DOT/FRA/ORD-07/03.I February 2007

Final Report

 This document is available to the 

 U.S. public through the National 

 Technical Information Service 

 Springfield, VA 22161. 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Rail Crew Resource Management (CRM): 

Pilot Rail CRM Training Development 

and Implementation 

Office of Research and 

Development 

Washington, DC 20590 
 

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 

February 2007 Research Report: 

January 2003—September 2005 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS 

Railroad Crew Resource Management (CRM): Pilot Rail 

CRM Training Development and Implementation 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

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

Stephen S. Roop 

DFTR53-01-D-00030 

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 474450-00003 

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-07/03.I 

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 (TTI) to develop and implement a 

pilot program of Rail-Based Crew Resource Management (CRM) training that can be used for a variety of crafts 

throughout the railroad industry. Pilot program development was a follow-on to the previous tasks to document the 

types of teams that exist in the railroad industry and the state of rail CRM training at U.S. Class I railroads, which TTI 

completed and documented in a separate report to the Federal Railroad Administration in September 2003. The pilot 

program builds upon the training methods and procedures identified in the earlier work. 

This report documents the development of the program and the experiences encountered in implementing it at the 

railroad division level. The report presents data from pre-training and post-training surveys of participants that were 

administered during the pilot course as measures of the effectiveness and acceptance of the training program materials. 

The study also includes recommendations on further steps to broader CRM implementation within the railroad industry. 

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

55 

16. PRICE CODE 

Crew resource management, CRM, railroad safety, situational awareness, 

organizational culture, teaming, crew, training methods 

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 
 iii 

List of Figures................................................................................................................................. v 

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi 

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

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

1.0 Pilot Rail CRM Training Program Development .................................................................... 5 

1.1 Project Background.............................................................................................................. 5 

1.2 Identification of Teams and Training Groups...................................................................... 6 

1.3 Identifying and Developing Rail CRM Learning Objectives.............................................. 9 

1.4 Identifying and Developing Rail CRM Scenarios............................................................. 12 

2.0 Testing and Implementation of Pilot Rail CRM Training Program ...................................... 15 

2.1 Pilot Testing and Presentation of Course Materials........................................................... 15 

2.2 Pilot Rail CRM Training Delivery..................................................................................... 15 

2.3 Course Content Description............................................................................................... 16 

3.0 Analysis of Pilot Rail CRM Program .................................................................................... 21 

3.1 Characteristics of Training Participants............................................................................. 21 

3.2 Evaluation of CRM Training ............................................................................................. 22 

3.3 Development of the Railroad-Crew Management Attitudes Questionnaire (RCMAQ).... 28 

4.0 Issues Related to Broader Rail CRM Training Implementation............................................ 33 

4.1 Additional Tasks Related to CRM Training Implementation............................................ 33 

4.2 Recurrent Training Recommendations.............................................................................. 33 

4.3 CRM Facilitator Training .................................................................................................. 36 

4.4 The Future of CRM in the Railroad Industry..................................................................... 37 

Acronyms...................................................................................................................................... 41 

Table of Contents 
 
 v 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Number of Train Accidents by Year and Primary Cause............................................... 5 

Figure 2. Transportation Crews ..................................................................................................... 8 

Figure 3. Engineering Crews ......................................................................................................... 8 

Figure 4. Mechanical Crews.......................................................................................................... 8 

Figure 5. Age of Training Participants (N=139).......................................................................... 22 

Figure 6. Years of Service of Training Participants (N=137)...................................................... 22 

Figure 7. Distribution of Responses to the Item, “I found this training to be enjoyable.” .......... 25 

Figure 8. Distribution of Responses to the Item, “The training was job relevant.”..................... 25 

Figure 9. Distribution of the Responses to the Item, “The training had practical value.”........... 26 

Figure 10. Distribution of Responses to the Item, “To what degree will this training 

influence your ability later to perform your job?” ................................................................ 26 

Figure 11. Mean Scores on the RCMAQ Communications and Coordination Scale 

(Administration and Training Track).................................................................................... 31 

Figure 12. Mean Scores on the RCMAQ Recognition of Stressor Effects Scale 

(Administration and Training Track).................................................................................... 32 
 vi 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Differing Terminology for Core CRM Skills by Industry............................................. 10 

Table 2. Pilot Rail CRM Training Locations, Dates, and Class Size .......................................... 16 
vii 

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 we received on this project. We would also like to 

thank the BNSF Railway for their assistance and for permission to test the pilot program 

materials on the BNSF Texas Division. Specific individuals at BNSF who were invaluable in 

helping us on this project include John Grundmann, Alan Lindsey, David Galassi, Mark Schulze, 

Ron Overholt, Daniel Rankin, Bobby Curry, Mike Knight, Larry Trimble, Marlon Gaunt, Darrel 

Jones, Darren Taylor, and Silas Miller. 

We also would like to thank those in the Texas A&M community for their help on this project. 

Special thanks go to William Lowery of the Texas Engineering Extension Service who helped 

with curriculum development in the early stages of this project and to Sharon Thigpin and Marci 

Avery at the Texas A&M Research Foundation who helped with contracting issues. 
 
1 

Executive Summary 

Purpose of this Report 

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

develop and implement a pilot program of Rail-Based Crew Resource Management (CRM) 

training that can be used for a variety of crafts throughout the railroad industry. Pilot program 

development was a follow-on to the previous tasks, documenting the types of teams that exist in 

the railroad industry and the state of rail CRM training at U.S. Class I railroads, which TTI 

completed and documented in a separate report to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in 

September 2003. The pilot program builds upon the training methods and procedures identified 

in the earlier work. 

This report documents the program’s development and the experiences encountered in 

implementing it at the railroad division level. This report presents data from pre-training and 

post-training surveys of participants that were administered during the pilot course as measures 

of the effectiveness and acceptance of the training program materials. The study also includes 

recommendations on further steps to broader CRM implementation within the railroad industry. 

Project Background 

During the past 4 years, a research team at TTI worked with FRA and the BNSF Railway 

(formerly the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway) to develop an improved CRM training 

course for use in the U.S. railroad industry. Initial tasks included site visits to a cross-section of 

railroad types in various U.S. locations, identification of railroad team makeup and tasks, and 

classification of railroad teams. Subsequent tasks have included design and pilot implementation 

of a CRM training course at various locations on the BNSF, which this report describes. The 

course was designed for training a variety of railroad crafts in technical proficiency, situational 

awareness, communications, teamwork, and assertiveness. 

During the 1980s and 1990s many U.S. industries adopted human factors training courses, such 

as CRM. CRM first became widely used in the commercial airline industry, but military 

aviation, shipboard crews, medical/surgical teams, offshore oil crews, nuclear power plant 

operating crews, and other high-consequence, high-risk, time-critical industry teams soon 

followed. The success of CRM programs in reducing the number of airline accidents attributed 

to human error prompted the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to recommend that a 

“Train CRM” program be developed for the U.S. railroad industry (NTSB, 1999). The need for 

such a program becomes evident considering that over the 12-year period between 1992 and 

2003, human factor accidents (where human factors were determined to be the primary cause) 

have accounted for 42 percent of all railroad accidents (FRA, 2005). 

In response to the NTSB’s recommendation, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and 

Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) jointly developed a video-based CRM training course, which 

was oriented largely to train operating crews (engineers and conductors). Several FRA Office of 

Safety personnel and the safety managers of several railroads were interested in seeing CRM 
 2 

training applied more broadly across the many varied crafts and skills within the railroad 

industry. This led them to approach TTI, seeking the development of a pilot rail CRM course 

that could be used to meet this need. 

Development of Pilot Rail CRM Training Course 

TTI based its pilot rail CRM training program upon the team classification models that it 

developed for FRA during earlier phases of this project. Researchers determined that a 

facilitator-led, scenario-based training program was the most effective method of initial CRM 

awareness training. In order to meet the need to reach a broader base of railroad crafts, 

researchers developed a core curriculum of CRM topics with the flexibility to select scenarios 

based upon the makeup of class participants. To achieve this, researchers developed three basic 

training tracks for rail CRM. The identified training tracks (with example crafts in each) were: 

• Transportation: Locomotive engineers, conductors, dispatchers, switchmen, brakemen 

• Engineering: Section gangs (maintenance-of-way (MOW)), signal maintainers, electrical 

catenary crews 

• Mechanical: Machinists, electricians, pipe fitters, carmen 

Each training track is supported by several scenarios from its own craft area in order to ensure 

that the training is job relevant for the class participants. Chapter 1.0 includes further 

information on course development. 

Implementation and Testing of Pilot Course Materials 

Once the course curriculum was nearing completion and the supporting scenarios developed, 

researchers scheduled several training classes with the host railroad to pilot test the materials. A 

total of 9 transportation classes and 6 engineering classes have been held, resulting in the training 

of 86 transportation personnel and 100 engineering personnel. Due to several events described 

in this report, the mechanical track materials have not been pilot tested. Chapter 2.0 describes 

information on the implementation and pilot testing of this program. 

Analysis of Pilot Rail CRM Program 

During the administration of the pilot rail CRM classes, a pre- and post-training survey was 

given to each class so that a variety of analyses could be performed to assess the effectiveness of 

the training materials. The evaluation consisted of several measures of participant 

characteristics, such as attitude changes, knowledge gain, and perceptions about the content of 

the course materials. The analysis shows that the class was well received in the locations where 

the pilot training took place. Chapter 3.0 provides detailed analysis and graphs showing 

participant characteristics. 

