U.S. Department of 

Transportation

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Cab Technology Integration Laboratory 

Demonstration with Moving Map 

Technology

Office of Research

and Development

Washington, DC 20590

U.S. Department of Transportation

Research and Special Programs Administration

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Cambridge, MA 02142-1093

DOT/FRA/ORD-13/14 Final Report

March 2013

This document is available to the public through the 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 

22161 and on the FRA Web site at www.fra.dot.gov.

Human Factors in Railroad Operations
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. Any 

opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations 

expressed in this material do not necessarily reflect the 

views or policies of the United States Government, nor 

does mention of trade names, commercial products, or 

organizations imply endorsement by the United States 

Government. The United States Government assumes no 

liability for the content or use of the material contained 

in this document.

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

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

298-102

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

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, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspects of this collection of information , including 

suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Service, Directorate for information Operations and Reports. 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA. 222202-4302, 

and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (LEAVE BLANK) 2. REPORT DATE

March 2013

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Final Report

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Cab Technology Integration Laboratory Demonstration with Moving Map Technology

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

RR04A4-KMD24

6. AUTHOR(S)

Gina Melnik, Hadar Rosenhand, and Matthew Isaacs

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

U.S. Department of Transportation

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Cambridge, MA. 02142-1093

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

DOT-VNTSC-FRA9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Research and Development

Washington, DC 20590

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

DOT/FRA/ORD-13/14

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Program Manager: Michael Jones

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, VA 22161, and on the FRA Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

A human performance study was conducted at the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) using a

locomotive research simulator—the Cab Technology Integration Laboratory (CTIL)—that was acquired by the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA). The primary objective of the study was to conduct a hands-on simulator training exercise and system 

demonstration. A moving map experiment was chosen for the study because FRA is interested in determining the human 

performance and safety implications of this technology following prior FRA research on preview information in cab displays 

(Einhorn, Sheridan & Multer, 2005). However, because surrogate (novice) engineers were used for the experiment instead of 

experienced locomotive engineers, the results have limited applicability. Lessons learned and general best practices for designing 

and running future CTIL experiments are discussed in this report. Possibilities for future research regarding operator use of moving 

map displays are also considered.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Cab Technology Integration Laboratory (CTIL), pilot experiment, moving map display, operator 

performance, safety, technology

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

35

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified
ii

METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS

ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH

LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE)

1 inch (in) = 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) = 0.04 inch (in)

1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0.4 inch (in)

1 yard (yd) = 0.9 meter (m) 1 meter (m) = 3.3 feet (ft)

1 mile (mi) = 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) = 1.1 yards (yd)

1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi)

AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE)

1 square inch (sq in, in2) = 6.5 square centimeters 

(cm2

)

1 square centimeter (cm2) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, in2)

1 square foot (sq ft, ft2) = 0.09 square meter (m2) 1 square meter (m2) = 1.2 square yards (sq yd, 

yd2

)

1 square yard (sq yd, yd2) = 0.8 square meter (m2) 1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi2)

1 square mile (sq mi, mi2) = 2.6 square kilometers 

(km2

)

10,000 square meters (m2) = 1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres

1 acre = 0.4 hectare (he) = 4,000 square meters (m2)

MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)

1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gm) 1 gram (gm) = 0.036 ounce (oz)

1 pound (lb) = 0.45 kilogram (kg) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (lb)

1 short ton = 2,000 

pounds (lb)

= 0.9 tonne (t) 1 tonne (t) =

=

1,000 kilograms (kg)

1.1 short tons

VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)

1 teaspoon (tsp) = 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter (ml) = 0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz)

1 tablespoon (tbsp) = 15 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 2.1 pints (pt)

1 fluid ounce (fl oz) = 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 1.06 quarts (qt)

1 cup (c) = 0.24 liter (l) 1 liter (l) = 0.26 gallon (gal)

1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (l)

1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (l)

1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (l)

1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft3) = 0.03 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft3)

1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd3) = 0.76 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd3)

TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT)

[(x-32)(5/9)] °F = y °C [(9/5) y + 32] °C = x °F

QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION

0 1 2 3 4 5

Inches

Centimeters 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSIO

 -40° -22° -4° 14° 32° 50° 68° 86° 104° 122° 140° 158° 176° 194° 212°

 

°F

 °C -40° -30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100°

For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and Measures. Price $2.50 

SD Catalog No. C13 10286 Updated 6/17/98
iii

PREFACE

This report was prepared by the Behavioral Safety Research and Demonstration Division of the 

Human Factors Research and Systems Applications Center of Innovation at the John A. Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center (the Volpe Center). It was completed with funding from 

the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Office of Research and Development as part of the 

Cab Technology Integration Lab (CTIL) program. We would like to thank our FRA sponsor, 

Michael Jones, as well as Dr. Thomas Raslear and Michael Coplen, for providing guidance and 

feedback throughout this project. Additional thanks to Les Fiorenzo, FRA Region 1 

Administrator, and his staff for providing further guidance regarding scenario design.
iv

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................... 4

1.2.1 BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS....................................................................................... 4

2. METHOD ............................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 PARTICIPANTS.................................................................................................................. 5

2.3 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN................................................................................................... 6

2.4 ROUTE SIMULATION ........................................................................................................ 7

2.5 PROCEDURES ................................................................................................................... 7

3. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 9

4. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................... 14

4.1 SURROGATE ENGINEERS VERSUS CERTIFIED LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS......................... 14

4.2 RUNNING SIMULATOR STUDIES IN CTIL........................................................................ 15

4.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE MOVING MAP RESEARCH ................................................... 18

4.4 FUTURE RESEARCH ........................................................................................................ 18

5. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 20

APPENDIX A. Training Documentation for Moving Map Study ......................................... 21

APPENDIX B. Task Instructions........................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX C. Debriefing Statement .................................................................................... 27
v

Illustrations

Figure 1. Moving map display designed by Alion Science and Technology. ............................... 5

Figure 2. Exterior and interior view of CTIL. ............................................................................... 7

