Direct Rail Services (NTS) – Alertness assessment trial

19/05/2025

We at Direct Rail Services (NTS) were recently asked by industry to trial a new way of carrying out a fatigue welfare check on train crew if they needed it (risk assessment or self-evaluation). This would be a first step for freight operating company (FOC) controls using this.

The purpose of the alertness assessment is to speak with train crew during a safe interval within their shift, rather than when they book on.

This approach would enable a more realistic answer from the train crew on how they are feeling once they have worked some of their shift, rather than at the beginning of their shift, when they are at a higher probability of being alert.

It involves the train crew calling control when it is safe to do so, then working with control to assess their fatigue using the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS). The higher on the scale an answer, the more action that is needed.

Our goals

We wanted to try a different way of assessing fatigue in a live format, allowing us to potentially catch fatigue-related risks and issues before they expand into something worse.

We also wanted to allow the control room to test themselves in a different way by being proactive with fatigue assurance while recognising that they may face a fatigued worker while they are on duty and need to potentially rectify the situation.

Challenge and risks

Key constraints

We needed to ensure that this was managed as a trial and did not get lost in the everchanging environment of control operations. There is always a chance of scope drift, where the original plan changes to something different or the fatigue check gets forgotten about and nothing is done with that member of train crew.

We did this trial with a limited section of train crew but in a live environment. This means we needed to ensure that they were comfortable with what was happening once they had booked on and that they were in a safe position before contacting control. We also wanted them to be honest on how they felt at that time.

As with any change of process, it involves doing things differently and getting everyone to understand the objective.

Challenges faced

The original trial was postponed because of a mixture of the constraints stated above.

The Duty Manager who was booked to conduct the trial was not available at the time needed, and some of the control staff were still unsure of what was required.

So, we replanned and rebriefed the process to ensure clarity over roles and responsibilities.

The implementation process

Once the resourcing team had completed their rosters on a Thursday and began their compliance process before publishing them, they would assess any final fatigue-related issues the roster system produced.

If nothing could be done to remove the risk, they would conduct their Fatigue Risk Assessment process for any case that had a score between 40 and 45 for fatigue. If that assessment highlighted the need for an alertness assessment to be done, this detail would be handed over to the Duty Manager for the following week.

The Duty Manager then placed these on their handover documentation for the week, and when the diagram arrived for that alertness assessment, the Duty Manager briefed the train crew member on what needed to happen during the diagram and confirmed that they were happy to conduct this.

The train crew member then called the control room back at the agreed time, and they and the Duty Manager talked through the assessment template with the train crew. They then asked them to choose the current state they are feeling in terms of fatigue.

The control team then reacted to whichever state they said and carried out any further actions needed as per the alertness assessment guidance.

Tools and technologies used
an online roster system to produce the traincrew roster

a DRS-designed Fatigue Risk Assessment Template in Microsoft Excel

the alertness assessment in a Microsoft Word document format, later saved in control’s SharePoint

telephone communications to the train crew member.

Results

Duty Manager 1 feedback

‘I had two train crew [members] to assess. I found the new alertness assessment much more user friendly than the previous fatigue checks.

This Duty Manager’s assessment achieved the objective we were hoping for by driving a conversation that led to one of the drivers stating that they were beginning to feel fatigued and that they would like to have a break as soon as possible.

The driver scored themself a 6 on the scale, and the Duty Manager began to answer the question set that this score triggers, ultimately then triggering a need for a break.

The Duty Manager then began to set in motion some plans to give the driver the required break. Luckily, the next part of the driver’s train had problems, which allowed them to have a suitable break at Kingmoor. If this wasn’t the case, a break would have been planned as soon as possible at the immediate next safe location.

There is a high chance that this would not have happened had we asked the driver at the start of their shift, which would then have allowed the train crew member to potentially carry on while at risk of fatigue.

Duty Manager 2 feedback

‘Fortunately, these have both been reasonably simple assessments. as the train crew [member] involved had no concerns and felt alert during their shift. I think it would be useful to send a briefing out to all train crew advising them of new process, what is involved, and the thinking behind it. That it is based on the KSS.

Other reflections
‘The assessment worked well. I spoke with the driver when he booked on and explained how it worked, then agreed with him a time during in his shift when he could safely call me for the assessment. The assessment was completed once the driver had finished shunting 4S45 away at Coatbridge at approx. 02.15. The driver had no fatigue issues and reported that he felt fine and alert, with no concerns. We agreed on a score of 3 (alert).’

‘With this being a shed shift, arranging an appropriate time wasn’t an issue. They scored themselves a 2 (very alert).’

Conclusion

Lessons learned

The alertness assessment process needs to be fully briefed to people using it and being involved in it, as it can be an obscure process to implement and can also potentially feel uncomfortable for a controller to complete.

It is worth being prepared for as many eventualities as possible, as the state of the operation could shift dramatically after that call if a train crew member is feeling fatigued. However, because that is the purpose of this process, that is a positive thing.

What’s next?

This trial was an overall success, purely based on the conversation that Duty Manager 1 held with the driver they were assessing. This captured the need for a break due to the driver feeling fatigued and allowed mitigation to be put in place early.

We are hoping to formalise this process through our internal fatigue working group and make this a standard assessment when managing fatigue through risk assessment mitigation or through daily operational control cases.