Recommendations 

The final chapter of the report contains several recommendations regarding the further 

implementation of CRM within the railroad industry. Several of these recommendations are 
3 

related to the need for recurrent training to follow up on the initial training conducted during this 

pilot testing program. The research team recommends wider implementation of CRM training 

programs for all railroad crafts throughout the railroad industry. Both management and labor 

should be involved in this process, along with input from FRA on course content. The proven 

CRM principles from other industries can be implemented to address the human factors-related 

errors and accidents occurring in the railroad industry. The research team also recommends that 

FRA and railroad company safety training experts be identified and trained to facilitate CRM 

training classes throughout the railroad industry. The experience and expertise of these highly 

trained individuals will give them added credibility in presenting CRM concepts to railroad 

personnel that could not be immediately achieved by a group of outside subject matter experts in 

CRM or human factors training. 

 5 

1.0 Pilot Rail CRM Training Program Development 

1.1 Project Background 

During the past 4 years, a research team at TTI has been working with FRA and BNSF Railway 

to develop an improved CRM training course for use in the U.S. railroad industry. Initial tasks 

included site visits to a cross-section of railroad types in various U.S. locations, identification of 

railroad team makeup and tasks, and classification of railroad teams. Subsequent tasks have 

included design and pilot implementation of a CRM training course at various locations on the 

BNSF, which are described in this report. The course is designed to be used for training a 

variety of railroad crafts in technical proficiency, situational awareness, communications, 

teamwork, and assertiveness. 

During the 1980s and 1990s, many U.S. industries adopted human factors training courses, such 

as CRM. CRM first became widely used in the commercial airline industry, but military 

aviation, shipboard crews, medical/surgical teams, offshore oil crews, nuclear power plant 

operating crews, and other high-consequence, high-risk, time-critical industry teams soon 

followed. The success of CRM programs in reducing the number of airline accidents attributed 

to human error prompted NTSB to recommend that a Train CRM program be developed for the 

U.S. railroad industry (NTSB, 1999). The need for such a program becomes evident when 

considering that over the 12-year period between 1992 and 2003, human factor accidents (where 

human factors were determined to be the primary cause) have accounted for 42 percent of all 

railroad accidents (FRA, 2005). Figure 1 shows a breakdown of these accidents. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Number of Train Accidents by Year and Primary Cause

Track Human Factor Equipment Signal

Figure 1. Number of Train Accidents by Year and Primary Cause 
 6 

In response to the NTSB’s recommendation, AAR and NS jointly developed a video-based CRM 

training course, which was oriented largely to train operating crews (engineers and conductors). 

Several FRA Office of Safety personnel and the safety managers of several railroads were 

interested in seeing CRM training applied more broadly across the many varied crafts and skills 

within the railroad industry. This led them to approach TTI seeking the development of a pilot 

rail CRM course that could be used to meet this need. 

1.2 Identification of Teams and Training Groups 

In late 2000, TTI began the original phases of its CRM research project for FRA’s Office of 

Research and Development to identify, document, and classify the existing teams within the 

railroad industry. As part of the project, the research team conducted site visits at a cross-section 

of railroads that represented different geographic areas, organizational size, and purpose. 

Researchers visited several railroads throughout the United States to identify existing teams in 

the railroad environment. These early project tasks allowed the research team to develop a list of 

the common teams which exist at both freight and passenger railroads in the United States. In 

late 2003, the team presented a report to FRA that outlined the teams, their makeup, and 

classification (Morgan, Kyte, Olson, & Roop, 2003). 

In addition, the report includes an assessment of the extent to which each of the large, Class I 

railroads in North America had implemented CRM training. TTI found that while all of the 

railroads had had some exposure to CRM, few of them had established an ongoing, active CRM 

training program. Instead, CRM was used as an annual training topic or as a remedial or 

corrective measure. A notable exception to limited application was at the Canadian Pacific 

Railway (CPR) where extensive training of train operating crews had been completed and 

operational reinforcement of CRM practices was beginning. Throughout the industry, however, 

application of CRM was almost exclusively restricted to train operating crews—much as early 

cockpit resource management had been restricted to flightdeck crews in aviation. In order to 

expand this application to other railroad crews, TTI’s team classification process had to address 

issues related to the organizational types of teams found in the railroad industry, as well as 

recommending ways to incorporate more of the existing teams into CRM training. 

1.2.1 Classification of Railroad Teams 

TTI identified two major types of teams during this phase of the research, which the report terms 

elemental teams and interactive teams (Morgan, Kyte, Olson, & Roop, 2003). These terms come 

from the fact that certain teams are elemental—in the sense that they are relatively consistent in 

their makeup from day-to-day and that they are formed for the entire work period. An example 

of an elemental team would be a train operating crew for either mainline or yard operations 

consisting, most often, of an engineer and conductor but occasionally with the addition of a 

switchman or brakeman to assist in coupling/de-coupling of trains and manual operation of track 

switches. Another example of an elemental team would be an MOW crew, which typically 

consists of a foreman, an assistant foreman, a vehicle driver, and several laborers (trackmen, 

machine operators, or welders) depending upon the work tasks planned for that day. In both 

cases, the teams form at the beginning of the work shift and operate as a team in carrying out the 

day’s assigned work. 
 7 

The second type of team, the interactive team, forms when an elemental team must interact with 

either an outside individual or another elemental team in order to perform a task that occurs 

during the course of the workday. This type of team is formed onsite during the work process 

and exists, in effect, only for the duration of the interaction. An example of such an interactive 

team would be the team which is formed when a train dispatcher, an MOW crew, and a train 

operating crew must coordinate their efforts to safely move a train through an area of the track 

where the MOW crew is repairing or maintaining the track. 

For this train movement to be safely accomplished, the dispatcher must communicate with both 

the train crew and the MOW crew to ensure that the track is in place and in a condition that will 

allow train movement; that the MOW crew, their vehicles, and their tools are not fouling the 

track; and that the train crew is aware of any speed restrictions while operating through the area. 

The MOW crew and train crew may also communicate directly by removing trackside 

maintenance warning signs and by ringing the locomotive’s bell while transiting the work area. 

While conducting these activities, the dispatcher, MOW crew, and train crew form an interactive 

team process that dissolves once the train has completed its passage through the work area. The 

individual elemental teams then continue with their work until another interactive team is needed 

for another train to pass or until the track work is complete. 

1.2.2 Grouping Teams for CRM Training 

Once researchers identified the two major types of teams, a second decision was made to 

determine the grouping of the teams by similar work tasks in order to more effectively conduct 

CRM training. This classification process took the teams identified in the earlier project and 

grouped them into three separate training tracks based upon common work functions. This 

decision was based largely upon the research team’s review of existing CRM training programs 

in the aviation, marine, and military domains. These industries were most comparable to the 

railroad industry in being transportation-oriented and organizationally similar. Each of them had 

adopted facilitator-led, scenario-driven, classroom-based training during their initial CRM 

implementation. The identified training tracks for rail (with example crafts in each) were: 

• Transportation: Locomotive engineers, conductors, dispatchers, switchmen, brakemen 

• Engineering: Section gangs (MOW), signal maintainers, electrical catenary crews 

• Mechanical: Machinists, electricians, pipe fitters, carmen 

Figures 2, 3, and 4 provide charts that show which teams or individuals would be assigned each 

of these training tracks. 

Certain individuals are assigned to more than one training track. For example, a track inspector 

might benefit from participation in both the transportation and engineering tracks of the CRM 

course since that position relates closely to train operations and MOW. 
Transportation

Road Crew Yard Crew Dispatch

Yard Crew 

(Remote Control)

Yard Crew 

(Conventional) 

Intermodal Load 

& Unload Crew

Passenger 

Road Crew 

Freight 

Road Crew 

Track 

Inspector 

 8 

 

Locomotive Repair 

Shop Crew 

Car Repair 

Shop Crew 

Cars 

In-Bound/Out-Bound

Inspection Team 

Locomotives 

Hostler Locomotive 

Servicing Crew

Mechanical 

Figure 2. Transportation Crews 

Figure 3. Engineering Crews 

Figure 4. Mechanical Crews 

Maintenance 

of Way 

Structures 

(B&B) 

Engineering

Signals 

Signal 

Gang 

Signal 

Maintainer

Catenary 

Maintenance Crew

(AC or DC) 

Track 

Section Gang Production 

Gangs 

Electrical

Electrical 

Bonding Crew
 9 

1.2.3 Use of Recent Accidents for Training Scenarios 

The importance of using scenarios taken from real accidents is evident from its frequent 

occurrence in implementation of CRM training in other industries. By using recent, relatable 

(i.e., closely associated to the job tasks of the student) accident scenarios, CRM principles are 

immediately reinforced in a manner that exhibits practical applications of the concepts into daily 

work. For this reason, scenarios are most effective when they relate directly to the daily work of 

the class members being trained. For example, using a scenario related to an engineer-conductor 

communications failure which led to a crash would be most useful in a class of engineers and 

conductors; however, it would not be nearly as effective in a class made up of signal maintainers 

or locomotive maintenance personnel. Developing a core course on the CRM basics with 

interchangeable scenarios related directly to the class makeup quickly became the focus of the 

pilot rail CRM training development. 

1.2.4 Phases of CRM Training 

Previous research suggests that participants should complete three critical phases of CRM 

training for it to be effective (Koenig, 1997; Prince, 1992). Similarly, the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA) regulatory policies regarding CRM reflect the importance of each of 

these three phases (FAA, 2004). These phases are: 

• Awareness Phase: Crewmembers complete seminar instruction and group exercises to 

learn the basic components of CRM. 

• Practice and Feedback Phase: Crews participate in a realistic scenario in a simulator and 

receive feedback on their performance. 

• Reinforcement Phase: The concepts become part of the organization’s overall training 

and operation practices. 

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 within an organization, such as organizational 

commitment to training objectives, is considered one of the most important aspects of long-term 

training effectiveness (Salas, Rhodenizer, & Bowers, 2000). The course designed by TTI during 

this project is meant to train in the awareness phase with on-the-job practice, feedback, and 

reinforcement to follow once the workers return to their job sites. 

