DEVELOPMENT OF DRIVER’S CAB FOR AMSTERDAM METRO

T he first M5 metro car was delivered for testing in April 2012, and during the rest of

this year and into 2013, all of the new cars will enter into service. Alstom commissioned Intergo to perform

an independent assessment, which, due to time constraints, was trans-formed into co-engineering with

Alstom. This article describes the ergonomic development of the driver’s cabin for the M5.

After more than 30 years in service, the Amsterdam metro series M2/M3 – also called the ‘Zilver-meeuw’ (‘European Herring Gull’) – has reached the end of its technical and economic lifespan. In 2009, the Amsterdam Metro System (AMSYS), with the support of operator GVB, ordered 23 new metro cars from Alstom to replace them, as well as an independent ergonomic analysis of the driver’s cab.

©Al

stom

Tra

nspo

rt/S

.Dho

te

Met

ro

ISSUE 21 THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT MAGAZINE Mobility 54

Mob_04_Metro.indd 54 08/06/12 14:18

THE APPROACH

Human factors in rail projectsThe importance of human fac-tors in the rail system is widely recognised, but these ‘soft’ issues are hardly ever incorporated into ‘hard’ requirement specifications. Typically, during the various stages in the life cycle of system devel-opment, while some attention is paid to the human factors, this is more often than not of an ad hoc nature. However, we are seeing that regulations on human fac-tors are being more and more frequently applied.

The European standard EN 50126 concerning RAMS in the rail sys-tems – which was applied during the procurement process for the new M5/M6 metro – has a sep-arate section on human factors that pays attention to the vari-ous possible operating modes (normal, abnormal, disrupted, and emergency). EN 50126 falls in line with systems engineering: a methodology illustrated by the so-called V-figure (see Fig. 1), and one in which verification and val-idation play a central role.

For the Amsterdam metro pro-ject, Intergo was actively involved in stage six of the V-figure: design and implementation.

Human factors in AmsterdamThe metro will be run by GVB (Gemeentelijk Vervoerbedrijf), Amsterdam’s public transport operator. The design of the driv-er’s cabin was based upon on the Functional-Technical Specifications

drawn up by AMSYS (Amsterdam Metro System) as the official cus-tomer.

According to the specifications, both the driver’s cab and desk must comply with Dutch legisla-tion on the occupational health,

Amsterdam Metro – M2/M3 (left); mock-up of M5 (M6)

02

System definition & applicationconditions

13

Modification & retrofit➞ re-apply lifecycle

04System requirements

Installation

Monitoring performance

12

10

07

Manufacture

14De-commissioning and disposal

Operation and maintenance11

09

System validation (including safetyacceptance and commissioning)

08

03Risk analysis

05

06Design and implementation

Concept01

Apportionment of systemrequirements

System acceptance

Installation

• Concept of use / Operational concept• Review HF implications

• Task allocation• User needs & characteristics

HF risk analysis

HF integration plan (HFIP) Assessiment HF integration plan

Training & instruction

Monitoring HF performance

Co-design from HF perspectiveAudit from HF perspective

Quality assessment of HF deliverables

HF acceptance test

HF validation report (HFVR)HF specifications

Audit from HF perspectiveHF risk analysis / Co-design

Audit from HF perspectiveCo-design from HF perspective

Audit from HF perspectiveCo-design from HF perspective

HF requirements & acceptance criteria

Delivery

Tender

Human factors (HF) activities for:Assessor Customer Supplier

Fig. 1. Human factors in systems engineering

Mobility THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT MAGAZINE ISSUE 21 55

Metro

Mob_04_Metro.indd 55 08/06/12 14:18

safety, and welfare of employees, the so-called ‘Arbowet’ [editor’s note: from the Dutch words ‘arbo,’ health/safety, and ‘wet,’ law].

The aim of Arbowet is to prevent accidents (the safety component) and to avoid illnesses caused by work (the health component). However, this law imposes no spe-

cific requirements for the driver’s cabin and desk. Hence Intergo’s approach to their ergonomics in-stead took into account guidance from UIC standard 651 (layout of driver’s cabins in locomotives, railcars, multiple unit trains and driving trailers). On top of UIC 651, the following considerations also had to be taken into account:

• the larger Dutch body dimensions (stature: 1600 to 2000mm instead of 1600 to 1900mm)

• the latest insights on human factors/ergonomics (standards, guidelines)

• previous ergonomic experience of designing of cabins/desks for oth-er rail vehicles (Dutch Railways, NSHispeed, GVB trams).