Figure 3. Total overspeeds for the moving map and paper chart only conditions......................... 9

Figure 4. Relationship between overspeeds and run completion time......................................... 11

Figure 5. Comparison of overspeeds for missed signals, early acceleration, and control. .......... 12

Figure 6. Example chart displaying train speed by milepost for participant #4. ......................... 13
vi

Tables

Table 1. Total overspeeds by participant and condition. ............................................................. 10
1

Executive Summary

This report documents the first human performance study that the John A. Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) conducted using FRA’s new locomotive research 

simulator—the Cab Technology Integration Laboratory (CTIL). The study had two objectives: 

(1) to exercise CTIL research capabilities and provide hands-on experience to Volpe researchers 

on CTIL functions by conducting a pilot experiment, and (2) to provide a basic example of the 

type of experiment and data analysis that can be conducted in the simulator for those seeking to 

conduct CTIL research. Given that CTIL experiments studying moving maps may be planned in 

the future, it seemed an appropriate choice for a pilot. 

Moving map displays, sometimes also called rolling maps, or track-profile displays in the 

railroad industry, provide the locomotive engineer with a visual representation of the position of 

the train on the track, as well as terrestrial track features such as mileposts, signals, track 

curvature, and grade. 

Moving map displays are currently not widely used in the railroad industry. It is unclear how 

they would affect freight locomotive engineer operation. It is assumed that they would aid 

locomotive crew situational awareness by providing route preview information such as signals, 

hills, and turns relative to the location of the full length of the train on the route. Because of their 

inclusion in new technologies such as Positive Train Control (PTC) and locomotive energy 

management systems, moving maps are increasingly being implemented in the railroad 

environment and so it is important to know more about the display’s use and its possible impact 

on locomotive crew performance. 

This first step of the research effort was a “pilot experiment” to help resolve minor CTIL issues 

associated with the system’s use. Therefore, (a) the hypothesis is not based on previous research, 

(b) the moving-map display used is a new display generated specifically for CTIL by Alion 

Science & Technology rather than a standard moving map used in current cab technology, and 

(c) qualified locomotive engineers were not used in the study. 

In the Paper Chart plus Moving Map condition, participants operated the train over 13 miles of 

simulated track with the CTIL moving map display visible. In the Paper Chart Only condition, 

participants completed the same 13-mile route without the use of the moving map display. In 

both conditions, participants were provided with a paper-based track profile that displayed vital 

information about the route. All participants were provided with the minimum training required 

in railroad signals and operations to run the route using CTIL.

Objective performance measures (e.g., fuel consumption, brake pipe pressure, buff and draft 

forces, and number of throttle changes) were chosen for analysis based on the knowledge that 

many performance measures may not be meaningful for those without extensive experience in 

train handling. Performance measures related to speed control (e.g., ability to maintain the 

permitted speed in reference to signal adherence, track warrants/terrain restrictions, and general 

operation) were also selected for examination. 

There was no statistically significant difference between the Paper Chart plus Moving Map and 

Paper Chart Only conditions in the number, duration, or magnitude of overspeed events. We 

also looked at the mean durations and magnitudes considering only the nonzero data points. The 

average duration of overspeeds that occurred (greater than zero)—expressed in number of 

seconds the surrogate engineers were operating over the allowable speed limit—was less in the 
2

Paper Chart plus Moving Map condition than in the Paper Chart Only condition. The average 

magnitude of the overspeeds that occurred (greater than zero)—expressed in mph over the speed 

limit—was very similar for the two conditions but slightly higher in the Paper Chart plus 

Moving Map condition.

Given that this work was intended to serve as a baseline pilot experiment and not a true moving

map study, results must be interpreted within that context. The results do not address any 

specific research questions about moving maps, but they are fairly indicative of the analysis 

process and will likely help stimulate ideas for future moving map research projects.
3

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is interested in examining the effects on locomotive 

crew performance of implementing locomotive moving map displays. Moving map displays, 

sometimes also called rolling maps, or track-profile displays in the railroad industry, provide the 

locomotive engineer with a visual representation of the position of the train on the track, as well 

as topographic track features such as mileposts, signals, track curvature, and grade. Moving map 

displays are in use across transportation domains; for example, in cars using Global Positioning 

Systems (GPS) technology. Surface moving maps are also widely used in aviation to display 

aircraft position on the airport surface in relation to other airport elements; it is also useful for 

tasks such as taxiing to and from runways (Yeh & Eon, 2009). 

FRA is interested in better understanding how moving map displays may affect freight 

locomotive engineers’ operation of trains. A previous FRA-sponsored study on preview 

information in the control of high-speed trains indicates that locomotive engineers respond 

favorably to preview information (Einhorn, Sheridan & Multer, 2005). It is unclear how moving 

map displays will affect freight locomotive engineer operation, but it is assumed that they will 

aid locomotive crew situational awareness by providing route preview information. This can help 

the locomotive crew plan ahead to ensure they are maintaining the train’s speed and schedule. 

The weight and dynamics of a train are such that it takes a long time for the train to speed up or 

slow down in response to what the engineer does at the controls, therefore an engineer may need 

to start braking two miles before a signal in order to reach the appropriate slower speed that is 

required by the time the train reaches it. This makes it critical that engineers have advance 

awareness of the location of things such as signals, hills, and turns relative to the location of the 

full length of the train on the route. Although engineers are required to be familiar with their 

territory, situational awareness might be enhanced by having a moving map that displays these 

important pieces of information. 

Moving map displays are currently in limited railroad use. But because of their inclusion in new 

technologies such as Positive Train Control (PTC) and locomotive energy management systems, 

moving maps are increasingly being implemented in the railroad environment. In particular, 

PTC systems—and the moving maps these systems contain—will see more widespread use in 

future years since the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 has mandated that PTC systems be 

implemented on all Class I railroads by December 2015. In light of these changes, it is important 

to know more about the display’s anticipated use and its potential impact on locomotive crew 

performance.