1.3 Identifying and Developing Rail CRM Learning Objectives 

Before designing the specific items to be included in the pilot rail CRM training program, it was 

important for the research team to identify and develop a list of overall learning objectives for 

the course. To fulfill this need, the research team built upon the examination of CRM training 

programs in other industries that had been conducted during the earlier phases of this project. 
 10 

That research found that while many of the core skills contained in CRM training are similar 

across all industries, each industry has developed its own terminology and divided the course 

into a number of segments according to its own needs. Table 1 shows the results of this program 

review. 

Researchers found three factors to be determinant in guiding the research team to choose how the 

pilot rail CRM course should be segmented—information gathered on existing CRM programs in 

the railroad industry and other closely associated industries, CRM factors listed in the NTSB 

recommendation, and input from FRA and partner railroads who were participating in the 

project. While each of these played an important role, the review of other programs was the 

most important. The TTI research team, with the assistance of an adult education expert from 

one of TTI’s sister agencies, the Texas Engineering Experiment Station (TEEX), set out to 

develop a number of specific learning objectives for the pilot program. 

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

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

 Relationship Issues Active Practice

and Feedback

TTI and TEEX worked together to develop a set of five overarching goals for the pilot CRM 

training program. These goals suggested that upon completion of the anticipated instruction, 

learners should do the following: 

a. Understand what CRM is and what it is not. 

b. Know CRM methods and appreciate their value for improving railroad safety. 

c. Understand that safety hinges on both individual and team actions. 

d. Know techniques and attitudes that foster effective communication 

within and between teams. 
 11 

e. Understand situational awareness and how job safety is affected by circumstances both 

on and off the job. 

TTI and TEEX then worked together for several months to refine these goals and create learning 

objectives which would meet them. Each of the goals was analyzed and assigned specific 

learning objectives. The learning objectives desired for each participant, in order to meet the 

goals, included the following: 

a. Understand what CRM is and what it is not. 

1. Explain where CRM techniques originated. 

2. Describe the difference between CRM and crew management. 

3. Describe how CRM can be used to reduce accidents related to human error. 

4. Name the principal elements (main areas) of CRM practices (as described in the 

course). 

5. Identify ways that effective crews may already be practicing some of these 

principles. 

b. Know CRM methods and appreciate their value for improving railroad safety. 

1. Describe how CRM techniques can be important to safe railroad operations. 

2. Explain the benefit of CRM to enhancing safe crew functions. 

3. Explain to a coworker how CRM can benefit the quality of one’s job-life. 

4. Make appropriate choices from among competing safety considerations. 

5. Name the three elements of technical proficiency as related to CRM practices. 

6. Give an example of maximizing use of available resources to enhance safe 

operations. 

c. Understand that safety hinges on both individual and team actions. 

1. Identify and give examples of four types of human error. 

2. Explain why optimizing safety involves team responsibility, as well as individual 

responsibility. 

3. Describe the role of exercising safety leadership (in achieving safe outcomes). 

4. List the benefits of improved team decisionmaking. 

d. Know techniques and attitudes that foster effective communication within and 

between teams. 

1. List the main factors affecting how individuals communicate. 

2. Describe his/her own communication style. 

3. Identify barriers to full communication of safety information among 

crewmembers. 

4. Explain why one’s communication should be tailored to the style of 

communication common to the listener. 

5. Demonstrate appropriate use of assertiveness in job communications. 

6. Give examples of information that might need to be shared with coworkers to 

enhance team safety. 

7. Illustrate good and bad techniques for communicating in a job briefing. 

e. Understand situational awareness and how job safety is affected by circumstances 

both on and off the job. 

1. Explain some of the ways non-work life can affect on-the-job safety. 

2. Describe personal and team cues that indicate potential safety breakdowns. 
 12 

3. Give examples of identifying error and potential error at the earliest stage of 

situation development. 

4. Describe the potential impact of stress and fatigue on worker perceptions of 

developing situations. 

5. Explain to a coworker why maintaining situational awareness is so important to 

job safety. 

6. Be able to list four techniques that individuals can use to maintain situational 

awareness on a team. 

The research team traveled to Washington, DC, and reached agreement on these learning 

objectives with FRA and ENSCO personnel in July 2003. Once these goals and specific learning 

objectives were in place, the team was able to develop almost all of the lecture materials in the 

course to directly meet them; however, in addition to objective CRM content, the training course 

also required that realistic scenarios be developed. 

1.4 Identifying and Developing Rail CRM Scenarios 

In its recommendation to develop rail-based CRM training, NTSB suggested that the program 

should address four main topics: crewmember proficiency, situational awareness, effective 

communication and teamwork, and strategies for appropriately challenging and questioning 

authority (NTSB, 1999). It was important that these elements be brought into the course design 

while still meeting the goals and learning objectives described in the previous section. 

Following discussions with and input from BNSF and FRA, the research team decided to adopt a 

core outline for the pilot rail CRM training course, which consisted of the following six training 

modules: 

• Introduction/Background of CRM 

• Technical Proficiency 

• Situational Awareness 

• Communications 

• Teamwork 

• Assertiveness 

Once this framework was in place, the researchers developed scenarios to support each topic and 

training track. Researchers also located audio/video materials to support each module; however, 

sources of detailed information regarding rail accidents are limited. Initial resistance to using 

recent, actual accident scenarios was encountered from the railroad companies involved due to 

legal concerns. After some discussion, FRA and railroad representatives agreed to allow the 

research team to use NTSB reports and FRA fatality reports in developing scenarios since these 

reports were already in the public domain. Railroad company representatives also had to be 

convinced that selecting the most appropriate examples of each of the CRM traits exhibited from 

the pool of available NTSB and FRA reports was a better choice than trying to ensure that the 

number of examples selected from each railroad company was the same or that no accidents on 

the host railroad should be used. 
 13 

Although a close calls reporting system is now under development by FRA and the railroads, at 

the time of this project one did not exist. As a result, few examples of positive CRM saves 

(accidents prevented by practicing CRM skills) reported through an anonymous system were 

available to be developed into scenarios. This resulted in most of the program scenarios 

centering on fatal accidents that had been documented in either NTSB reports or the limited 

number of detailed FRA fatality reports from 1997, 1998, and 2002, which FRA has published. 

While these sources provide accident analysis in the level of detail required to develop rail CRM 

scenarios, typical FRA accident reports do not. FRA accident reports have numerical data that 

describe injuries and account for physical damage to rail rolling stock (i.e., locomotives and cars) 

and tracks, but little emphasis in accident reporting to date has gone into investigation of human 

factors unless fatalities have occurred. 

Once the course goals and learning objectives were in place and the sources of scenario materials 

received approval, actual course development could begin. This was an iterative process which 

took quite some time. The next chapter describes the course content and testing process. 

 15 

2.0 Testing and Implementation of Pilot Rail CRM Training Program 

2.1 Pilot Testing and Presentation of Course Materials 

TTI conducted beta testing of transportation and engineering tracks of the program in fall 2004 

to determine the effectiveness of the training materials that remained under development. 

Researchers made changes to the content and organization of the CRM training presentation and 

scenarios based upon input received at those two beta test classes. The team also decided to 

provide each attendee with a participant’s guide, which contained copies of the presentation 

slides, room for taking notes, and written versions of each scenario along with questions to be 

used by the small groups. Regular training sessions in the transportation and engineering tracks 

followed the beta testing phase in spring and early summer 2005 at various locations as shown in 

Table 2. 

Pilot testing of the maintenance track materials did not take place due to several setbacks. 

Originally, maintenance track pilot testing was scheduled at the Kansas City Southern (KCS) 

maintenance facilities in Shreveport, LA; however, after the resignation and departure of the 

member of the safety management team at KCS who was supporting this project, an agreement 

to conduct the mechanical classes could not be reached with KCS. Other KCS management 

officers were asked for permission to conduct the classes, and both TTI and FRA personnel made 

repeated attempts to schedule the courses at BNSF sites. Ultimately, these efforts proved 

unsuccessful. 

2.2 Pilot Rail CRM Training Delivery 

TTI worked with personnel at FRA and BNSF to arrange classes to pilot test the training course 

once each of the training track curriculums was completed. This process consisted of beta test 

courses conducted in late 2004 and training classes for transportation and engineering tracks in 

spring and early summer 2005. Classes typically took between 6 and 8 hours to complete 

depending upon the number of attendees and the amount of discussion that occurred among the 

participants. 

Each of the training tracks has experienced challenges associated with scheduling and conduct of 

the pilot courses, which will need to be considered to further implement the program. In the 

transportation training track, the greatest difficulty encountered when scheduling classes was due 

to the crew scheduling process by which students are assigned to the pilot classes. Often trainees 

were given little or no notice of the class being scheduled and had to report for training when 

they were expecting an operational job on that day. This lack of notice about the class angered 

and frustrated many of the participants. It often took several hours to overcome this obstacle and 

win over the participants to the value of the training. 
 16 

Table 2. Pilot Rail CRM Training Locations, Dates, and Class Size

Location Date Training Track Number of Attendees 

Saginaw, TX September 22, 2004 Transportation (BETA) 17 

“ December 2, 2004 Engineering (BETA) 3 

“ April 12, 2005 Transportation 14 

“ April 20, 2005 “ 12 

“ April 21, 2005 “ 4 

“ April 25, 2005 “ 12 

“ April 26, 2005 “ 8 

“ April 27, 2005 “ 4 

“ May 3, 2005 “ 8 

“ May 4, 2005 “ 7 

Ft. Worth, TX May 17, 2005 Engineering 14 

“ May 18, 2005 “ 22 

Childress, TX June 8, 2005 “ 16 

Norman, OK June 14, 2005 “ 22 

Perry, OK June 15, 2005 “ 23 

Researchers did not encounter this problem when scheduling engineering classes since group 

training and a monthly training day were already a part of their regularly planned activity. 

