ergonomics australia journal - human factors & ergonomics ...319284/uq319284_oa.pdf ·...

12
Ergonomics Australia Journal Ergonomics Australia is an open access journal publishing peer-reviewed journal articles and providing the latest reviews and information on practical approaches to human factors and ergonomic issues for human factors professionals. It is the official journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia Inc. Ergonomics Australia follows the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) standards, available at: hƩp://publicaƟonethics.org/ The journal publishes critical reviews, practical case studies, innovations reports, debate articles, conference reports, letters/ comments, book reviews and special features. Editor Rebecca Mitchell University of New South Wales Sydney, Australia. Editorial Board A/Prof Verna Blewett, Centre for Sleep Research, University of South Australia Prof Robin Burgess-Limerick, Human Factors, Minerals Industry Safety & Health Centre, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland Dr Jennifer Long, School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales A/Prof Wendy Macdonald, Centre for Ergonomics and Human Factors, La Trobe University Prof Michael Regan, Transport & Road Safety (TARS) Research, School of Aviation, University of New South Wales Prof Leon Straker, School of Physiotherapy, Curtin University of Technology Prof Ann Williamson, School of Aviation, University of New South Wales Dr Jake Olivier, Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales (Biostatistical advisor) Editorial office Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia Inc. Suite 18, Hills Corporate Centre 11 Brookhollow Avenue BAULKHAM HILLS NSW 2153 Ph: (02) 9680 9026 Email: [email protected] HOW TO SUBMIT A JOURNAL ARTICLE To facilitate rapid publication and to minimise administrative costs, Ergonomics Australia accepts only on-line submissions. Manuscripts must be submitted by one of the authors of the manuscript. Click Here for full details and instructions for submitting a journal article. 2013 Ergonomics Australia Case Study Participatory ergonomics case study: Coal handling train crew operations Lynas D. and Burgess-Limerick R. Ergonomics Australia, 2013 10:1 [Abstract ] [PDF ] Research Article Hurry Up and Wait: Danger Signals in the Rail Environment Naweed, A Ergonomics Australia, 2013 3:1 [Abstract ] [PDF ] 2012 Ergonomics Australia Research Article Work-related discomfort in the optometry profession - whose responsibility? Long J., Burgess-Limerick R., Stapleton F. Ergonomics Australia, 2012 10:6 [Abstract ] [PDF ] Literature Review What to measure? Review of measurements in anthropometric studies of elderly populations. Ward S. Ergonomics Australia, 2012 10:3 [Abstract ] [PDF ] Database Development Human interaction with automated mining equipment: the development of an emerging technologies database. Horberry T., Lynas D. Ergonomics Australia, 2012 8:1. [Abstract] [PDF] [Appendix 1] rgonomics Australia Journal Ergonomics Australia Journal - Human Factors & Ergonomics Society ... http://www.ergonomics.org.au/resource_library/journal.aspx

Upload: others

Post on 11-Sep-2019

42 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Ergonomics Australia JournalErgonomics Australia is an open access journal publishing peer-reviewed journal articles and providing the latest reviews and information on practical approaches to human factors and ergonomic issues for human factors professionals. It is the official journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia Inc. Ergonomics Australia follows the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) standards, available at: h p://publica onethics.org/

The journal publishes critical reviews, practical case studies, innovations reports, debate articles, conference reports, letters/ comments, book reviews and special features.

EditorRebecca MitchellUniversity of New South WalesSydney, Australia.

Editorial BoardA/Prof Verna Blewett, Centre for Sleep Research, University of South AustraliaProf Robin Burgess-Limerick, Human Factors, Minerals Industry Safety & Health Centre, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of QueenslandDr Jennifer Long, School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South WalesA/Prof Wendy Macdonald, Centre for Ergonomics and Human Factors, La Trobe UniversityProf Michael Regan, Transport & Road Safety (TARS) Research, School of Aviation, University of New South WalesProf Leon Straker, School of Physiotherapy, Curtin University of TechnologyProf Ann Williamson, School of Aviation, University of New South WalesDr Jake Olivier, Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales (Biostatistical advisor)

Editorial officeHuman Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia Inc.Suite 18, Hills Corporate Centre11 Brookhollow AvenueBAULKHAM HILLS NSW 2153Ph: (02) 9680 9026Email: [email protected]

HOW TO SUBMIT A JOURNAL ARTICLE

To facilitate rapid publication and to minimise administrative costs, Ergonomics Australia accepts only on-line submissions. Manuscripts must be submitted by one of the authors of the manuscript.

