such as those 

outlined in this report will ease this transition. 

4.6 Conclusions 

CRM training could be much more widely applied within the rail industry to address human 

factors error and prevent accidents before they take place. Many different training methods 

exist, which can be used to train the varied elemental and interactive teams identified in this 

report. While not all of the methods can be applied at every railroad or in every circumstance, 

ample methodological options exist for improvement in both cognitive and behavioral training in 

CRM available to every railroad company. At the present time, organization and dedication of 

 82 
training resources to the issues of CRM need improvement. In order for this or any training 

program of this sort to fully succeed, the support of the railroad industry as a whole—labor and 

management—as well as that of the government must be directed at these issues. Without such 

support, CRM will not be able to meet its full potential. 

 83 

References 

Bailey, L. L., and Shaw, R. V. (1996). Flight inspection crew resource management training 

needs analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Aviation Medicine. 

Baker, D., Prince, C., Shrestha, L., Oser, R., and Salas, E. (1993). Aviation computer games for 

crew resource management training. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 143-

156. 

Baldwin, T.T., and Ford, J.K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future 

research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63-105. 

Baldwin, T.T., Magjuka, R.J., and Loher, B.T. (1991). The perils of participation: Effects of 

choice of training on trainee motivation and learning. Personnel Psychology, 44, 51-65. 

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall. 

Bass, E.J. (1998). Towards and intelligent tutoring system for situation awareness training in 

complex, dynamic environments. In Goettl et al.’s (Eds.), ITS ’98, p 26-35. 

Blanchard, N.P, and Thacker, J.W. (1999). Effective training: systems, strategies, and practices. 

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Bowers, C., Salas, E., Prince, C., and Brannick, M. (1992). Games teams play: A method for 

investigating team coordination and performance. Behavior Research Methods, 

Instruments and Computers, 24, 503-506. 

Burke, M., and Day, R. (1986). A cumulative study of the effectiveness of managerial training. 

Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 232-245. 

Cohea, W.W. (1997). Report on the joint industry project on human factors in offshore 

operations. Retrieved January 13, 2003, from Department of Interior, Minerals 

Management Services Web site: http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/220.htm. 

Cooper, G.E., White, M.D., and Lauber, J.K. (1980). Resource management on the flight deck. 

Proceedings of a NASA/Industry Workshop. [NASA CP-2120]. Moffett Field, CA: 

NASA-Ames Research Center. 

Davies, J.M. (2001). Medical applications of crew resource management. In E. Salas, CA 

Bowers, and E. Edens (Eds.), Improving teamwork in organizations: Applications of 

resource management training. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p 265-281. 

Eberts, R.E., and Brock, J.F. (1987). Computer-assisted and computer-managed instruction. In 

G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

 85 
Federal Aviation Administration (1989). Cockpit resource management training (Advisory 

Circular Publication No. 120-51A). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. 

Federal Railroad Administration (1999). Railroad safety statistics annual report. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Public Affairs. 

Flin, R. (1995). Crew resource management for team in the offshore oil industry. Journal of 

European Industrial Training, 19(9), 23-27. 

Flin, R., and O’Connor, P. (2001). Applying CRM on offshore oil platforms. In E. Salas, C.A. 

Bowers, and E. Edens (Eds.), Improving Teamwork in Organizations: Applications of 

Resource Management Training. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Mahwah, NJ. 

Flin, R., O’Connor, P., Mearns, K., Gordon, R., and Whitaker, S. (2000). Factoring the human 

into safety: Translating research into practice (Report to HSE OSD). University of 

Aberdeen. 

 

Gaba, D.M., Howard, S.K., Fish, K.J., Smith, B.E, and Sowb, Y.A. (2001). Simulation-based 

training in anesthesia crisis resource management (ACRM): A decade of experience. 

Simulation and Gaming, 32(2), 175-193. 

Goldstein, I.L., and Ford, J.K. (2002). Training In Organizations (4th edition). Belmont, CA: 

Wadsworth Group. 

Gray, G.R., Hall, M.E., Miller, M., and Shasky, C. (1997). Training practices in state 

government agencies. Public Personnel Management, 26, 187-202. 

Gregorich, S.E., Helmreich, R.L., and Wilhelm, J.A. (1990). The structure of cockpit 

management attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 682-690. 

Grinde, T.A. (1994). Emergency resource management training. In Proceedings of the second 

international conference on health, safety, and the environment in oil and gas exploration 

and production (Vol, 2, 413-417). Richardson, TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers. 

Guzzo, R.A., and Dickson, M.W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on 

performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338. 

Haccoun, R.R., and Saks, A.M. (1998). Training in the 21st century: Some lessons from the last 

one. Canadian Psychology, 39, 33-51. 