Additionally, the interest of the division engineer in seeing the program implemented enabled the 

courses to be scheduled more readily. Maintenance classes are pending location and participant 

scheduling by the host railroad and FRA. 

2.3 Course Content Description 

The following six modules make up the CRM presentation developed for this course. The end of 

each module presents a scenario based upon an actual accident or incident that supports the 

learning objectives of the module. Each scenario contains information from reports published by 

NTSB or FRA. Class participants are put into small groups, where they review the materials and 

answer a number of questions related to the CRM principles discussed during the lecture portion 

of each module. 

Before beginning the first module, each class receives a Safety Briefing regarding the classroom 

location, a headcount is taken, and emergency plans are made should an unforeseen event occur 

during the training. This briefing is done in accordance with the host railroad’s procedures and 

policies. Whenever possible, the facilitators allowed a senior member of the class to lead or 

assist in conducting this briefing. 

Following the safety briefing, each facilitator and class participant are given an opportunity to 

introduce themselves and give some information on their background as it related to the class 

(i.e., name, years of railroad experience, job assignment, etc.). Once introductions are 

completed, a pre-training survey is administered to the class participants to gain baseline 

information for evaluating course effectiveness. 
 17 

2.3.1 Module 1: Introduction 

Module 1 of the course provides basic definitions for CRM and a history of the origins and 

development of CRM. This module describes what CRM is and what it is not, specifically 

addressing the difference between the CRM concepts that are covered in the class and crew 

management, which is the term used by several Class I railroads to describe their system of 

notifying train crews when they are required to report for duty. The instructor makes it clear that 

CRM, as discussed in this class, is not directly related to this crew calling function. A discussion 

of the project’s history is included, as well as an overview of elemental and interactive teams, 

and an explanation of the training tracks that make up this CRM training program. 

This module also includes a discussion of NTSB’s investigation of the NS–CSX train accident at 

Butler, IN, in 1998, which led NTSB to recommend that the railroad industry institute train CRM 

for the first time. The NTSB investigation concluded that a major contributing factor of the 

accident was that each member of the train crew acted as an individual with little or no 

communication as a team. The discussion of this accident, and the breakdown in crew 

coordination which led to it, laid the basis for the day’s discussion of CRM principles. 

The facilitator presents an outline of the planned training schedule, as well as an overview of the 

topics to be studied throughout the day. This module allows time for two to three additional 

accident scenarios at the end to begin to familiarize and involve the participants in analysis of the 

human factors causes of accidents. The participants, acting in small groups (or as one large 

group depending on class size), review and evaluate each scenario before the facilitator reviews 

and discusses its relationship to CRM principles. This acquaints the participants with techniques 

that are used throughout the day to evaluate scenarios in each subsequent module. Discussion of 

the introductory scenarios also allows the small groups to begin to coalesce and form internal 

roles that can be built upon as the class progresses. 

2.3.2 Module 2: Technical Proficiency 

Module 2 is typically a very short module in comparison with the others in this course. The 

development of technical (or job) proficiency has often been the focus of the majority of job 

training that is provided by railroad companies to new hires and long-time employees. In 

relation to CRM, technical proficiency is foundational because each team member is expected to 

know his/her procedures, know his/her equipment, and know how to put knowledge of those two 

items into practice as skilled job performance. 

A second facet of technical proficiency related to CRM that is discussed by the instructor is to 

assess and take into consideration the technical proficiency of other team members both before 

and during job activities. The key is not to assume that a coworker knows a specific skill, but to 

ask him/her directly if any question exists regarding his/her ability to complete an assigned task. 

Other methods of assessing or determining a co-worker’s level of technical proficiency, as well 

as situations where a lack of technical proficiency can lead to an accident, are discussed. 

The facilitator stresses to the participants that this module is not a forum to evaluate their 

individual technical proficiency. Rather, it is a reminder that, along with the individual and 

railroad responsibilities for ensuring that a person is trained in his/her job functions, the members 
 18 

of each railroad team must work together to identify any areas where technical proficiency may 

be lacking. At the end of the module, a scenario in which a lack of technical proficiency led to 

an accident is discussed. 

2.3.3 Module 3: Situational Awareness 

This module introduces the students to the concept of situational awareness and uses presentation 

graphics to compare what is actually occurring (reality) versus what is viewed to be happening 

(perception of reality). The fact that people act upon what they perceive as reality is discussed 

by the facilitator, as is the importance of becoming more aware of the actual situation as 

individuals and as a team. This module also allows discussion of recognizing situational cues 

and the role that fatigue can play in loss of situational awareness. This module also reviews tools 

for recognizing a loss of situational awareness, regaining situational awareness, and maintaining 

situational awareness. 

Module 3 typically uses one scenario exhibiting a loss of situational awareness and one video 

clip showing fatigue cues to aid the participants in relating to the subject material. Discussion of 

the scenario in small groups and subsequent discussion as a whole class normally allows time for 

the participants to examine and question how the crews in the scenario could lose situational 

awareness, as well as identify some points in the scenario where a different action should have 

taken place. The facilitator must work to begin to have class members identify and point out 

such events by this time in each training session. 

2.3.4 Module 4: Communications 

This module covers communication skills and ways to improve communication between 

crewmembers of elemental and interactive teams. It includes three video clips of the same two 

individuals discussing a job assignment in the yard, each time using improved communication 

skills to increase safety through information exchange. The video clips illustrate communication 

skills presented in the module. For the transportation track, a recording of the dispatcher to train 

crew communications from the head-on collision of trains in Clarendon, TX, is presented to the 

class. (This audio file was provided to the team by FRA staff who participated in the NTSB 

investigation of the accident.) The class is asked to identify problems in communication either 

internal to the operating crews or between the train crews and the dispatcher as the recording 

advances. After the audio track is completed, the participants read a short description of the 

head-on collision to provide further information on how it occurred. The small groups can then 

evaluate what went wrong during the period building up to the time of the accident. 

This module stresses the importance of evaluating multiple characteristics of communication, 

such as non-verbal, two-way versus one-way communication, and active listening. Other 

communications methods used by the railroad industry are reviewed (for example, radio, hand 

signals, written orders, and the strengths and weaknesses of each communication method). The 

module continues with a discussion of new communications technologies (cell phones, electronic 

authority exchange, automated information exchange, etc.) and how they will potentially change 

the way in which railroad crews communicate. Finally, the importance of the job briefing 

process and the importance of active participation in job briefings are reviewed and discussed. 
 19 

Participants are reminded that overt and subtle cues may be displayed during the briefing that 

can greatly affect the crew’s later performance. 

2.3.5 Module 5: Teamwork 

The teamwork module’s goal is to relate to the participants that safety hinges on individual and 

team actions. Principal issues discussed are the difference between the lines of authority or 

leadership as opposed to safety leadership, developing conflict resolution skills, making sure the 

work load is equally distributed throughout the working crew, and keeping all members of the 

crew actively involved in safety while recognizing coworker cues. The module normally utilizes 

one scenario related to teamwork or job assignment roles and two video clips related to conflict 

management to illustrate the principles covered. 

2.3.6 Module 6: Assertiveness 

This module discusses the need for assertive communication within railroad teams to help ensure 

that accidents do not occur due to a failure to communicate information or to point out hazards 

due to authority roles within the crew. Proper methods of being assertive are reviewed, and one 

video clip is presented that illustrates how an accident can occur when an individual does not act 

assertively and submits to the judgment of a more senior coworker, even though he/she is 

uncomfortable with the situation. 

2.3.7 Course Review and Final Scenario 

The course review discusses the items covered throughout the day’s CRM training. To wrap up 

the course, a major scenario incorporating all the elements of CRM is presented for small group 

review and evaluation. This scenario allows the group to utilize the skills learned during the 

entire class. The facilitator has the participants identify and describe each of the different 

elements of CRM (i.e., technical proficiency, situational awareness, communication, teamwork, 

and assertiveness) that play a role in the accident scenario, as well as corrective actions that the 

crew could have taken before or during the unfolding accident. Once this discussion is complete, 

a post-training survey is administered to the class in order to assess knowledge transfer, attitude 

changes, and acceptance of CRM principles by the participants. The next chapter contains a 

detailed analysis of the results of this measurement of class responses. 

 21 

3.0 Analysis of Pilot Rail CRM Program 

3.1 Characteristics of Training Participants 

As part of this pilot rail CRM training program, a total of 186 participants were trained. The 

average class size was 13; however, class sizes ranged from 3 to 24 participants. In the 9 

transportation track CRM classes, a total of 86 engineers, conductors, and/or switchmen were 

trained. Furthermore, a total of 100 MOW employees attended 1 of the 6 engineering track pilot 

rail CRM training classes. The MOW employees who attended the training included welders, 

welder’s helpers, equipment and machine operators, track laborers, truck drivers, signal 

inspectors, MOW foremen, and assistant foremen. A small number of bridge and building 

supervisors attended the engineering beta course. Furthermore, several road masters, track 

supervisors, and a safety assistant participated in one or more engineering track training 

programs. 

TTI collected data on age and years of railroad service from 75 percent of the training 

participants. The average age of the sample group was 45 years old; however, further 

examination of the data revealed a bi-modal distribution, with two main age groups. Figure 5 

shows one mode around 34 years of age, while another is around 52 years of age. The 

distribution of years of service on the railroad had similar properties. Overall, participants 

averaged 20 years of service on the railroad; however, inspection of Figure 6 shows a tri-modal 

distribution including a large group with 1 year or less of experience (new hires), participants 

with around 8 years of experience, and finally participants with about 30 years of experience. 