Click Here for full details and instructions for submitting a journal article.

2013 Ergonomics Australia

Case Study

Participatory ergonomics case study: Coal handling train crew operationsLynas D. and Burgess-Limerick R.Ergonomics Australia, 2013 10:1[Abstract ] [PDF ]

Research Article

Hurry Up and Wait: Danger Signals in the Rail EnvironmentNaweed, AErgonomics Australia, 2013 3:1[Abstract ] [PDF ]

2012 Ergonomics Australia

Research Article

Work-related discomfort in the optometry profession - whose responsibility?Long J., Burgess-Limerick R., Stapleton F.Ergonomics Australia, 2012 10:6[Abstract ] [PDF ]

Literature Review

What to measure? Review of measurements in anthropometric studies of elderly populations.Ward S.Ergonomics Australia, 2012 10:3[Abstract ] [PDF ]

Database Development

Human interaction with automated mining equipment: the development of an emerging technologies database.Horberry T., Lynas D.Ergonomics Australia, 2012 8:1.[Abstract] [PDF] [Appendix 1]

2011 Conference Edition

To coincide with the HFESA Conference 2011, a special edition of the Ergonomics Australia Journal has been compiled.

HFESA members can access the abstract and full text of all articles in this edition.

Research article

Preliminary comparison of anthropometric datasets for the Australian Defence ForceColeman J. Blanchonette P.Ergonomics Australia – HFESA 2011 Conference Edition, 2011 11:46.[Abstract] [PDF]

Methodological article

The development of a lifelike breast cancer patient simulator using anthropometric dataVeitch D. Dawson R. Owen H. Leigh C.Ergonomics Australia – HFESA 2011 Conference Edition, 2011 11:45.[Abstract] [PDF]

Research article

Testing a model to help analysts understand, evaluate, and make inferences about health technology changeStitzlein C. Sanderson P. Orihuela C. Jack L. Venkatesh B.Ergonomics Australia – HFESA 2011 Conference Edition, 2011 11:44.[Abstract] [PDF]

Research article

Using narrative in ergonomics research and practiceElford W.Ergonomics Australia – HFESA 2011 Conference Edition, 2011 11:42.[Abstract] [PDF]

Research in progress

Perceptions of safety information in nurses’ understanding of manual handling: Preliminary findingsO’Keeffe V. Blewett V. Thompson K.Ergonomics Australia – HFESA 2011 Conference Edition, 2011 11:40.[Abstract] [PDF]

Research article

Sleepy driving in truck drivers: Insights from a self-report surveyMisa R. Conduit R. Coleman G.Ergonomics Australia – HFESA 2011 Conference Edition, 2011 11:39.[Abstract] [PDF]

Research article

Monotony in the rail industry: the role of task demand in mitigating monotony-related effects on performanceDunn N. Williamson A.Ergonomics Australia – HFESA 2011 Conference Edition, 2011 11:38.[Abstract] [PDF]

Methodological article

Learning from accidents: developing a contributing factors framework for the rail industryGrey E. Klampfer B. Read G. Doncaster N.Ergonomics Australia – HFESA 2011 Conference Edition, 2011 11:37.[Abstract] [PDF]

Research article

What makes scientific journal articles appeal to human factors and ergonomics professionals?Chung A. Williamson A. Shorrock S.Ergonomics Australia – HFESA 2011 Conference Edition, 2011 11:36.[Abstract] [PDF]

Research in-progress

Tarzan travellers: Australian rail passenger perspectives of the design of handholds in carriagesHirsch L. Thompson K.Ergonomics Australia – HFESA 2011 Conference Edition, 2011 11:34.[Abstract] [PDF]