Hackman, J.R. (Ed). (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t): Creating conditions for 

effective teamwork. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 

 86 
Halamek, L.P., Kaigi, D.M., Gaba, D.M., Sowb, Y.A., Smith, B.C., Smith, B.E., and Howard, 

S.K. (2000). Time for a new paradigm in pediatric medical education: Teaching neonatal 

resuscitation in a simulated delivery room environment. Pediatrics, 106(4), E45. Retrieved 

May 24th 2003, from http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/106/4/e45 

Hargreaves, P. and Jarvis, P. (1998). The Human Resource Development Handbook. London, 

UK: Kogan Page Limited. 

Harrington, D., and Kello, J. (1991). Systematic evaluation of nuclear operator team skills 

training. Paper presented at the American Nuclear Society, San Francisco, CA. 

Helmreich, R. (in press). Culture, threat, and error: Assessing system safety. Safety in 

Aviation: The Management Commitment: Proceedings of a Conference. London, UK: 

Royal Aeronautical Society. 

Helmreich, R.L., Klinect, J.R., and Wilhelm, J.A. (in press). System safety and threat and error 

management: The line operations safety audit (LOSA). In Proceedings of the Eleventh 

International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State 

University. (UTHFRP Pub 261). 

Helmreich, R. L., Merritt, A. C., and Wilhelm, J. A. (1999). The evolution of crew resource 

management training in commercial aviation. International Journal of Aviation 

Psychology, 91 (1), 19-32. 

Howard, S.K., Gaba, D.M., Fish, K.J., Yand, G., and Sarnquist, F.H. (1992). Anesthesia crisis 

resource management training: Teaching anesthesiologist to handle critical incidents. 

Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 63, 763-770. 

Jacobs, J.W., Prince, C., Hays, R.T., and Salas, E. (1990). A meta-analysis of the flight 

simulator training research (Publication No. TR-89-006). Orlando, FL: Naval Training 

Systems Center. 

Jentsch, F., and Smith-Jentsch, K.A. (2001). Assertiveness and team performance: More than 

“just say no.” In E. Salas, C. A. Bowers, and E. Edens (Eds.), Improving teamwork in 

organizations: Applications of resource management training. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates. 

Jha, A.K., Duncan, B.W., and Bates, D.W. (n.d.). Fatigue, sleepiness, and medical errors.

Retrieved May 15, 2003, from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Web site: 

http://www.ahcpr.gov/clinic/ptsafety/pdf/chap46.pdf. 

Kline, T. (1999). Remaking teams: The revolutionary research-based guide that puts theory 

into practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Koenig, R.L. (1997). FAA identifies CRM-related issues and training needs in flight-inspection 

missions. Human Factors and Aviation Medicine, 44 (1), 1-7. 

 87 
Kyte, T.K. (1998). Training the “use of deadly force” at the NYPD. Study and presentation at 

New York University. 

Lauber, J.K. (1987). Cockpit resource management: Background studies and rationale. In H.W. 

Orlady and H.C. Foushee (Eds.), Cockpit resource management training: Proceedings of 

the NASA/MAC workshop (NASA CP-2455; 5-14). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames 

Research Center. 

Maersk Training Center Website, n.d. Retrieved Febuary 11, 2003, from 

http://www.maersktrainingcentre.com/default.asp?page=2&Groupid=3. 

Marquardt, M.J., and Kearsley, G. (1999). Technology-based learning: Maximizing human 

performance and corporate success. Boca Raton, FL., CRC Press LLC. 

McPherson, M., and Beard, C. (1999). The selection, design and use of individualized training 

methods. In J.P. Wilson (Ed.), Human resource development: Learning and training for 

individuals and organizations. London, UK: Kogan Page. 

Mearns, K., Flin, R., Fleming, M., and Gordon, R. (1997). Human and organizational factors in 

offshore safety. Suffolk, UK: HSE Books. 

Moore, W. H., and Bea, R. G. (1993). Management of human and organizational error in 

operational reliability of marine structures: Final joint industry project report, report No. 

HOE-93-1. Retrieved January 14, 2003, from U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service Web site: http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/167.htm. 

Motowidlo, S.J., Dunnette, M.D., and Carter, G.W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: 

The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 640-647. 

Motowidlo, S.J., Hanson, M.A., and Crafts, J.L. (1997). Low-fidelity simulations. In D. L. 

Whetzel and G. R. Wheaton (Eds.), Applied measurement methods in industrial 

psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing. 

Muraida, D.L, and Spector, J.M. (1993). The advanced instructional design advisor. 

Instructional Science, 21, 239-253. 

National Transportation Safety Board. (1999c). Safety recommendation. (Railroad Safety 

Recommendation R-99-25). Washington, DC. 

Naval Aviation Schools Command (2003A) Retrieved from http://wwwnt.cnet.navy.mil/crm. 

Naval Aviation Schools Command (2003B); OPNAV INSTRUCTION 1542.7C from 

http://wwwnt.cnet.navy.mil/crm/crm/opnavinst/1542C.doc. 

 88 
Naval Safety Center Helicopter GCT (ground crew coordination training) (n.d.). Retrieved 

August 21, 2002, from 

http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/presentations/aviation/helogct.htm. 

 

Oser, R.L., Gualtieri, J.W., Cannon-Bowers, J.A., and Salas, E. (1999). Training in problem 

solving skills: An event-based approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 441-462. 