Before this pilot program, many CRM principles and skills had been taught to the broad 

employee base throughout the railroad industry but not through any formal training that is called 

CRM (Morgan, Olson, Kyte, Roop, & Carlisle, 2003). For example, 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 through a variety of training courses. The idea of 

teamwork within a CRM framework, however, is not necessarily taught. Consequently, the 

extent to which participants had received previous CRM or CRM-type human factors training 

was also assessed through a post-training survey given to a sample of participants (58 percent). 

Results showed that 3.8 percent of those participants sampled indicated that they had previously 

attended CRM training, 11.3 percent indicated that they had previous training on 

communication, 7.5 percent specified that they attended previous situational awareness training, 

11.3 percent had some sort of teamwork training, and finally 7.5 percent indicated that they had 

previous assertiveness training. 
 22 

6 1

5 9

5 7

5 5

5 3

5 1

4 9

4 7

4 5

4 3

4 1

3 9

3 6

3 4

3 2

3 0

2 7

2 5

2 3

2 0

1 4

1 2

1 0

8

6

4

2

0

Figure 5. Age of Training Participants (N=139) 

97531 1 1 1 7 2 4 2 6 3 43 23 02 8 3 6

2 0

1 0

0

Figure 6. Years of Service of Training Participants (N=137) 

3.2 Evaluation of CRM Training 

Goldstein (1991) states that the training process is a “systematic acquisition of attitudes, 

concepts, knowledge, rules, or skills that result in improved performance at work” (p. 508). 

Training evaluation is “the systematic collection of descriptive and judgmental information 

necessary to make effective training decisions related to the selection, adoption, value, and 

modification of various instructional activities” (Goldstein, 1991, p. 557). Thus, the evaluation 
 23 

of training is an essential component of any training program because it tells whether the 

program is having a positive effect on training outcomes and whether it is an appropriate 

investment for the organization or funding agency (Salas, Burke, Bowers, & Wilson, 2001). 

Aside from the indication of whether the goals and objectives of a specific training resulted in 

the desired outcome, systematic training evaluation can serve other important functions as well 

(Goldstein, 1993; Salas et al., 2001). For example, it can be used as a way to collect feedback on 

the training program itself, so that adjustments and revisions can be made to maximize training 

effectiveness in the future. Likewise, it can be used to assess which aspects of training work and 

do not work for different training groups and populations. 

Different criteria can be used to assess some of the different objectives of training evaluation. 

The most common framework for categorizing these criteria is Kirkpatrick’s (1976) typology. 

Kirkpatrick outlined four different types of evaluation criteria including reaction, learning, 

behavioral, and organizational criteria. Reaction criteria include a trainees’ feeling toward the 

training program itself. These can include affective reactions to the course content or instructors, 

as well as judgments as to the utility of the training program for changing on-the-job behavior 

(Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993). Learning is the second level of evaluation criteria developed by 

Kirkpatrick, who describes it as a trainee’s learning of principles, facts, and skills. Over the 

years, the concept of Kirkpatrick’s (1976) learning level has expanded to include cognitive 

learning, skill-based, and affective outcomes (Kraiger et al., 1993). Cognitive criteria include 

verbal knowledge, knowledge organization, and cognitive strategies. Skill-based outcomes 

include compilation and automaticity, while affective outcomes included attitudinal and 

motivational indices. Behavioral indices, Kirkpatrick’s third level of training evaluation criteria, 

include trained behaviors displayed on the job. His fourth level, titled organizational outcomes, 

might include increases in performance or productivity, or decreases in turnover, downtime, or 

accidents. 

Many researchers suggest using a multifaceted approach to training evaluation, which includes 

several levels of training criteria (Salas, Prince, Bowers, Stout, Oser, & Cannon-Bowers, 1999). 

The current pilot rail CRM training program was evaluated using Kirkpatrick’s level one criteria 

(participant reactions), as well as his level two criteria. This includes the extent of cognitive 

learning (verbal knowledge) and affective outcomes. Although important, the assessment of 

behavioral and organizational criteria was beyond the scope of the current project. 

3.2.1 Participant Reactions to Training 

Participants’ positive affective reactions to a training program should be an important goal of any 

of any training initiative (Salas et al., 2001). Trainees who enjoy the training and think it is 

practical and useful should have a greater willingness to pay attention and motivation to learn. 

Just as important, a positive reaction to training can influence labor and management support of 

future training (Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett, Traver, & Shotland, 1997; Salas et al., 2001). On 

the other hand, negative reactions can provide feedback to help training developers revise and 

improve the program (Orlady & Foushee, 1987). 
 24 

The training content and the methods used in the current pilot rail CRM program were 

specifically developed to increase the relevance of the material for the rail environment. As 

previously outlined, the program consisted of rail-specific, real-life accident scenarios and 

videos, which is different than other CRM programs seen in the railroad industry (Morgan et al., 

2003). The program developers believed that using realistic videos and scenarios from the rail 

environment would result in training becoming more enjoyable, practical, and useful to railroad 

participants. Furthermore, the current CRM training gives the trainees several opportunities to 

discuss the scenarios and other content with groups of their peers in class. As a result of these 

factors and the documented positive reactions to CRM training in the airline industry (Salas et 

al., 2001), program developers believed that rail CRM would be considered enjoyable, as well as 

seen as practical and useful, to railroad employees. 

Participants’ reactions to the current pilot rail CRM training program were assessed using a posttraining survey. Three reaction items asked participants to indicate to what degree they agreed 

with a series of statements on a seven-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). 

Three of the items were, “I found this training to be enjoyable,” “The training was job relevant,” 

and “The training had practical value.” A fourth item asked, “To what degree will this training 

influence your ability later to perform your job?” For this fourth item, participants were asked to 

indicate their perception of the degree of influence on a seven-point Likert scale (1=no influence, 

7=strongly influence). 

Results showed that participants found the training to be enjoyable with an average rating of 5.09 

(SD=1.42). Figure 7 shows the distribution of these responses. Furthermore, participants 

indicated that they believed the training was job relevant and had practical value as indicated by 

mean ratings of 5.57 (SD=1.46) and 5.58 (SD=1.34), respectively. Figures 8 and 9 show the 

distribution of responses to these items. Lastly, as seen in Figure 10, participants believed that 

the training would influence their ability to perform their job later with a mean of 5.19 

(SD=1.31). A series of statistical tests analyzing the variance in the responses (ANOVAs) were 

run to determine if reactions to training differed depending on age, years of service position, or 

training track. None of these variables significantly affected reactions to training, indicating that 

participants of all ages, years of service, positions, and training tracks had similar positive 

reactions to the training. 
 25 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 0

5 0

4 0

3 0

2 0

1 0

0

Figure 7. Distribution of Responses to the Item, “I found this training to be enjoyable.” 

(1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) (N=174, Mean=5.09, SD=1.42) 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0

6 0

5 0

4 0

3 0

2 0

1 0

0

Figure 8. Distribution of Responses to the Item, “The training was job relevant.” 

(1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) (N=174, Mean=5.57, SD=1.46) 
 26 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 0

5 0

4 0

3 0

2 0

1 0

0

Figure 9. Distribution of the Responses to the Item, “The training had practical value.” 

(1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) (N=174, Mean=5.58, SD=1.34) 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0

6 0

5 0

4 0

3 0

2 0

1 0

0

Figure 10. Distribution of Responses to the Item, “To what degree will this training 

influence your ability later to perform your job?” 

(1=no influence, 7=strongly influence) (N=173, Mean=5.19, SD=1.31) 

3.2.2 Participant Learning 

According to Kirkpatrick (1976), learning can be evidenced by detailing, “the principles, facts, 

and skills which were understood and absorbed by participants” (p. 11). One of the most 

important cognitive learning outcomes is verbal knowledge because it is a foundation for later 

cognitive skill development (Anderson, 1982). Consequently, measuring and assessing the 
 27 

amount of verbal knowledge at the completion of training is most appropriate in the initial 

orientation stages of training (Kraiger et al., 1993). Researchers suggest that multiple choice, 

true-false, and free recall are the best formats for testing verbal knowledge (Gagne, 1977; 

Kraiger et al., 1993). 

In this vein, participant learning was evaluated by assessing participants’ verbal knowledge of 

CRM concepts after the completion of rail CRM training. Test items were constructed by 

reviewing the content of the course in detail. Specific care was taken to have a broad spectrum 

of test items from each of the six training modules. For each training track, a slightly different 

test was created, reflecting some of the differences in content between the two tracks. The final 

test consisted of 9 multiple choice, 10 true-false, and 5 fill-in-the-blank questions. The five fillin-the-blank questions asked for 13 total responses from participants, resulting in a final test 

consisting of 32 questions. 

As a result of the knowledge test being given at the end of the training session (and at the end of 

the day), many participants had to return to work before being able to start the test. Of the 186 

participants, 160 attempted the post-CRM knowledge test. Similarly, as a result of being called 

to work, some participants were unable to complete the test, which resulted in 16.7 percent of the 

test items being left blank. In light of this and to get a valid indicator of post-CRM training 

knowledge, each test was reviewed to determine the degree of test completion. For those 

training participants who were unable to complete the test because of time constraints or other 

responsibilities (i.e., the blank items are at the end of the test), their test score was determined by 

dividing the number of correct responses by the number of items attempted. However, items left 

blank prior to their stopping point were counted as incorrect. Test scores for all other 

participants were calculated by dividing the number of correct responses by the number of items 

on the test (32). Similar to the prior group, items that were left blank within the test were scored 

as incorrect. 

Results indicate that participants correctly answered 83 percent of the questions. A one-way 

ANOVA was run on the data to determine if learning was dependent on the training track, and a 

significant main effect was found F(1, 156)=4.85, p<.05. Assessment of the means within 

training track revealed that participants in the transportation track (engineers and conductors) 

answered a greater percentage of questions correctly (M=84%) than MOW participants in the 

engineering track (M=80%). After training, however, all groups showed a high level of 

knowledge regarding CRM concepts and principles. 