Case study

Driver satisfaction with a modified proximity detection system in mine haul trucks following an accident investigationCooke T. Horberry T.Ergonomics Australia – HFESA 2011 Conference Edition, 2011 11:30.[Abstract] [PDF]

Research article

Effects of hand position on maximum grip strength and discomfortKong Y. Song Y. Jung M. Lee I.Ergonomics Australia – HFESA 2011 Conference Edition, 2011 11:29.

rgonomics Australia Journal

Ergonomics Australia Journal - Human Factors & Ergonomics Society ... http://www.ergonomics.org.au/resource_library/journal.aspx

1 of 3 19/12/2013 9:30 AM

uqdstew1
Highlight
uqdstew1
Highlight
uqdstew1
Highlight
uqdstew1
Highlight

D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.

[ 1 ]

Participatory Ergonomics Case Study: Coal Handling Train Crew Operations Danellie Lynas and Robin Burgess-LimerickMinerals Industry Safety and Health Centre, The University of Queensland

Abstract

Background: Musculoskeletal disorders associated with manual tasks are a common cause of injury across a number of industries. Almost three-quarters of all serious workers’ compensation claims in 2010 -2011 across all Australian industries were the result of injury, with sprains and strains accounting for 42% of all serious claims. Mechanisms involving muscular stress while handling objects resulted in 32% of all serious injuries [1]. These injuries are often complex with multiple contributing factors including the environment, task characteristics, and individual factors influencing the mechanism of injury. While not all manual tasks are high risk, effective manual task risk management requires identification of hazardous tasks followed by assessment of the degree and source of risk associated with the task before effective controls can be implemented to either eliminate or reduce the risk. Aim: This paper describes a project undertaken at a rail coal handling facility. Method: A participatory ergonomics process was implemented to enable management to better understand the issues surrounding work methods and equipment used by work crews and how these events may be contributing to current and potential workplace injury risks. Conclusion: This paper describes the project and presents the risk assessments undertaken and potential control measures identified.

© Lynas: Licensee HFESA Inc.

Background

Participatory approaches to ergonomics developed from Japan [2], Northern European [3] and North American [4] management practices. While variations in the model exist [5,6,7] the common aspect is the assumption that those performing the tasks have expert knowledge of their tasks, and consequently they should be active participants in the process of improving their workplace. Participatory ergonomics has been described as: “the involvement of people in planning and controlling a significant amount of their own work activities, with sufficient knowledge and power to influence both processes and outcomes in order to achieve desirable goals” [8].

There is no single “right way” to implement a participatory ergonomics program and one of the strengths of the approach is its adaptability to the context and needs of specific workplaces and workers [9]. Participatory ergonomics has been acknowledged as providing a number of benefits including higher productivity and improved worker well-being [10,11] reduced work-related musculoskeletal injury rate and consequence [12,13,14]; enhanced team communication and job control [15]; and more rapid technological and organisational change [16, 5]. Participatory ergonomics interventions have been trialled across a number of areas including car manufacturing [17], meat processing [18], print media [19], health care [20,21], construction [22], and mining [23].

Important components of a successful participatory ergonomics interventions include “buy-in” in the form of management commitment and provision of resources; an

understanding of both ergonomic concepts and techniques by both management and workers; and a process to develop, document and implement control measures [24, 23]. The role of the ergonomist is to initiate and guide the process by providing the necessary skills, tools and ergonomic expertise to allow risks to be accurately assessed, and to facilitate the development of potential control measure by participants.

Managing manual task risk is an iterative process and needs to be repeated following implementation of any control measures to assess whether the measures are working effectively, and whether any new risks have been introduced in the process. It requires keeping records of the hazardous tasks identifed, risk assessments, control measure suggestions and implementations, and reassessment to ensure effectiveness of implemented control measures. Ideally record keeping occurs in a format that can be easily shared across an organisation.

It is important to get the right mix of skills and experience to progress through the process and, ideally, this means involving workers, supervisors and specialists or advisors. Participatory ergonomics programs can be negatively impacted by lack of management support; lack of an “ergonomic champion” at the worksite; insufficient time and resources allocated to develop solutions; lack of ergonomic expertise at site; and organisational restructures and staff changes and turnover [25,26].