These ergonomic issues were mainly directed at the physical layout of the cabin, but more de-tailed aspects of the desk layout and instruments were also ad-dressed.

The process consisted of the fol-lowing three phases:

Design of the AmDriver mock-up

Design of the AmStyle mock-up

Design and validation using 3D mannequins

The design of the driver’s cabin and desk was achieved using a low-level, wooden mock-up: the AmDriver. This was tested by a selection of GVB drivers, as well as the operator’s ergonomist, in

two sessions. Intergo guided the latter by translating the drivers’ input into ergonomic design re-quirements.

The results obtained were im-plemented in the second design phase: the more realistic AmStyle mock-up (presented from October to December 2010). This was as-sessed by Intergo in October 2010 without AMSYS/GVB represent-atives.

Despite being realistic, the AmStyle mock-up was not a real-life driver’s cab; it lacked all the real techni-cal functions. The Specification Demands described other, more detailed and ergonomics-related aspects; ones that could not be assessed by, or that were beyond the scope of the technical limita-tions of the AmStyle.

For all the ‘missing’ aspects that could not be tested during the first two phases, the ergonomic principles were derived as far as possible from the Alstom specifi-cations and technical drawings. In the end, the real first vehicle will be the ultimate proof.

AmStyle footrest

AmDriver mock-up (left); AmStyle mock-up

According to the specifications, both the driver’s cab and desk must comply with Dutch legis-lation on the occupational health, safety, and welfare of employees, the so-called ‘Arbowet’

1

2

3

Met

ro

ISSUE 21 THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT MAGAZINE Mobility 56

Mob_04_Metro.indd 56 08/06/12 14:18

Mobility THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT MAGAZINE ISSUE 21 57

Metro

RESULTS

The driver’s workplace is mainly determined by three principles whereby 1 + 2 = 3:

Vision of the track and of displays (sightlines)

Operating the controls by hand and feet

Supporting the body in driving position/work-ing posture

Intergo’s work in the development of the driver’s cabin focused on the following aspects:• access to/from the seat within the

cabin area• body support: chair, raised floor,

and footrest• working posture: sitting, reaching,

and viewing• driver’s desk layout: controls and

information panels/displays• view on the track

It was not possible to assess envi-ronmental aspects such as climate (temperature, ventilation) and lighting during the mock-up phase. Instead, these aspects had to be validated later using the first ve-hicle produced.

Body supportDriver’s seatAMSYS requested GVB’s SAVAS standard for the driver’s seat. Here we recommended some improvements that included an extended height adjustment: 120mm instead of the standard 108mm. In addition, we advised that the rotation of the seat need not be unlocked by a pedal, but rather have free rotating capa-bilities over +/- 60° with a stop

in the mid-position (this is also used by Dutch Railways).

The standard GVB seat lacks width-adjustable armrests. So there is an internal conflict in the Specification Demands (the request to use the standard GVB seat versus the request for width-adjustable arm-rests). The position of the armrest is especially important in relation to the actuation of the master control. In AmDriver, the sideways position of the master control is 270mm from the centre of the seat (align-ing with the fixed armrest). This sideways position of the support-ed arm is acceptable for both tall and shorter drivers. The seat can already be adjusted in many ways. Experience shows that drivers find it difficult to make good use of all the possibilities. Adding an extra adjustment to the armrests is no guarantee it will be correctly used.

Raised floor (platform)The driver’s seat is placed on a small raised floor for several rea-sons:

• to make getting on/off the chair comfortable for small drivers

• to adapt the height of the driver’s seat in relation to desk (+ 120mm)

• for standing up and reaching the roller blind

The platform is only extended to the right towards the inter-nal escape door. On the left side there is no platform because the space is needed for standing in-structors. The dimensions of the platform are reduced to optimise floor space, allowing those stand-ing to freely walk about.

For the AmStyle model, the con-trasting edge of the platform was

not applied. In the real vehicle, the edge of the platform is an aluminium strip with slip resist-ance. The light metal colour of the strip creates a contrast with the definitive, darker grey floor and the dark green platform.