3.2.3 Attitudes Regarding CRM Principles 

One of the objectives of CRM training is to change participants’ attitudes regarding CRM 

concepts and principles. Reflecting this, the most common type of evidence used to examine 

how CRM effects participant learning in the aviation environment is attitudes (Salas et al., 2001). 

An attitude is an internal state that influences the choice of personal action and thus is believed 

to be an important influence on behavior (Gagne, 1984). Research in the aviation community 

has shown that certain attitudes are related to ineffective crew performance (Helmreich, 

Chidester, Foushee, Gregorich, & Wilhelm, 1990). Specifically, Helmreich, Foushee, Benson, & 
 28 

Russini (1986) showed a link between self-reported attitudes (using the Crew Management 

Attitude Questionnaire (CMAQ)) and independent evaluations of performance by check airmen. 

Attitude characteristics of an effective pilot include being able to recognize personal limitations 

and diminished decisionmaking ability in emergency situations. Furthermore effective pilots 

tend to encourage other crewmembers to question decision and actions, are sensitive to personal 

problems of other crewmembers that might affect operations, and feel obligated to discuss 

personal limitations (Helmreich et al., 1986). Thus, evaluation of attitudes is important because 

of its link to effective crew performance. 

3.3 Development of the Railroad-Crew Management Attitudes Questionnaire (RCMAQ) 

To assess the impact of rail CRM training on participants’ attitudes, the authors developed a 

RCMAQ. The RCMAQ is based on the original 25-item CMAQ developed by Helmreich and 

colleagues (Gregorich, Helmreich, & Wilhelm, 1990; Helmreich, 1984). The CMAQ assesses 

aircraft cockpit crewmembers attitudes toward (1) communication and coordination, (2) 

command responsibility, (3) recognition of stressor effects, and (4) avoidance of interpersonal 

conflict (Gregorich et al., 1990). The research team reviewed the individual items on the 

CMAQ, as well as the factor structure (Gregorich et al., 1990), and assessed each item’s 

relevance to the railroad team environment. All factors, except Command Responsibility, were 

considered relevant to crews in the railroad environment and theoretically could be influenced by 

the current pilot rail CRM program. The original CMAQ’s Command Responsibility scale 

includes items such as, “The captain should take control and fly the aircraft in emergency and 

nonstandard situations,” and “There are no circumstances (except total incapacitation) where the 

first officer should assume command of the aircraft” (Gregorich et al., 1990). Several factors 

result in these items not translating well to the railroad environment. First, the command, 

workload, and leadership structure is different in the railroad environment then in the aviation 

environment. For example, in the cockpit, the captain is considered in charge of the aircraft, and 

regulations and task structure allow him/her to control and fly the aircraft. However, in the 

railroad environment, the command of the train is the conductor’s responsibility, even though the 

engineer is the one physically controlling the train’s movement. Only in an emergency situation 

or other special condition would a conductor (who is an untrained engineer) take control of the 

locomotive. For this reason, the RCMAQ does not include items relating to the scale Command 

Responsibility in the original CMAQ. 

Minor modifications were made to the wording of the remaining CMAQ items to reflect the 

specifics of the railroad environment and of the particular railroad crew being assessed. For 

example, the item in the engineering track questionnaires, “Pilots should be aware of and 

sensitive to the personal problems of other crew members,” was changed to, “Maintenance of 

way crewmembers should be aware of and sensitive to the personal problems of other 

crewmembers.” For the transportation track, the item, “Even when fatigued, I perform 

effectively during critical flight maneuvers,” was changed to, “Even when fatigued, I perform 

effectively during critical times on a trip.” Additional items were also added to the original 

CMAQ to assess some of the specifics of the pilot rail CRM program’s content. 

The final RCMAQ consisted of 28 items. Participants responded to each item of a seven-point 

Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). Participants completed the RCMAQ both 
 29 

before and after CRM training. The pre-training questionnaire was given after the introduction 

of facilitators and participants, and the safety briefing. The post-training questionnaire was 

given immediately after the completion of training content, and the completion of the 

questionnaire signaled the end of training after which participants were free to leave the training 

facilities. Full copies of the RCMAQ questionnaire will be included as part of the pre- and postsurveys on the training materials CD-ROM, which is being submitted separately. 

3.3.1 The Factor Structure of the RCMAQ and the Creation of Composite Scores 

It is a stated goal of CRM researchers within the aviation community to understand what 

attitudes lead to increases in safety and error management (Gregorich et al., 1990). An import 

component of this is to develop inventories that tap those attitudes, which can then be used to 

assess differences in attitudes between organizations, positions, and even industries. These 

inventories can also be used to look at how certain factors (e.g., organizational support or a 

training program) might influence individual attitudes. 

Gregorich et al. (1990) state that one of the goals of CRM attitude research is to “push the 

aviation community, both within and across organizations, toward convergence on related 

attitudinal issues” and that “convergence assumes that individuals’ attitudes share desired 

direction and magnitude (elevation), are homogeneous (scatter), and are interrelated (shape) in a 

way that is consistent with effective CRM” (p. 683). Factor analysis plays an important role in 

this because it can determine the factor structure of the CMAQ for a specific population and can 

be used to determine if it converges with the factor structure from other populations. To the 

research team’s knowledge, this is the first time a study into the factor structure of a CRM type 

attitudes questionnaire in the railroad environment has been completed. 

Separate factor analyses were run on the pre-training RCMAQ and post-training RCMAQ. Scree 

plots (Cattell, 1966) for both analyses showed that a three- or four-factor solution was 

appropriate. The factor structures from both orthogonal (Varimax, Quartimax, and Equimax) 

and oblique (Promax) rotations were assessed. Ultimately, Promax (Hendrickson & White, 

1964) achieved the simplest structure. Three- and four-factor solutions were calculated for the 

pre- and post-training RCMAQs, and it was determined that with both, a four-factor solution had 

the simplest structure and was interpretable. A four-factor solution was then adopted. 

The structure loadings from both data sets yielded somewhat similar factor interpretations. As 

stated previously, the factors structure on the pre-training RCMAQ revealed four factors. Factor 

1 consisted of an orientation toward communication and crew coordination (e.g., “A debriefing 

and critique of procedures and decision after each job is an important part of developing and 

maintaining effective crew coordination”). This factor is in line with the factor Communication 

and Coordination in the original CMAQ (Gregorich et al., 1990). Similarly, Factor 2 is 

consistent with the CMAQ’s Recognition of Stressor Effects (e.g., “I am less effective when 

stressed or fatigued”). Factor 3, also consistent with the CMAQ, could be titled, Avoidance of 

Interpersonal Conflict (e.g., “It is important to avoid negative comments about the procedures 

and techniques of other crewmembers”). Analyses of the structure matrix leads to title Factor 4, 

Recognizing Personal Life’s Effect on Work Performance. This factor was not consistent with 

the original CMAQ. 
The factor structure on the post-training RCMAQ also revealed four factors. Similar to the pretraining RCMAQ, Factor 1 consisted of an orientation toward communication and crew 

coordination and was consistent with the factor Communication and Coordination in the CMAQ. 

Factor 2 was consistent with the CMAQ’s Recognition of Stressor Effects. Factor 3 was not 

consistent with the CMAQ and was represented by items that suggested the acknowledgment of 

team-interdependence and was labeled such. Factor 4 is titled Avoidance of Conflict because of 

its identification by items suggesting the avoidance of interpersonal conflict. This factor is also 

consistent with the original CMAQ (Gregorich et al., 1990). 

Only the factors that were consistent across both pre- and post-questionnaire administrations 

were used for the creation of composite scores. Thus, items relating to the factor Recognizing 

Personal Life’s Effect on Work Performance in the pre-questionnaire and Team-Interdependence 

in the post-questionnaire were dropped. Furthermore, the two items that related to the 

Avoidance of Conflict factor in each administration were dropped because of the small number 

of items identifying that factor. The remaining two factors (Communication and Coordination 

and Recognition of Stressor Effects) did not load consistently on the specific factor across 

administrations and were dropped from the analysis before composite-score construction. 

Lastly, and consistent with Gregorich et al. (1990), researchers reflected several of the items 

from the factor Recognition of Stressor Effects so that the composite scores would theoretically 

be positively related to CRM. The final Communication and Coordination composite score was 

made up of a total of 11 items, and the Recognition of Stressor Effects was made up of four 

items. 

The reliability of each subscale was assessed by computing the Cronbach’s alpha for each 

administration of the RCMAQ. The coefficients alphas for the pre-training administration were 

.82 and .49 for the Communication and Coordination and Recognition of Stressor Effects, 

respectively. The coefficient alphas for the post-training administration were .89 and .57 for the 

Communication and Coordination and Recognition of Stressor Effects, respectively. The 

seemingly low reliabilities of the Recognition of Stressor Effects subscale is the result of that 

scale’s length; however, it is considered adequate and mirrors the reliabilities seen with these 

subscales on the CMAQ (Gregorich et al., 1990). 

3.3.2 The Effect of CRM on Participant’s Attitudes 

To determine if CRM training positively changed participants’ attitudes, the research team 

performed two separate repeated-measures ANOVAs on the pre- and post-training composite 

scores for Communication and Coordination and Recognition of Stressor Effects. 

Administration (pre-training RCMAQ versus post-training RCMAQ) was the within-subjects 

factor. To assess any differences in scores across training tracks, the team entered training track 

as an independent variable. Consistent with Gregorich et al. (1990), the F tests used the 

univariate approach, type III sums of squares. 