This paper describes the outcomes of a project undertaken at two rail coal handing sites. The aim of the project was to assess workplace injury risks and to identify potential control measures, where appropriate. The activities undertaken at the sites varied across train crew shifts however a number

Corresponding author: Danellie Lynas. Email – [email protected]

Case Study

D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.

[ 2 ]

of hazardous tasks were identified across sites by both management and crew as requiring intervention. In priority order of intervention following risk assessment these were:

• Handbrake application and release;

• Coupling and uncoupling of hoses whilst shunting;

• Lifting and carrying bags;

• Walking and working on and about the track - including ballast and access roads;

• Access and egress from the locomotive cab; and

• Locomotive provisioning.

Methods

Injury statisticsInjury statistics were reviewed prior to the workshops to gain an overall understanding of the nature and mechanism of injury across both sites. The statistics reflect combined total injury across both sites.

Participatory ergonomics workshopsTwo participatory ergonomics workshops were conducted at each site. The initial workshop was attended by a cross section of experienced and novice crew (14 at one site, 8 at the other). The workshop provided attendees with information about the process to be followed, including:

• Designing an appropriate intervention to meet the needs of the organisation;

• Information on how to identify a hazardous manual task and the associated mechanism of injury;

• How to use a manual task risk assessment tool to assess the severity of identified workplace hazards, including direct risk factors (exertion, movement and repetition, body posture, exposure and vibration) and contributory risk factors; hazard identification; the use of and importance of adopting a hierarchy of control measures;

• The importance of a “champion” to drive the process forward; and

• General strategies to eliminate or control identified manual task injury risks.

Following the initial workshops, ergonomic task analysis was undertaken with the crews, and task risk assessment profiles were developed.

Follow up workshops were held at each site six weeks later, again during programmed “shut down” days. Initial attendance at scheduled workshops was lower than expected requiring additional workshops to be arranged, (in all 18 crew at one site and 20 at the other site attended). The workshops provided the forum for “brainstorming ” solutions with the advantage of involving both experienced and novice operators in the process. This information was refined to develop a structured management report outlining recommended control measures and possible implementation procedures.

Risk assessment Crew operations on two separate coal hauling lines were observed and analysis undertaken to assess current and potential workplace injury risks during the six tasks previously identified by both crew and management as potentially high risk. Informal employee interviews were conducted and still

D. LyErgon

Tabl

Resu

Injur

Com

occu

The

asse

occu

that

inco

asse

appl

to th

to th

nas et al. nomics Australia.

e 1: Risk ass

ults

ry statistics

mbined site st

urring injuries

statistics we

ssing this tas

urring mainte

not all terra

rporate som

ssing this tas

ication or lift

he shoulder/u

he head, back

2013. 10:1.

essment too

tatistics for th

s (40%) resul

re based on

sk alone was

enance activi

ins could be

e of the othe

sk very difficu

ting account

upper limb. T

k and torso, w

ol

he preceding

lted from slip

injury narrat

that working

ties that may

observed, an

er identified

ult. Injury st

ed for 20% o

Thirty percen

with 6% hav

g 12 months

ps/trips and f

tives, and it w

g trackside m

y not be capt

nd that the w

tasks requiri

atistics indic

of injuries, an

nt were local

ing no injury

(Table 2) ind

falls occurrin

was determin

may include a

tured in a ris

working track

ng assessme

cated strain f

nd 40% of rep

lised to the lo

y site recorde

dicated the m

ng “while wo

ned that the

a number of

sk assessmen

kside narrativ

ent. This mad

rom either h

ported injurie

ower limb an

ed.

most common

rking tracksi

difficulty in

irregularly

nt at a given t

ve may

de accurately

hand brake

es were loca

nd ankle, and

5

nly

de”.

time,

y

lized

d 24%

Table 1. Risk assessment tool

D. LyErgon

Tabl

Resu

Injur

Com

occu

The

asse

occu

that

inco

asse

appl

to th

to th

nas et al. nomics Australia.