At this stage of moving map integration, stakeholders and researchers can only speculate as to

how moving maps will affect operator performance. For example, moving maps may improve 

operator performance by accelerating familiarization with the route and enabling operators to 

become experts more quickly. Future moving map research will help to determine more 

precisely how these displays affect operator performance and may suggest design changes or 

information enhancements that ensure maximum performance and safety. 
4

1.2 OBJECTIVES

This was the first human performance study that the John A. Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center (Volpe Center) conducted using FRA’s new locomotive research simulator—the 

Cab Technology Integration Laboratory (CTIL). This research study has two objectives: (1) to 

exercise CTIL research capabilities and provide hands-on experience to Volpe researchers on 

CTIL functions by conducting a pilot experiment and (2) to provide a basic example of the type 

of experiment and data analysis that can be conducted in the simulator for those seeking to 

conduct CTIL research. This first effort was a “pilot experiment” in the sense that the goal was 

to help resolve minor CTIL issues associated with the system’s use. Therefore, (a) the 

hypothesis is not based on previous research, (b) the moving-map display used is a new display 

generated specifically for CTIL rather than a standard moving map used in current cab 

technology, and (c) qualified locomotive engineers were not used in the study. 

1.2.1 BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS

A pilot experiment is an effective tool for exploring technological capabilities because it allows 

researchers to have a real-world context on which to base their exploration and informationgathering. In proceeding as though this were an actual experiment, the same steps and 

procedures were followed to ensure an effective test of the system. 

Benefits of this work include the following: 

(a) Providing exploratory, hands-on training to Volpe staff;

(b) Allowing any technical issues with the system to be addressed early in the CTIL life 

cycle and before they impact any future research projects; and

(c) Refining the CTIL research process outside the context of an actual experiment, 

which will ultimately ensure better use of funding and less risk to CTIL projects and the 

CTIL program.

Given that CTIL experiments studying moving maps may be planned for the future, a moving 

map experiment seemed an appropriate choice for a pilot CTIL study. Volpe staff hope this 

study will supplement future research on how moving map displays affect operator performance 

in freight rail operations. It is important to remember, however, that there are limitations to the 

information this study can provide given the goals with which it was designed; it is being done 

within a moving map context, but is not a moving map study. Therefore, it will not result in data 

that can inform moving map design or use. Additionally, it is not designed to be an exhaustive 

exploration of the entire CTIL system. 
5

2. METHOD

2.1 OVERVIEW

This preliminary research will help FRA understand how locomotive moving map displays can 

affect operator performance. The study was carried out in the CTIL using the imbedded moving 

map display designed by Alion Science and Technology Corporation (see Figure 1). Participants

were novice train operators with no train operating experience.

Figure 1. Moving map display designed by Alion Science and Technology

Participants were given specified target speeds (e.g., 30–50 mph) to follow without exceeding as 

they operated over 13 miles of prebuilt track. In the Paper Chart plus Moving Map condition, 

participants operated the train over the 13 miles of track with the CTIL moving map display

visible. In the Paper Chart Only condition, participants completed the same 13-mile route 

without the use of the moving map display. In both conditions, participants were provided with a 

paper-based track profile that displayed vital information about the route.

2.2 PARTICIPANTS

Because of the nature of the study—a pilot experiment—it was jointly determined by Volpe and 

FRA that trained locomotive engineers were not required for the project; the added cost and time 

required to retain experienced locomotive engineers would not be well spent in this particular 

case—especially in light of that fact that Boston, the city in which the experiment was 

conducted, does not have a freight rail hub, so no qualified locomotive engineers are in close 

proximity to the research facility. For these reasons, the moving map study utilized participants 
6

with no prior rail experience. In the current document, participants are referred to as surrogate

engineers. 

Seven participants (six males, one female) were recruited through email solicitation to serve as 

surrogate engineers at Volpe facilities in Cambridge, MA. All surrogate engineers were Federal 

employees who signed on voluntarily and had no train operating experience. The experiments 

were carried out during the workday (with the consent of the participants’ supervisors) so no 

monetary compensation was provided. 

2.3 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The study employed a within-subjects design so that all surrogate engineers were run in both 

experimental conditions: Paper Chart plus Moving Map and Paper Chart Only. The number of 

surrogate engineers starting each condition first was counterbalanced using alternating 

assignment, with the first participant’s order selected randomly. 

Surrogate engineers were provided with the minimum training required in railroad signals and 

operations to run the route using CTIL. This involved two training runs followed by feedback 

after each run to familiarize surrogate engineers with operating CTIL and with the routes. Route 

familiarization was deemed important because engineers are certified on the routes over which 

they operate and so become intimately familiar with the territory. Providing at least some degree 

of familiarization was deemed more representative of a real-world scenario than having the 

surrogate engineers go into the experimental trials with training on different routes.

Objective performance measures for analysis were chosen based on the knowledge that study 

participants were surrogate engineers and many performance measures may not be meaningful 

for those without extensive experience in train handling (e.g., fuel consumption, brake pipe 

pressure, buff and draft forces, and number of throttle changes). Some of CTIL’s other data 

capturing and analysis tools (e.g. the head-and-eye tracking device and human performance and 

behavioral modeling tool (LOCAT)) were not used for the same reasons. Consequently, 

performance measures related to speed control, that is, the ability to maintain the permitted speed 

(in reference to signal adherence, track warrants/terrain restrictions, and general operation), were

selected for examination. The following criteria were monitored:

o Frequency of speed violations: number of times the engineer goes at least 1 MPH 

over the speed limit 

o Magnitude of speed violations: severity of the violation—expressed by the 

number of mph over the speed limit

o Duration of speed violations: length of the speed violation—expressed by the 

number of seconds the violation lasted

It was expected that those in the Paper Chart plus Moving Map condition would have less 

frequent, less severe, and shorter speed violations than those in the Paper Chart Only condition.
7

 

2.4 ROUTE SIMULATION 

Apparatus

All of the experiments were conducted in the CTIL simulator located at the Volpe Center (Figure

2). CTIL is a portable, full-sized locomotive simulator owned by FRA. It is the first and only 

locomotive simulator in the United States designed primarily for human factors research, rather 

than for training purposes. CTIL is managed on site by Volpe researchers and is available to 

industry, academic, and government researchers. 