A marginally significant main effect for administration was found for Communication and 

Coordination F(1, 143)=3.02, p<.10. Composite means show that attitudes toward 

Communication and Coordination increased in a positive direction from 63.93 (pre-test) to 65.18 

(post-test). Interestingly, a significant main effect for training track was also found for 

Communication and Coordination F(1, 143)=11.75, p<.01. Inspection of means show that 

 30 
 31 

engineering track participants endorsed the items on this dimension (M=66.7) more than 

transportation track participants (M=62.4). No significant interactions were found. Figure 11 

shows the training track by Administration cell means. Mean Communication and Coordination 

scores for engineering track participants increased from 66.5 to 67, while mean scores for 

transportation track participants increased from 61.4 to 63.4 from pre- to post-administration of 

the RCMAQ. 

The second ANOVA found a significant main effect for administration for the Recognition of 

Stressor Effects scale F(1,143)=12.57, p<.01. Composite means show that attitudes toward 

Recognition of Stressor Effects increased in a positive direction from 15.3 (pre-test) to 16.4 

(post-test). No other main effects or interactions were found. Figure 12 shows the training track 

by Administration cell means. Mean Recognition of Stressor Effects scores for engineering track 

participants increased from 15 to 15.9, while mean scores for transportation track participants 

increased from 15.7 to 16.9 from pre- to post-administration of the RCMAQ. 

In summary, the results suggest that the pilot rail CRM training positively changes participants’ 

attitudes toward CRM principles. Specifically it increases their orientation toward 

communication and coordination and their recognition of stressor effects. One interesting 

finding is that, in general, MOW employees have a greater orientation toward communication 

and crew coordination than conductors and engineers. Perhaps MOW employees, typically 

working within a larger crew (5-12) compared to a train crew (2-3), experience a greater need for 

communication and coordination, and they develop an appreciation for such factors. This in turn 

might increase their attitudes toward this dimension. 

Pre - te st Post- test

6 8

6 7

6 6

6 5

6 4

6 3

6 2

6 1

6 0

Trainin g Tra ck

Transp or tation

Engine ering

6 7

6 6

6 3

6 1

Figure 11. Mean Scores on the RCMAQ Communications and Coordination Scale 

(Administration and Training Track) 
 32 

Pre -te st Post- test

1 7.0

1 6.5

1 6.0

1 5.5

1 5.0

1 4.5

Trainin g Tra ck

Tran sp o r tatio n

En g in e erin g

1 5.9

1 5 .0

1 6 .9

1 5.6

Figure 12. Mean Scores on the RCMAQ Recognition of Stressor Effects Scale 

(Administration and Training Track) 

Increasing railroad employees’ recognition of stressor effects is particularly important given the 

amount of stress and fatigue placed on employees working in the railroad environment, and the 

effects of that stress and fatigue (FRA, 1992; 1997). In fact, the scale, Recognition of Stressor 

Effects, could be titled Recognition of Stressor and Fatigue Effects because half of the items in 

the subscale specifically mention fatigue (e.g., “Even when fatigued, I perform effectively during 

critical times on a job,” and “I am less effective when stressed or fatigued”). This suggests that 

CRM training, in conjunction with other initiatives, could be used as a fatigue counter-measure 

in the railroad environment. 
 33 

4.0 Issues Related to Broader Rail CRM Training Implementation 

4.1 Additional Tasks Related to CRM Training Implementation 

This chapter will outline other issues related to rail CRM training implementation that were 

listed as tasks in the project work plan that have not yet been discussed. As this report has 

already alluded to, many of the specific timelines and training plans for certain training tracks 

changed during the course of its development due to a variety of factors. For example, the pilot 

testing of the course was to take place over a period of several months at two different railroads; 

ultimately, most of the training classes took place in a relatively short period of time at only one 

railroad, largely due to personnel changes at the railroad companies involved along with 

contracting and scheduling problems that were encountered. In spite of these challenges, most of 

the project’s originally envisioned goals have been met. Among the remaining factors to be 

discussed in this report are the issues of recurrent CRM training needs following initial CRM 

awareness training conducted by this pilot course and the training of FRA and/or railroad 

personnel as CRM training facilitators. 

4.2 Recurrent Training Recommendations 

Interviews with aviation CRM experts suggest that the most important characteristic of CRM 

training within the aviation community is that CRM skills and attitudes learned in initial, 

awareness phase training are reinforced through recurrent training. Without recurrent training, it 

is unlikely that CRM in either the airline or the railroad environment will have any lasting impact 

on participant behavior or ultimately safety. 

4.2.1 Importance of Recurrent Training 

One objective of recurrent training is to oppose skill decay. Skill decay refers to “the loss or 

decay of trained or acquired skills (or knowledge) after periods of nonuse” (Arthur, Bennett, 

Stanush, and McNelly, 1998). Skill decay results from a situation in which participants receive 

some sort of initial training, but they do not use what they learned for an extended period of time. 

One example is reserve personnel in the military, given by Arthur et al. (1998). Skill decay also 

exists in jobs where employees perform their job duties on a daily basis. This occurs when the 

behavior or action that requires the trained skill rarely occurs during the course of an employee’s 

workday. Because these particular behaviors are not displayed and the skills not utilized, they 

might be more susceptible to decay than skills and behaviors that were essential for the 

completion of a frequently performed work task. 

Several reasons exist for behavior that might not be displayed on a regular basis in a job. First, 

few opportunities to display a particular behavior might exist. For example, in the railroad 

environment, intentionally assertive behavior (and its use of assertive communication skills) 

might only become necessary in certain low frequency situations when crewmembers may be 

unfamiliar with one another or when an incorrect decision could lead to a catastrophic outcome 

that a coworker does not recognize. Many environmental factors can influence which behaviors 

are displayed and what skills an employee uses on the job. One of the most important 
 34 

environmental influencers is organizational, supervisory, and peer support for a particular 

behavior. 

Attitude decay or decay in attitudes toward CRM concepts also must be taken into account 

within any long-term CRM training initiative. In their most current CRM circular, the FAA 

states that when recurrent training is not in place and no effective reinforcement of CRM 

concepts exists, improvements in attitudes after initial CRM training have a tendency to 

disappear and participants’ attitudes return to pre-CRM training levels (FAA, 2004). The effect 

of this cannot be underestimated. As stated previously, one of the objectives of CRM training is 

to change participants’ attitudes toward CRM concepts and principles. This is important because 

research in the aviation community has shown that certain attitudes are related to ineffective 

crew performance (Helmreich et al., 1990). Attitudes are extremely important because of their 

link to effective crew performance. Recurrent training is thus essential for CRM to have an 

enduring impact on the skills, attitudes, and behavior of participants. Increased safety, the 

ultimate goal of CRM, is dependent on long-term behavior and attitude change, hence making 

recurrent training essential for these safety gains to materialize. 

4.2.2 Benefits of Recurrent Training 

Recurrent training can have several benefits. First, gives participants an opportunity to refresh 

their knowledge of CRM concepts. Second, because it occurs after trainees have had an 

opportunity to practice the behaviors in the work environment, it gives trainees an opportunity to 

get feedback on these behaviors and discuss issues related to the transfer of training from the 

participants’ perspective. Lastly, a recurrent training initiative shows employees that there is 

organizational support for the specific training program and the goals it is attempting to achieve. 

Participating in recurrent training reminds workers that safety and CRM skills must be practiced 

every day, at all levels of an organization, in order to be ultimately effective. 

4.2.3 Suggested Training Methods for CRM Refresher Training 

Recurrent CRM training, as suggested by FAA (2004), is included as part of the CRM training 

initiative in the airline industry. The current circular advises that, “recurrent CRM training 

should include classroom or briefing room refresher training to review and amplify CRM 

components, followed by practice and feedback exercises, preferably with taped feedback; or a 

suitable substitute, such as role-playing in a flight training device and taped feedback” (p. 9). 

Due to the differences in the two industries and the current stage of CRM in the railroad industry, 

such a recurrent training initiative in the railroad industry would be infeasible. At this stage, 

however, the research team feels that recurrent training could include classroom training, with 

expanded practice and feedback exercises. Furthermore, as stated earlier, one benefit of 

recurrent training is the opportunity it gives participants to get feedback on CRM behaviors and 

discuss issues with transfer of training from the participants’ perspective. 

Other benefits of recurrent training in the classroom exist. As outlined in this paper, one key 

aspect of the pilot rail CRM program was its use of rail accident scenarios. These scenarios 

show real life examples of accidents that were caused in part by a failure of CRM between 

members of the accident crews. As stated earlier in this report, because of a lack of published 

accounts, few examples exist of positive CRM saves or the prevention of a would be accident as 
 35 

a result of the effective use of CRM. During the course of pilot training, several participants 

volunteered examples of situations where they believed effective use of CRM prevented an 

accident. It is likely that, over time, participants working in the railroad environment with 

knowledge of CRM principles (through initial training) will recognize situations where effective 

CRM helped prevent a possible accident. Recurrent training in the classroom environment 

would give participants an opportunity to share these experiences with others, which would 

strengthen other participants’ acceptance of CRM. 

Many industries, including the railroad industry, are increasingly using computers to present 

much of their initial and refresher training. Computer-based training (CBT), also called 

computer-assisted instruction or computer-assisted learning, can 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, the CBT is similar to an automated version of the programmed text 

discussed in the previous report. 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. 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 also not be a good match for CBT training. For example, the interpersonal 

communications aspects of CRM do not seem to be fully supported by training them in the CBT 

method alone. Use of the CBT for strictly cognitive knowledge training, in concert with other 

training methods that allow the student to interact with others, may be more effective. 