Footrest driver’s desk / Deadman’s pedalDrivers must sit as high up as pos-sible to obtain a clear view outside and correctly use the operating controls on the desk. Hence the adjustable footrest is needed to

Fig.2. 3D evualuation of a small woman’s reach

3

1

2

Mob_04_Metro.indd 57 08/06/12 14:18

accommodate the different body sizes of Dutch drivers.

The deadman’s pedal is mount-ed on the footrest. The driver has to activate this safety device fre-quently to show that he/she is still physically capable of driving the metro car. The ergonomic aspects of this pedal are very important because this safety device is used on an almost permanent basis and greatly influences the sitting po-sition of the driver. Some of the ergonomic aspects are:

• working principle: intermittent (no static physical load)

• actuation: mainly by one foot/also possible by the other foot (or by both feet or by hand)

• operating position: front edge of pedal 5mm above the footrest (nat-ural foot position)

• material: smooth metal plate (in contrast with embossed metal plate of footrest)

The height of the footrest can be adjusted easily using a separate pedal on the left. The embossed metal plate is slip-resistant and creates a tactile contrast with the smooth metal plate of dead-man’s pedal.

The plate has small ridges at the side for cleaning purposes. The buckling in the footplate will be removed to give the footrest a straight form (see p.56).

Working posture: sitting, reaching & viewingThe driver’s working position is mainly determined by the (adjust-able) range of distances between the seat, footrest, and desk/con-trols. Important aspects for an ergonomic analysis are:

View of the tracks (out-side) and displays (inside)

Reaching distance to the primary controls (mas-ter control, door push buttons, deadman’s pedal) and secondary controls (displays, con-trol panel, telephone)

Relation of the seat (Seat Reference Point) to the footrest (Heel Point when operating deadman’s ped-al) and the desk (leg space underneath and surface height).

The basic dimensions of the driv-er’s workplace are evaluated, according to ergonomic guide-lines, in a mock-up involving both short/tall drivers and validated us-ing Catia 3D mannequins for the extreme smallest/tallest drivers. These mannequins are updated in accordance with the changing body dimensions of the Dutch population (DINED 2004).

The 3D analysis for driving and manipulating the controls is car-ried out for the smallest person of the target population (wom-an with a height of 1600mm) in a normal sitting position (back-rest tilted 10°). The mannequin’s arms and legs are placed in the correct positions: right arm op-erating master control, left arm reaching to several control ele-ments, and feet operating the deadman’s pedal. The analysis for vision of the tracks is done for the small woman and tall man in a normal-/mid-sitting position (10°, based on UIC 651).

For example, the reaching dis-tances to the control panels of

the AmDriver mock-up are opti-mised: the curve of the front edge of the desk is more accentuated inwards, the depth of the front desk is shallower, and the side panels are rotated towards the driver. Results of the 3D reaching evaluation are shown in Figure 2 (see p.57).

According to the requirements, a driver must be able to see the track to a distance of 8.5 metres in front of the vehicle. The 3D simulations revealed that a small driver, sitting in a mid-sitting posi-tion (upper body 10°), can see the track at a distance of 10 metres. The required viewing distance of 8.5m is met when the small driv-er is sitting upright (upper body 0°), i.e. a comparable position to when parking a car.

The angle of the displays is tilted 37° backwards. This angle falls within the range of UIC 651 and represents a compromise be-tween the views of the displays and of the tracks. The view is per-pendicular on the screen for the average driver.

Based on the results of the 3D sim-ulation, the working posture of the sitting driver is judged to be ergo-nomically correct for both small and tall drivers (1600-2000mm).

Driver desk layout: controls & displaysThe basic layout of the driver desk is the result of guided sessions with drivers, combining practi-cal input and good ergonomics.

Desk and panelsThe layout of the driver’s desk and the reaching distances to the controls are presented for the crit-

ical small driver of 1600mm. For larger/taller drivers, the distanc-es for reaching straight ahead are about the same because they sit at a greater distance from the driver desk.Reaching distances to the controls in general fall within the ergonom-ic range of use. The main results on these distances are as follows:

• the reaching distances to the pri-mary controls on the desk (door open, door closed, master con-trol in mid-position) fall within the ergonomic range for frequent use

• the actuation of the auto-mode (centre), emergency button (left), and the horn, falls within the reg-ular reaching distance

• the reaching distance to the lower 2/3 of the panels falls in line with the occasional reaching distance

• the reaching distance to the top 1/3 of the panels is somewhat out of range. More action of the shoulder and back is needed. This is accept-able for infrequent use

• the reaching distance to the tel-ephone, and especially the four buttons on the top, is acceptable (incidental use, within the range of UIC 651)

• frequently-used controls on panels (such as the soft keys of displays) are placed as low as possible (in the lower 2/3 of the panel).

