## 6 The Training System Operation Effect
### Evaluation and Results  
After completion of the system's development, we conducted a set of studies and experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of the system in meeting the requirements of locomotive crew driving and emergency skills training. The systematic evaluation was conducted at the Kunming Railway Bureau locomotive depot vocational education department. In order to evaluate the immersion, intuition, interactivity, learnability and comfort of the system, we invited 20 teachers from Kunming locomotive depot with working experience of more than 10 years for the evaluation. The age distribution of the teachers is shown in Figure 11. The numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the figure represent the number of people by age group. Numbers such as 30-35 in the figure represent age ranges. A five-day systematic experience was conducted for 20 teachers to assess the immersion, intuition, interactivity, learnability, and comfort indicators, each with a score range from 0 to 100 points. The scoring results, shown in Figure 12, reveal the high performance and effectiveness of our system in nearly all aspects mentioned above. However, the comfortableness of the hardware equipment needs to be further improved. This is due to the need for learners to wear VR helmets, the weight and fixation of which cause head discomfort. The scores also show that gender has no significant influence on the immersion, intuition, interactivity, learning ability and comfort of the system. With increasing age, employees showed weaker comprehension ability and lower scores for system interaction and learning ability. This is consistent with the findings of [PERSON] et al. (2018). Figure 11: Basic information on the 20 teachers. Figure 10: The examination mode of the VR training system. (**a**) Scene interface; (**b**) Selection interface. To further verify the effectiveness of the system, we selected 100 new employees to experience our system. Table 1 shows the analysis of all participants. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline
**Training Methods** & **Group Categories** & **Quantity** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{VR system training group} & Group I: People with professional background and no VR experience & 20 \\  & Group II: People with professional background and VR experience & 20 \\  & Group III: People without a professional background & 20 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Traditional training group} & Group IV: People with professional background & 20 \\  & Group V: People without a professional background & 20 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Basic information on the new employees. Figure 12: The evaluation scores by the 20 experienced teachers, including those for system interaction, comfortableness, intuitiveness, immersion and learnability. Among the new employees, 60% were trained with the system and further divided into three groups according to their professional background and VR experience; 40% were trained in traditional ways and were divided into two groups according to their professional background. Each group took part in our experiment with the help of two vocational teachers with rich experience in emergency skills training. To ensure the fairness of the results, after 10 days of training, the five groups were assessed according to a traditional assessment method with an examination and questionnaires, and the pass rate of each group was obtained, respectively. The results are shown in Figure 13. Numbers such as I, II in the figure represent the numbers assigned to the respective groups. * The number of employees who passed the examination in group II was merely one less than in group I, indicating that even without VR experience, new employees can quickly adapt to the system. * The difference between group III and group V shows that the system can train new employees efficiently. * Data for groups I, II and IV again prove that the VR system is more effective than traditional training methods.