As shown earlier in the report, participants found the classroom training feature of the pilot rail 

CRM training program to be rather enjoyable (see Figure 7). Feedback from several of the 

participants in the pilot training course suggested that one of the reasons for this included the 

host railroad’s decision to use CBT to teach the majority of training in recent years. Participants 

took advantage of the opportunity the CRM classroom training gave them, to interact with the 

facilitators and their peers and actually discuss issues and experiences with CRM topics. The 

match between the content (e.g., communication) and the delivery method (e.g., interactive) 

seems to make classroom training more appropriate for CRM training. It was also most likely 

this match between the content and method in the pilot CRM program that resulted in 

participants viewing CRM training as practical and job relevant (see Figures 8 and 9). 

In summary, although CBT training could be used to conduct refresher CRM training, the 

research team, like FAA (2004), recommends that recurrent CRM training take place in a 

classroom setting similar to the initial pilot CRM training conducted during this project. One 
 36 

benefit of recurrent training in the classroom is it allows participants to practice CRM behaviors 

and receive feedback on their effectiveness. Aviation CRM guidelines suggest that, “feedback 

has its greatest impact when it comes from self-critique and from peers, together with guidance 

from a facilitator with special training in assessment and debriefing techniques” (FAA, 2004, p. 

9). 

4.2.4 Suggested Content of CRM Refresher Training 

With these factors in mind, the research team suggests that the content of recurrent training 

remain similar to the current pilot railroad CRM program and consist of the same basic modules. 

One of the key features of the program design is its flexibility. This will allow different accident 

scenarios to be developed and substituted for the ones used in initial training. This feature 

should be used to keep the training fresh and interesting. New accident scenarios, in 

combination with examples of good CRM gathered as both crew interaction in classes and the 

development of a close-calls reporting system, will help to ensure that the CRM training program 

remains relevant. Responsibility for making this take place will rest with FRA and railroad 

company safety staff as they take on the responsibilities of facilitating and reinforcing CRM 

principles in the railroad environment. 

4.3 CRM Facilitator Training 

4.3.1 FRA Training as Part of This Project 

One of the sub-tasks enumerated in the work plan for this project was for the research team to 

conduct orientation training regarding the pilot rail CRM program for FRA Region 5 personnel. 

Training was to take place once the materials had been tested in all three training tracks. This 

sub-task was at one time removed from the work plan by FRA and then reinstated. FRA project 

sponsors also requested that rather than Region 5 personnel, the training might be performed for 

FRA personnel in the Washington, DC, area. One reason for this change was the transfer of the 

project’s FRA contact from his position as Deputy Regional Administrator at Region 5 to a 

position in the Washington, DC, area in the Office of Safety. The protracted efforts to schedule 

railroad training and the inability to conduct testing for the mechanical track resulted in this 

training of FRA personnel not taking place to date. TTI offered to complete this training in the 

final month of the project once it became clear that mechanical track courses would not be held. 

No date for this training, however, has been scheduled. 

4.3.2 Future Training of FRA and Railroad Personnel as Facilitators 

Whether or not FRA personnel are trained as part of this project, the research team recommends 

that both FRA and railroad personnel should be trained to conduct future CRM training sessions 

if CRM is to be implemented on an industry-wide basis. Most FRA and railroad personnel have 

a ready knowledge base and experience in day-to-day rail operations and operational rules that 

could prove invaluable in the facilitation of human factors training courses, such as CRM. This 

would give them immediate credibility with class participants that could not be immediately 

developed by the members of the research team while conducting the pilot program. 

That being said, it is important that the facilitators for CRM classes be trained properly as 

facilitators, be carefully selected from among their peers, be motivated about CRM and safety 
 37 

topics, and exhibit a thorough understanding of CRM. Knowledge of general human factors 

principles should also be considered a prerequisite. Not all railroad safety representatives or 

FRA instructors may be appropriate choices to facilitate this material. CRM facilitators must be 

able to connect with the class participants and be able to present the scenarios in a manner that 

will allow the students to learn each CRM concept. The complexity and detailed nature of the 

CRM material requires that specific training and preparation take place in CRM facilitation 

before teaching any class. While the facilitator’s guides that were developed for each track 

under this program have suggested dialogue for each point of the presentation and suggested 

points for each scenario, each instructor will need to spend several hours with the course 

materials in order to develop the familiarity necessary to lead the class. 

4.4 The Future of CRM in the Railroad Industry 

The decision on what will be done with CRM at U.S. railroads rests with FRA and management 

and labor leaders at the individual railroad companies. The FRA Office of Safety representatives 

working on this project understand the benefits of CRM training in reducing human factors 

accidents and fatigue, but, thus far, FRA has not taken steps to make CRM mandatory. In many 

ways, this is similar to the FAA’s stance on CRM that existed in the early- to mid-1990s. TTI’s 

research of aviation CRM suggested that, along with the FAA’s own efforts to integrate CRM 

into the Advanced Qualification Programs of airlines beginning in 1996, FAA suggested CRM 

principles long before they became mandatory in 1998 (Prince et al., 1992). 

For CRM principles to take hold within the railroad industry, it will take much more than a 

minor pilot testing program. Wider implementation that focuses not only upon employee 

training programs but also upon management involvement in the process is required. Recent 

high-profile accidents, such as the toxic release of tank car contents following human factors and 

CRM-related failures, point to implementation of CRM training to address the problem. CRM 

training also supports the goals of FRA’s recently announced National Rail Safety Action Plan to 

address accidents caused by human error. 
 
 39 

References 

Alliger, G.M., Tannenbaum, S.I., Bennett, W., Jr., Traver, H., & Shotland, A. (1997). A metaanalysis of relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50, 341-358. 

Arthur, W. Jr., Bennett, W. Jr., Stanush, P.L., & McNelly, T.L. (1998). Factors that influence 

skill decay and retention: A quantitative review and analysis. Human Performance, 11, 57-

101. 

Cattell, R.B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral 

Research, 1(2), 245-276. 

Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2004). Advisory Circular: Crew Resource 

Management Training (120-51E). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Federal Railroad Administration (1992). Engineman Stress and Fatigue: Pilot Tests 

(FRA/ORD-92/17). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Federal Railroad Administration (1997). The effects of work schedule on train handling 

performance and sleep of locomotive engineers: A simulator study (FRA/ORD-97/09). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Federal Railroad Administration (2005). FRA/Office of Safety Analysis’s On-Line Railroad 

Accident Database. Retrieved July 25, 2005 from the World Wide Web: 

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/ 

Gagne, R.M. (1977). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 

Gagne, R.M. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects: Useful categories of human 

performance. American Psychologist, 39, 277-85. 

Goldstein, I.L. (1991). Training in work organizations. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.) 

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 2 (2nd ed.), p. 507-619. Palo 

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. 

Gregorich, S.E., Helmreich, R.L., & Wilhelm, J.A. (1990). Structure of cockpit management 

attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 682-690. 

Helmreich, R.L. (1984). Cockpit management attitudes. Human Factors, 26, 583-589. 

Helmreich, R.L., Foushee, H.C., Benson, R., & Russini, R. (1986). Cockpit management 

attitudes: Exploring the attitude-performance linkage. Aviation, Space and Environmental 

Medicine, 57, 1198-1200. 
 40 

Helmreich, R.L., Chidester, T.R., Fousheee, H.C., Gregorich, S., & Wilhelm, J.A. (1990). How 

effective is cockpit resource management training. Exploring issues in evaluating the 

impact of programs to enhance crew coordination. Flight Safety Digest, pp. 1-17. 

Hendrickson, A.E., & White, R.O. (1964). Promax: A quick method for rotation to oblique 

simple structure. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 17, 65-70. 

Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1976). Evaluation of training. In R.L. Craig (Ed.), Training and development 

handbook: A guide to human resources development (pp. 18.1-18.27). New York: 

McGraw-Hill. 

Kraiger, K., Ford, J.K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective 

theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied 

Psychology, 78(2), 311-328. 

Morgan, C.A, Olson, L.E., Kyte, T.B, Roop, S.S., & Carlisle, T.D. (2003). Rail crew resource 

management (CRM): Survey of teams in the railroad operating environment and 

identification of available CRM training methods (Tech. Report TR-474450-0001). Texas 

Transportation Institute, College Station, TX. 

National Transportation Safety Board. (1999). Safety Recommendation (NTSB/R/99/26). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Orlady, H.W., & Foushee, H.C. (1987). Cockpit Resource Management Training (NASA CP2455). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center. 

Prince, C., Chidester, T.R., Bowers, C., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (1992). Aircrew coordination: 

Achieving teamwork in the cockpit. In R.W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their 

training and performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. 

Salas, E., Prince, C., Bowers, C., Stout, R.J., Oser, R.L, & Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (1999). A 

methodology for enhancing crew resource management training. Human Factors, 41, 326-

343. 

Salas, E., Rhodenizer, L., & Bowers, C.A. (2000). The design and delivery of crew resource 

management training: Exploiting available resources. Human Factors, 42, 490-511. 

Salas, E., Burke, C.S, Bowers, C.A., & Wilson, K.A. (2001). Team training in the skies: Does 

crew resource management (CRM) training work? Human Factors, 43(4), 641-674. 

Wilson, J.P. (1999). Human Resource Development: Learning & training for individuals and 

organizations. London, UK: Kogan Page Limited.
 41 

Acronyms 

AAR Association of American Railroads 

ANOVA Analysis of Variance statistical method 

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway 

CBT computer-based training 

CMAQ Crew Management Attitude Questionnaire 

CPR Canadian Pacific Railway 

CRM Crew Resource Management 

CSX CSX Transportation, Inc. 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FELA Federal Employees Labor Act 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

KCS Kansas City Southern Railway 

MOW maintenance of way 

MRL Montana Rail Link 

NS Norfolk Southern Railway 

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board 

RCMAQ Railroad Crew Management Attitude Questionnaire 

SACP Safety Assurance and Compliance Program

TAMRF Texas A&M Research Foundation 

TEEX Texas Engineering Experiment Station 

TTC Technical Training Center 

TTI Texas Transportation Institute