Figure 2. Exterior and interior view of CTIL

Scenario

Currently, there is no data to suggest that train consist and terrain affect moving map use. 

However, discussions with stakeholders, including a former locomotive engineer, did suggest 

that they might; therefore, experimental design guidance regarding these factors was provided. 

A short, heavy train operating over mountain grade territory (grades over 0.5 percent) was 

selected because it was thought that this type of scenario (which required the engineer to exert 

more control over the locomotive due to the increased tonnage and grade) would best showcase 

the performance of the moving map. 

2.5 PROCEDURES

The surrogate engineers were run individually, with each data collection session lasting 

approximately 3 hours. The sessions included study discussion and informed consent, training, 

two practice runs, experimenter feedback on practice runs, experiment instructions, two 

experimental runs, debriefing questions, and intermittent breaks. 

The procedure for each participant was as follows:
8

1. The surrogate engineers began by reading about the study and signing an informed 

consent sheet. Each participant was given an opportunity to ask the experimenter 

questions related to the study. 

2. The surrogate engineers received approximately 15 minutes of training on train handling 

and driving the CTIL, including instructions on how to read the moving map display.

The surrogate engineers were provided with an instruction sheet (see APPENDIX A) and 

asked to follow along while the experimenter read them out loud.

3. The surrogate engineers completed two practice runs over 13 miles of track (the same 

track used in the experimental runs). During the first practice run, the experimenter 

remained in the CTIL with the participant. The simulation was paused after 10 minutes 

to allow the experimenter to provide feedback to the participant and answer any 

questions. The simulation was then resumed and the participant finished the first practice 

run. Upon completion of the practice run, the experimenter again provided the 

participant with feedback on the run and answered participant questions. For the second 

practice run, the participant was left alone in the CTIL (without experimenter help) while 

the experimenter observed from the researcher station (equipped with a camera and voice 

input/output so the experimenter could see, hear, and speak to the participant, if 

necessary). Upon completion of the second practice run, the experimenter gave the 

participant feedback on the run and answered any additional questions. Each practice run 

took approximately 25–30 minutes, followed by 5–10 minutes of experimenter feedback 

and a 5–10 minute break. 

4. The surrogate engineers were given verbal and written experiment instructions (See

APPENDIX B) while in the CTIL and had the opportunity to ask the experimenter 

questions. 

5. The surrogate engineers completed the first experimental run, followed by a 5–10 minute 

break. 

6. The experimenter reiterated the instructions and the surrogate engineers conducted the 

second experimental run. 

7. The surrogate engineers were debriefed on the experiment (APPENDIX C). This took no 

more than 15 minutes. 
9

3. RESULTS

Given that this work was intended to serve as a pilot experiment and not a true moving map 

study, results must be interpreted within that context. The results do not address any specific 

research questions about moving maps, but they are fairly indicative of the analysis process and 

will likely help stimulate ideas for analysis in future moving map research projects. Data from 

the experiment were analyzed and the results are shown below. The lessons learned from this 

process will be addressed in the discussion section of the report.

Overspeeds

The number of overspeeds was one of the primary dependent measures of the study. Of 

particular interest was whether there would be fewer overspeeds in the moving map condition. 

The surrogate engineers did in fact have fewer overspeeds when the moving map was available 

(M = 1.71, SD = 1.80) than when they did not have the moving map available (M = 2.00, SD = 

1.73). However, a Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed that the difference in overspeeds was not 

significant, Z = -.707, p = .24.1

 

Figure 3. Total overspeeds for the Moving Map and Paper Chart Only conditions

The other aspects of speed control were the magnitude and duration of the overspeeds. The 

average duration of overspeeds, expressed by the number of seconds the surrogate engineers

were operating over the allowable speed limit, was smaller in the Paper Chart plus Moving Map

condition than in the Paper Chart Only condition (M = 7.90, SD = 8.18 versus M = 11.35, SD = 

12.51, respectively). The average magnitude of the overspeeds, expressed in mph over the speed 

limit, was very similar for the two conditions but slightly higher in the Paper Chart plus Moving 

Map condition (M = 1.86, SD = 2.13 versus M = 1.56, SD = 1.25). 

 1 The Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was used because the data does not meet the assumptions required for a t-test to be performed. 

The Wilcoxon-signed ranks test is a nonparametric test so it does not compare means in the same way that a t-test would, but 

means and standard deviations are included in the report for further information.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Moving Map Paper Chart Only

Total Overspeeds
10

There was no statistically significant difference in the duration of the overspeeds (Z = -.73, p = 

.23), nor in the magnitude of the overspeeds (Z = -.105, p = .46).2

 

It was also interesting to look at the mean durations and magnitudes considering only the 

nonzero data points. Where overspeeds did occur, how long were they on average? The average 

duration of overspeeds that occurred (greater than zero)—expressed in number of seconds the 

surrogate engineers were operating over the allowable speed limit—was smaller in the Paper 

Chart plus Moving Map condition than in the Paper Chart Only condition (M = 11.06, SD = 

7.52 versus M = 15.89, SD = 12.02, respectively). Also, when overspeeds did occur, what was 

their average magnitude? The average magnitude of the overspeeds that occurred (greater than 

zero)—expressed in mph over the speed limit—was very similar for the two conditions but 

slightly higher in the Paper Chart plus Moving Map condition (M = 2.61, SD = 2.10 versus M = 

2.18, SD = 0.81, respectively).

Consideration of Underspeeding

In analyzing the data set, the research staff considered whether some surrogate engineers may 

have run the route significantly slower than the speed limit in an effort to avoid any overspeeds. 

If this were the case, it could account for some of the differences observed in the number of 

overspeeds made by some surrogate engineers.