Paton, D., and Flin, R. (1999). Disaster stress: An emergency management perspective. 

Disaster Prevention and Management, 8, 261-267. 

Pizzi, L., Goldfarb, N., and Nash, D.B. (n.d.). Crew resource management and its applications in 

medicine. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 43, Making Health Care Safer: A 

Critical Analysis of Patient Safety Practices, AHRQ Publication No. 01-E058 (Available 

online at http://www.ahcpr.gov/clinic/ptsafety/chap44.htm. 

Prince, C., Chidester, T.R., Bowers, C., and Cannon-Bowers, J. (1992). Aircrew coordination: 

Achieving teamwork in the cockpit. In R. W. Swezey and E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their 

training and performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. 

Risser, D.T., Rice, M.M., Salisbury, M.L., Simon, R., Jay, G.D., and Berns, S.D., (1999). The 

potential for improved teamwork to reduce medical errors in the emergency department. 

Annals of Emergency Medicine, 34(3), 373-383. 

Rothwell, W.J. (1999). On-the-job training. In D.G. Landon, K.S. Whiteside, and M.M. 

McKenna (Eds.), Intervention resource guide: 50 performance improvement tools. San 

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Salas, E., Dickinson, T.L., Converse, S.A., and Tannenbaum, S.I. (1992). Toward an 

understanding of team performance and training. In R.W. Swezey, and Salas, E. (Eds.), 

Teams: Their training and performance (3-29). Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing. 

Salas, E., Fowlkes, J.E., Stout, R.J., Milanovich, D.M., and Prince, C. (1999). Does CRM 

training improve teamwork skills in the cockpit? Two evaluation studies. Human Factors, 

42, 326-343. 

Salas, E., Prince, C., Bowers, C.A., Stout, R.J., Oser, R.L., and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (1999). A 

methodology for enhancing crew resource management training. Human Factors, 41, 161-

172. 

Salas, E., Rhodenizer, L., and Bowers, C.A. (2000). The design and delivery of crew resource 

management training: Exploiting available resources. Human Factors, 42, 490-511. 

Seamster, T.L., and Kaempf, G.L. (2001). Identifying resource management skills for airline 

pilots. In E. Salas, C. A. Bowers, and E. Edens (Eds.), Improving Teamwork in 

Organizations: Applications of Resource Management Training. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates. 

 89 
Spiker, V.A.. Nullmeyer, R.T., Tourville, S.J., and Silverman, D.R. (1997). Tactical team 

resource management effects on combat mission training performance. Daytona, OH: Air 

Force Research Laboratory, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Warfighter Training 

Research Division. 

Swezey, R.W., Owens, J.M., Bergondy, M.L., and Salas, E. (1998). Task and training 

requirements analysis methodology (TTRAM): An analytic methodology for identifying 

potential training uses of simulator networks in teamwork-intensive task environments. 

Ergonomics, 41, 1678-1697. 

Tannebaum, S.I., and Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations. 

Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 399-441. 

Tracey, J.B., Tannebaum, S.I., and Kavanagh, M.J. (1995). Applying trained skills on the job: 

The importance of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 239-252. 

Training and Development. (1998). The 1998 ASTD state of the industry report, 35-37. 

U.S. Coast Guard Website, (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.uscg.mil/stcw/index.htm. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). FAA’s guidance and oversight of pilot crew resource 

management training can be improved: Report to congressional requesters. 

Wiener, E.L., Kanki, B.G., and Helmreich, R.L. (Eds.) (1993). Cockpit resource management. 

San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 

Wilson, J.P. (1999). Human Resource Development: Learning and Training for Individuals and 

Organizations. London, UK: Kogan Page Limited. 

 90 
Acronyms 

AAR Association of American Railroads 

ACRM Anesthesia Crisis Resource Management 

ACT Naval Aircrew Coordination Training 

Amtrak National Rail Passenger Corporation 

ASLRRA American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association 

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

BRM Bridge Resource Management 

CBT computer-based training 

CN Canadian National 

CP Canadian Pacific 

CRM crew resource management 

CRTT Centre for Rail Training and Technology 

DVD digital video discs 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FATS Fire Arms Training Simulator 

FICBT fully integrated computer-based training 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

GAO U.S. General Accounting Office 

IC Illinois Central 

ITS intelligent transportation systems 

KCS Kansas City Southern 

LOFT Line-Oriented Flight Training 

LOSA Line Operations Safety Audit 

MOW maintenance-of-way 

MRL Montana Rail Link 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board 

NS Norfolk Southern 

NYPD New York Police Department 

OBS on-board service 

OJT on-the-job-training 

RC remote control 

RIP repair-in-place 

SA situational awareness 

SAIT Southern Alberta Institute of Technology 

SOFA Switching Operations Fatalities Analysis 

SP Southern Pacific 

STCW Standards, Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 

TAG Training Analysis Grid 

TTI Texas Transportation Institute 

UP Union Pacific 

 91