Master controlThe reach to the master control is validated by a separate 3D sim-ulation.

Reaching distances to the master control fall within the ergonomic range of use. When reaching to the master control, the position of the body (back, legs, and arms) meets the following ergonomic guidelines (including ISO 11226):

Met

ro

ISSUE 21 THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT MAGAZINE Mobility 58

3

1

2

Mob_04_Metro.indd 58 08/06/12 14:18

• upper body is leaning backwards 10° (the mid-position specified by UIC 651)

• upper legs are angled 5° upwards and the lower legs 20° to the front

• flexion of the upper arm is almost 0° for the small driver and 20° for the tall driver

• abduction (= to the side) of the upper arm is almost 20° for the small driv-er, and up to 10° for the tall driver

• the lower arm is placed almost hor-izontally and supported by the desk and armrest.

CONCLUSION

The use of a low-level mock-up and the input of future drivers at an ear-ly stage of the design process was essential for the successful devel-opment of this driver’s cabin for Amsterdam’s metro. The combi-nation of experts, real drivers, and virtual mannequins has resulted in a driver’s workplace in accordance with the principles of human factors

H.F.L. Frieling, M.Sc. Eur.Erg. Intergo bv Human Factors &

ErgonomicsR. van der Weide, M.Sc. Eur.Erg.

Intergo bv Human Factors & Ergonomics

F. Malle, train design engineer Amsterdam project

Alstom TransportD. Miglianico, chief ergonomic

engineer, Alstom TransportAll illustrations ©Intergo

References

Frieling, H. Eur. Erg. & Van der Weide,R. Eur.

Erg.; Ergonomic Analysis Metro AmDriver mock-

up, Intergo report 3294 Final CONFIDENTIAL,

October 2010

Frieling, H. Eur. Erg. & Van der Weide,R. Eur. Erg.;

Ergonomic Analysis Alstom Amsterdam Metro:

driver’s cab, Intergo 3333, CONFIDENTIAL,

February 2011

ISO 11226, Ergonomics - Evaluation of static

working postures, First edition, December 2000

Barta, M.,Delooz, F., Karsten, C., Miglianico, D.,

Rentzsch, M., Zubillaga, X.; Usability testing

of the future standardized European Driver’s

Desk under “real world” conditions - World

Congress on Railways Research, May 2011

Miglianico, D.; Human factors and the de-

sign of railway system – IFAC, October 2010

UIC 651, Layout of driver’s cabs in locomo-

tives, railcars, multiple unit trains and driving

trailers, 4e edition, July 2002

H.F.L. Frieling, M.Sc. Eur.Erg. & R. van der

Weide, M.Sc. Eur.Erg., Intergo bv, Human

Factors & Ergonomics

F. Malle, Train Design Engineer Amsterdam

project & D. Miglianico, Chief Ergonomic

Engineer, Alstom Transport

Mobility THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT MAGAZINE ISSUE 21 59

Metro

I N NOVATION . E X PE R I E N C E . F LE X I B I L IT Y. QUA LIT Y.

PUBLIC DISPLAYSIndoor / Outdoor

FIDSHardware / Software

CONRAC GmbHWeikersheim / GermanyPhone: +49 7934 101-0info@conrac.dewww.conrac.de

France:Phone: +33 3 44 54 96 99info@conracfrance.frwww.conrac.fr

DATA MODUL GROUP

Visit us!Messe Berlin18. - 21.09.2012Halle 2.1Stand 231

Genoa Subway / Italy

Mob_04_Metro.indd 59 08/06/12 14:18

mov

ing

com

fort

netw

ork

peop

lem

ovin

gfa

cilit

y

arch

itect

ure

mob

ility

StationsISSUE 21 THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT MAGAZINE Mobility 60

Mob_05_Station.indd 60 08/06/12 14:20