Table 1 shows the number of overspeeds by participant. The number of overspeeds ranges from 

zero for participant #1 to nine for participant #6. To determine if the surrogate engineers were

actively employing a strategy of underspeeding to avoid overspeeds, experimenters examined 

run completion times and overspeeds for each participant—based on the premise that run 

completion time and number of overspeeds should be inversely related. 

Participant Paper Chart plus 

Moving Map

Paper Chart Only Total

1 0 0 0

2 1 0 1

3 1 1 2

4 3 4 7

5 0 2 2

6 5 4 9

7 2 3 5

Table 1. Total overspeeds by participant and condition

 2 In order to test the magnitude and duration data for significance, the average duration and magnitude were considered to be 

zero in cases where no overspeed ocurred. This allowed all surrogate engineers to be included in the Wilcoxon-signed ranks test 

instead of excluding those that did not overspeed in at least one of the two conditions (three of the seven surrogate engineers).
11

A square root transformation was done to normalize the count data. Figure 4 shows the 

relationship between number of overspeeds and total completion time. As expected, there is an 

inverse relationship between overspeeds and run time; although it is not statistically significant (r 

=.61, p >0.05), the relationship accounts for more than 38 percent of the variance in the data.

Figure 4. Relationship between overspeeds and run completion time

Further Options for Understanding and Visualizing Speed Data

Overspeeds were further separated into three different types of situations in which they might 

occur:

• Missed Signal Overspeeds: the surrogate engineers missed a signal indicating they 

needed to slow down; 

• Early Acceleration Overspeeds: the surrogate engineers were headed into a section of 

track with a higher speed limit and sped up too early; and

• Control Overspeeds: the surrogate engineers demonstrated a general problem 

controlling the speed of the train; the problem was not directly attributable to a signal or 

changing speed authority. 

y = -0.8824x + 50.053

R2 = 0.3774

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

52 52.5 53 53.5 54 54.5 55 55.5 56

Total Number of Overspeeds

Total Run Time for Both Conditions (Minutes)
12

Figure 5 shows the number of overspeeds in each category. With a greater number of data 

points, breaking down overspeeds into categories such as these might be useful for understanding 

the context behind the overspeeds that occur.

Figure 5. Comparison of overspeeds for missed signals, early acceleration, and control

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Control Missed Signal Early

Acceleration

Number of Overspeeds

Paper Chart plus Moving

Map

Paper Chart Only
13

For speed, the primary dependent measure, Figure 6 provides a visualization of the entire run as 

well as the speed changes that occur during the run. This example displays the run of participant 

#4 in the Paper Chart Only condition. The vertical lines delineate where speed limit changes 

(i.e., the engineer’s maximum allowed speed) occurred. The numbers along the top show the 

maximum permitted speed in the section of track between the vertical lines. A chart such as this 

could be useful for examining participant speeds (or other dependent measures) at a particular 

area(s) of interest along the route; it would also enable researchers to gain a better understanding 

of participants’ responses and behaviors. Speed of the Locomotive

Milepost

Figure 6. Example chart displaying train speed by milepost for participant #4
14

4. DISCUSSION

As previously mentioned, the current study was primarily intended to provide hands-on training 

experience to researchers and serve as a way to evaluate the CTIL simulator. Operator 

performance with and without a moving map display was the research focus of this pilot

experiment; however, obtaining statistically significant and valid results was not the study’s 

primary purpose. Rather, the objective was to demonstrate the capabilities of CTIL and to 

uncover and document lessons learned that may be useful in designing future CTIL experiments.

This final section discusses lessons learned and suggestions for future research on moving map 

displays.

4.1 SURROGATE ENGINEERS VERSUS CERTIFIED LOCOMOTIVE

ENGINEERS 

Training and Train Operation

One of the questions raised by this pilot experiment is whether novices are acceptable substitutes 

for freight engineers in research studies. Because novices have little to no knowledge of railroad 

operating rules and locomotive operations, they will operate the simulator differently than 

experienced engineers, and this will limit the generalizability of the research findings. However, 

the exact limitations of using surrogate engineers are likely to be dependent on what is being 

studied. 

Researchers sought to mitigate these effects by providing the novice surrogate engineers with 

both CTIL training and a brief railroad operating rules training, as well as allowing the 

participants to have practice runs in order to become familiar with the route. However, 15 

minutes of training and the accompanying 50 minutes of practice runs do not equate to official 

engineer railroad training courses and years of experience operating a freight locomotive. 

Surrogate engineers are also unlikely to succeed at tasks that center on accurate train handling, 

such as coming to a complete stop close to a red signal. Additionally, because of their limited 

understanding of how the locomotive will react to changes in the throttle, novices may spend 

more time monitoring displays in the cab for speed information instead of also observing the 

outside environment through the window. This can be dangerous because when the engineer 

spends more time “head down” (i.e., looking down at displays or other objects in the cab), the 

likelihood of missing important events outside the cab (e.g., signal changes, trespassers, objects 

on the track, etc.) increases. Several surrogate engineers noted during the debrief session that 

they spent most of their time monitoring the acceleration display in order to control their speed. 

Presumably, surrogate engineers relied heavily on the acceleration display to stay within the 

speed limit because they did not understand how the train’s characteristics (i.e., train weight and 

length), coupled with the territory characteristics, would affect train handling. Experienced 

engineers understand these relationships and would likely need fewer throttle changes to stay 

within speed limits. Therefore, certain data measures such as buff and draft forces, number of 

throttle changes, brake pipe pressure, and fuel consumption may only be meaningful in 

experiments using experienced engineers. 
15

Potential for Invalid Data

Compared with certified engineers, surrogate engineers are more likely to make different 

mistakes which may not be related to the research question. For example, during the moving 

map experiment, one participant accidently engaged the emergency brake during both 

experimental runs, which caused the train to come to a complete stop and resulted in no usable 

data from that participant. Another participant noted in his response to the debrief questions that 

because he knew the moving map would be removed eventually, he did not want to rely on it. 

As a result, he refrained from using the moving map in the practice runs and both of the 

experimental runs, even when it was available to him. This case conveys the importance of 

planning for the possibility of invalid data and the value of enlisting slightly more surrogate 

engineers than necessary. 

Another point to consider regarding surrogate engineers is that they do not have the same sense 

of time pressure that would be felt in an actual railroad context. Although the experiment 

instructions explicitly stated that the surrogate engineers should operate the train as close to the 

maximum allowable speed as possible without going over, during practice runs and experimental 

runs, researchers noted that the surrogate engineers frequently did not accelerate to that 

maximum speed of 50 mph in the allowable zones.

Route Familiarization

Another area of concern identified by the researchers is related to the experience and route 

familiarity of the person running the train. If the surrogate engineers have no experience 

operating over the route used in the experiment, it may mean that their behavior is not 

representative of what would be seen in a real-world context where locomotive engineers are

intimately familiar with their route. (And even in cases where certified locomotive engineers are 

used, this concern would still exist if they are running a route other than the one(s) on which they 

were certified.)

The researchers attempted to address this issue by using training runs to acquaint surrogate 

engineers with the routes. Surrogate engineers were given two practice runs over the entire 13 

miles of track. The runs took approximately 25–30 minutes per practice route. With longer

routes, practice runs will take significantly more time; this should be considered in future 

planning processes. 

If full track practice runs are not possible for the experiment, one option is to use territory with 

which the engineers are already familiar. (However, the researcher may still want to include 

some practice time to ensure the participant is familiar with the simulator.) Because surrogate 

engineers have no prior rail knowledge, using territory with which they are already familiar is 

not a viable option. Therefore, when surrogate engineers are used, shorter routes may be the best 

solution to ensure that they experience several practice runs over the entire route.

4.2 RUNNING SIMULATOR STUDIES IN CTIL

In addition to providing a better understanding of the implications of using surrogates in place of 

experienced engineers, this study also served as practice in setting up CTIL experiments. By 

executing a study from start to finish using CTIL, researchers were able to compile lessons 

learned for future experiments. Note that these lessons learned relate specifically to the CTIL 
16

software designed by Alion Science and Technology and some may not apply to upgraded 

versions of the simulator that use different software. 

CTIL Track Chart and Scenario Development

When scenarios are constructed, consideration must be given to developing a corresponding 

paper track chart. For experiments that require the use of real-world track, corresponding track 

charts that can be used with little editing are likely to already be available. Frequently, however, 

it may be more economical or more ideal to build a simulated track or use already built CTIL 

scenarios—in the following instances, for example: 

Time and Cost Sensitive Projects. Many railroads consider information contained in their 

track charts to be proprietary information. Therefore, if an experiment is not affiliated 

with a particular railroad, obtaining engineering information sufficient for recreating a 

desired existent track may require a monetary outlay. Additionally, the steps required to 

build an existent track require a long period of data collection, programming 

development, and testing. As a result, experimenters who intend to operate CTIL on a 

short schedule or small budget should consider using modified versions of scenarios that 

have already been built in CTIL, such as the default provided by Alion. 

Designing for Research Needs. If the research needs allow for it, experimenters may 

consider using track scenarios with fewer embellishments. Simplifying the track scenario 

can streamline the process of creating a track profile. For example, researchers may 

consider using zero-grade scenarios in fatigue studies (assuming operator performance on 

grade is not a data measure), as track profiles that do not need to accurately depict grade 

are easier to create. 

Unrequired Realism. In some cases, investing the time and money required to make an

authentic track profile may not be necessary. For instance, if an experimenter were 

interested in developing a separate scenario to be used in a training run, it would be 

considerably simpler to use a scenario that has already been built rather than building one 

from engineering documents.

When simulated track is used (i.e., track designed specifically for the experiment and which is 

not representative of track in the real world) a procedure is needed for the reverse-engineering of 

accurate paper track charts based on the digital scenario. CTIL’s scenario authoring environment 

does not allow automatic creation of paper track charts, so that needs to be done manually. 

For the current pilot experiment, researchers decided to use an edited version of the Alionprovided scenario. Following scenario edits, the Alion-provided paper track chart was edited 

using Adobe Photoshop to match the track profile used in the experiment. Although this is a 

viable process, it is also potentially error-prone since any small changes on the digital route need 

to be identified manually. Without an internal version management system, the paper chart and 

automatically-generated moving map were frequently out of sync and required many iterations of 

testing and updating to ensure that they matched.
17

Additionally, during the experiment, a previously existing discrepancy between the moving map 

display and the paper track chart—a discrepancy not due to the edits made for the current 

work—was discovered. (A slight grade was depicted on the paper track chart along a section of 

track that the moving map displays as flat terrain; generally, in fact, the moving map display 

showed exaggerated grade compared with the paper track chart). This finding further highlights 

the need for a more automated and accurate procedure for creating track charts, particularly in 

studies where they are of central importance. Options for reverse engineering accurate paper 

track charts still need to be explored, but one possible way to facilitate this is through 

computerized evaluation of track definition files (tdf), which hold track scenario information in 

the software. 

During the study, another technical issue relating to the alerter sounding during experimental 

runs was discovered. A previously noted idiosyncrasy of CTIL is that if the simulation freezes 

(either because it has ended or been paused) with the alerter sounding, the sound will continue 

until the simulator is restarted. During the moving map experiment, the simulation run ended 

two times while the alerter was sounding and necessitated a restart of the simulator. A solution 

for this is to place an event towards the end of the scenario that requires the participant to use the 

controls. For example, adding a whistlepost and grade crossing before the end of the scenario 

will require the participant to sound the horn and this will prevent the alerter from activating. 

Data Collection and Analysis

Unlike some simulators which display information directly related to specific events, the CTIL 

data output is time-based. It records experimenter-specified simulator state variables at regular 

intervals of up to 20 Hz. Data collection frequency for the experiment should be determined 

ahead of time to ensure a consistent resolution in the data of all subjects. In this study, it was 

collected at 3 Hz because resolution of the data was not critical and the slower collection 

frequency yields an easily manageable data set. Below is a brief primer on time-based data 

collection and analysis.

Because data is only collected at regular intervals, linear interpolation must be used to insert 

simulator state values for events that occur at specific locations such as signals and the 

beginnings and ends of permanent speed restrictions. For example, assume one subject was 

recorded at 31 mph (v0) when he was 30 feet from a signal (p0), and again at 29 mph (v1) 

when he was 50 feet beyond it (p1). Given this information, we can use the following 

formula to estimate his speed (v) when the head end of the train was passing the signal (p):

v − v0

p − p0

= v1 − v0

p1 − p0

In this case we know the values for all of the above values except v, the speed of the train at 

the signal. Solving for v reveals that the train is travelling at 30.25 mph at that point.

Of course, the values of these recorded continuous variables are not likely to be linear. As a 

result, it is clear that for experiments that seek to examine data at very precise locations, data 

collection frequency should be increased. Additionally, a very fast run will have data points 

that are spaced farther apart than a slower run that uses the same sampling rate. Therefore, 
18

the higher the maximum expected speed of the train, the higher the sampling rate should be 

set.

4.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE MOVING MAP RESEARCH

Further moving map research is needed to understand how the inclusion of a moving map 

display affects operator performance in freight rail operations. To obtain data that can be 

generalized to the freight rail industry, efforts should be made to design a study utilizing certified 

locomotive engineers operating over familiar territory, as this better simulates a real-world

scenario. Additionally, when possible, experiments should be designed to encompass a 

multitude of real-life conditions. Focus groups with professional, experienced locomotive 

engineers may uncover situations in which the moving map displays may be more or less useful;

for example, daytime versus nighttime conditions and/or when operators are fatigued. 

For the current study, researchers purposely created an objectively difficult route that included a 

short, heavy train operating in territory with a host of hills and curves, and passing through 

sidings and grade crossings. Despite this, the surrogate engineers did not perform better when 

they had access to the moving map. The ability to simulate night conditions and adverse weather 

in future experiments may make the scenario more difficult and therefore require the participant 

to rely more heavily on the tools available (as opposed to looking out the window to assess the 

operating territory). Another interesting measure to study in moving map research is fatigue. 

Future studies using eye-tracking devices to measure fatigued engineers’ use of moving maps 

may shed light on how often engineers refer to moving maps and under what circumstances. 

Additional study options include adding dynamic objects to the scenario (such as a passing train 

or a car driving across a grade crossing), or stopping scenarios mid-run and checking operator 

situation awareness. 

Finally, the current experiment tested the Alion-designed moving map display installed in CTIL.

Future moving map research should test moving map displays already in use (or proposed to be 

in use) by the industry, as different moving maps may have varying effects on operator 

performance. 

4.4 FUTURE RESEARCH

Questions remain regarding how moving map displays are actually used by engineers and 

conductors. Engineers are required to have detailed knowledge of their territory before they are 

permitted to run trains on it, so the “look ahead” functionality of a moving map may not appeal 

to experienced engineers who already know when to expect signals, curves, etc. Furthermore, 

some railroads may prefer that engineers use their knowledge of the route rather than relying on 

the moving map display to ensure that they retain their route knowledge and do not become 

dependent on the moving map. Given the engineers’ knowledge and the job expectations, 

questions remain as to what extent moving maps are used and under what situations. 
19

Possibilities for future research regarding operator use of moving map displays are presented 

below for consideration. 

Possible Uses

• Confirmation/Redundancy: If it’s the case that engineers know their routes so well that 

they don’t need the map, it’s possible that in many cases (i.e. ideal conditions), the 

moving map may be used primarily as a redundancy check.

• Training: One potential use of moving maps in train operations that may deserve further 

consideration is in training new engineers, or training experienced engineers over new 

routes. 

• Conditions of fatigue: Are moving maps used differently under conditions of fatigue? 

For instance, in the event that an engineer does become drowsy and loses situational 

awareness, is the moving map a useful tool in quickly verifying critical information?

• Poor weather or poor visibility conditions: Can moving maps be used to determine train 

position information in situations where it would be difficult to view out-the-window 

landmarks? 

Possible Moderating Variables

• Experience level of the engineer: Do new engineers use the moving map more often (and 

in different ways) than more experienced engineers? What kind of experience plays a 

factor—overall train handing experience, experience with that particular route, or both?

• Territory/Run characteristics: Are moving maps likely to be more useful in certain 

territory (e.g., mountain grade territory rather than flat terrain), or during certain 

scheduled runs (e.g., night runs)?

As moving map displays become more commonplace in the rail operating environment, 

additional research is needed to discover how operators use moving map displays and under what 

conditions. Research findings may suggest design changes or enhancements that will ensure 

maximum performance and safety.
20

5. REFERENCES

Einhorn, J., Sheridan, T. B., and Multer, J. “Preview information in cab displays for high-speed 

locomotives.” Rep. No. DOT/FRA/ORD-04/12. 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Transportation.

Yeh, M., and Eon, D. “Surface moving map industry survey.” Rep. No. DOT-VNTTSC/FAA09-15. 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
21

APPENDIX A. 

TRAINING DOCUMENTATION FOR MOVING MAP STUDY

Controls Related to Speed

Throttle:

• Increases the train’s speed. Think of this like the gas pedal in a car.

• Pulling to the left (back) attempts to increase speed and pulling to the right (front) 

attempts to decrease speed.

There are 2 methods of braking. Which one you should use depends on how fast you are going 

when you need to break.

Dynamic brake:

• Use at slow speeds (30 mph or less). 

• Pulling to the left attempts to increase speed and pulling to the right attempts to 

decreases speed. But...

• The handle for dynamic brake will not move unless the throttle is disengaged. 

o Therefore, using the dynamic brake requires two steps: 

(1) place the throttle in its left-most position (Idle) 

(2) move the dynamic break to the right.

• Dynamic brake only affects the locomotive (the front of the train)

Automatic brake (the red lever): 

• Pull the red lever to the right and leave it in the position marked “minimum” for a few 

seconds before pulling it further.

• The maximum braking mode using this brake is an emergency mode. Do not pull the 

automatic brake past the area marked “full service” or the train will come to a full stop. 

(It takes a long time to start the train back up again, so that is why this is only for 

emergencies.)

Other Controls

Alerter: 

• An automatic safety alarm designed to make sure you’re awake in the cab. 

• When the alerter sounds, press the large yellow button to acknowledge it. (Do this within 

9 seconds or the train will automatically come to a full stop.)

Whistle:

• Use the whistle to warn any motorists that a train is coming. 

• Pull the metal lever on top of the control stand between the whistle post sign and the 

crossing where the road intersects the tracks. 
22

Environment

Mileposts indicate where you are along the route. They appear exactly every mile and 

they look like this:

Whistle posts are signs that indicate you should blow the whistle. They look like this:

As you approach road crossings, there will be a W sign on the side of the railway. When 

you pass the sign, pull the whistle lever and hold it until the head of your train passes 

through the roadway intersection. 

Turnouts are portions of the railway where the tracks intersect. If you are to leave your 

current track via a turnout, you will follow a speed restriction as indicated by the signal.

Signals are akin to traffic lights. They tell you the speed at which you should operate the 

train for the near future. The descriptions of the different signal types are posted inside 

the train’s cab.

Track Warrants indicate speed restrictions in place for your route. It will contain data 

similar to the information below:

Do not exceed 60 mph

Between Milepost 15 and Milepost 16 make all movements at restricted 

speed (25 mph). Limits occupied by train or engine.

Do not exceed 50 mph between Milepost 23 and Milepost 30.
23

Displays

Standard Display

Below is an image of the train’s standard display and a description its most important elements.

a) Speedometer indicates current speed in mph

b) This indicator shows your acceleration in mph/min. For example, if your 

current speed is 30mph and this indicator shows -5 mph/min, this means that in 

one minute your speed will be 25 mph.

c) Energy Field Indicator shows whether power is being applied to the train.

A B C
24

Paper Track Chart

For both experiment runs you will be given a paper copy of the track chart to use. Below is a 

copy of the track chart, and descriptions of its features.

a) The numbered vertical lines indicate the milepost along the railway.

b) The top horizontal bar indicates the direction of upcoming turns

c) This line, along with annotations of positive or negative numbers, indicates the 

degree of incline or decline, known as grade. Positive numbers are inclines. 

Negative numbers are declines. A grade of greater than 1 is considered a steep grade.

• The number shown is the number of vertical feet per 100 horizontal feet.

Therefore, grade changes are difficult to perceive by looking out the window. 

d) The W symbol indicates a whistlepost and will always precede a grade crossing.

e) The short, vertical line bisecting the horizontal track indicates a grade crossing.

f) These lines show upcoming turnouts. 

g) This symbol indicates an upcoming signal. Signals can have two heads or one head 

(both shown here) 

A B C

D E F G
25

Moving Map Display

You will be asked to run the train through the route twice. One of these times you will have 

access to a moving map display on the dashboard for additional help. (The other time the moving 

map display will be covered up and unusable.) Below is an image of the moving map display and 

description of its most important features.

a) The red or white bars here show the position of your train.

b) The middle bar shows upcoming curves on the track.

c) The white circles indicate the location of upcoming signals

d) Mileposts

e) This bar on top shows upcoming turnouts, and bridges.

f) This is the degree of incline or decline, called grade. Positive numbers are 

inclines and negative numbers are declines. A grade greater than 1 is considered 

a steep grade.

F

E

C D

A

B
26

APPENDIX B. 

TASK INSTRUCTIONS

Task A [disabled Moving Map]

You are an engineer hauling grain to a farm. There is a train behind yours, so it is important to keep the 

train on a tight schedule. In order to succeed at your objective you must:

• Adhere to required speed restrictions. Stay as close to the speed limit as possible without going 

over it. The following items indicate speed restrictions:

o Information on you track warrant showing the speed to follow over portions of the 

track.

o States of the signal heads that you pass along the way. To supplement the training you 

have undergone, the meaning of the signal heads will additionally be posted inside the 

train cab.

• Respond to whistle post signals by blowing the whistle to warn motorists, starting from the time 

when the cab passes the sign to the moment the cab passes through the grade crossing.

• Acknowledge the alerter by pushing the yellow button in the cab when it sounds. It must be 

acknowledged quickly, before the train applies its emergency brake.

For this route, portions of the in-cab computer display will be disabled.

Your track warrant and a copy of the signal head definitions are provided on the following pages.

Task B [enabled Moving Map]

You are an engineer hauling grain to a farm. There is a train behind yours, so it is important to keep the 

train on a tight schedule. In order to succeed at your objective you must:

• Adhere to required speed restrictions. Stay as close to the speed limit as possible without going 

over it. The following items indicate speed restrictions:

o Information on you track warrant showing the speed to follow over portions of the 

track.

o States of the signal heads that you pass along the way. To supplement the training you 

have undergone, the meaning of the signal heads will additionally be posted inside the 

train cab.

• Respond to whistle post signals by blowing the whistle to warn motorists, starting from the time 

when the cab passes the sign to the moment the cab passes through the grade crossing.

• Acknowledge the alerter by pushing the yellow button in the cab when it sounds. It must be 

acknowledged quickly, before the train applies its emergency brake.

Your track warrant and a copy of the signal head definitions are provided on the following pages.
27

APPENDIX C. 

DEBRIEFING STATEMENT

This study is the first in a series of studies in the Cab Technology Integration Laboratory aimed 

at understanding how technology affects operator performance. The goal for this study is to 

understand how the inclusion of a moving maps display – a computer-based, track profile display 

that depicts the moving train along the route – can affect operator performance in freight rail. 

Specifically, we are interested in comparing how people run the train when provided with a 

moving map display versus when it is unavailable to them. Information such as speed and signal 

adherence will be compared for the routes when the moving map was available with when it was 

not available.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about any aspect of this experiment, please feel 

free to discuss them now. Or, you can contact Hadar Rosenhand at hadar.rosenhand@dot.gov at 

a later time. Thank you for your participation!