e 1: Risk ass

ults

ry statistics

mbined site st

urring injuries

statistics we

ssing this tas

urring mainte

not all terra

rporate som

ssing this tas

ication or lift

he shoulder/u

he head, back

2013. 10:1.

essment too

tatistics for th

s (40%) resul

re based on

sk alone was

enance activi

ins could be

e of the othe

sk very difficu

ting account

upper limb. T

k and torso, w

ol

he preceding

lted from slip

injury narrat

that working

ties that may

observed, an

er identified

ult. Injury st

ed for 20% o

Thirty percen

with 6% hav

g 12 months

ps/trips and f

tives, and it w

g trackside m

y not be capt

nd that the w

tasks requiri

atistics indic

of injuries, an

nt were local

ing no injury

(Table 2) ind

falls occurrin

was determin

may include a

tured in a ris

working track

ng assessme

cated strain f

nd 40% of rep

lised to the lo

y site recorde

dicated the m

ng “while wo

ned that the

a number of

sk assessmen

kside narrativ

ent. This mad

rom either h

ported injurie

ower limb an

ed.

most common

rking tracksi

difficulty in

irregularly

nt at a given t

ve may

de accurately

hand brake

es were loca

nd ankle, and

5

nly

de”.

time,

y

lized

d 24%

D. LyErgon

Tabl

Resu

Injur

Com

occu

The

asse

occu

that

inco

asse

appl

to th

to th

nas et al. nomics Australia.

e 1: Risk ass

ults

ry statistics

mbined site st

urring injuries

statistics we

ssing this tas

urring mainte

not all terra

rporate som

ssing this tas

ication or lift

he shoulder/u

he head, back

2013. 10:1.

essment too

tatistics for th

s (40%) resul

re based on

sk alone was

enance activi

ins could be

e of the othe

sk very difficu

ting account

upper limb. T

k and torso, w

ol

he preceding

lted from slip

injury narrat

that working

ties that may

observed, an

er identified

ult. Injury st

ed for 20% o

Thirty percen

with 6% hav

g 12 months

ps/trips and f

tives, and it w

g trackside m

y not be capt

nd that the w

tasks requiri

atistics indic

of injuries, an

nt were local

ing no injury

(Table 2) ind

falls occurrin

was determin

may include a

tured in a ris

working track

ng assessme

cated strain f

nd 40% of rep

lised to the lo

y site recorde

dicated the m

ng “while wo

ned that the

a number of

sk assessmen

kside narrativ

ent. This mad

rom either h

ported injurie

ower limb an

ed.

most common

rking tracksi

difficulty in

irregularly

nt at a given t

ve may

de accurately

hand brake

es were loca

nd ankle, and

5

nly

de”.

time,

y

lized

d 24%

D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.

[ 3 ]

and video footage of the tasks being undertaken was obtained. A risk analysis and evaluation was undertaken using the risk assessment tool (Table 1) provided by Burgess-Limerick [27]. ErgoAnalyst [28] software was used to document the analysis and evaluation.

The risk analysis process requires documentation of: (i) the task characteristics (exertion, exposure, posture and movement) for the back; arms; shoulders; and legs and (ii) environmental characteristics. Performing the task in excessive heat or cold; under stressful conditions, time pressure, and during periods of cognitive overload/underload, increase the baseline score, as does exposure to vibration. Each task is evaluated for both acute injury risk and cumulative injury risk.

Results

Injury statisticsCombined site statistics for the preceding 12 months (Table 2) indicated the most commonly occurring injuries (40%) resulted from slips/trips and falls occurring “while working trackside”. The statistics were based on injury narratives, and it was determined that the difficulty in assessing this task alone was that working trackside may include a number of irregularly occurring maintenance activities that may not be captured in a risk assessment at a given time, that not all terrains could be observed, and that the working trackside narrative may incorporate some of the other identified tasks requiring assessment. This made accurately assessing this task very difficult. Injury statistics indicated strain from either hand brake application or lifting accounted for 20% of injuries, and 40% of reported injuries were localized to the shoulder/upper limb. Thirty percent were localised to the lower limb and ankle, and 24% to the head, back and torso, with 6% having no injury site recorded.

Table 2. Mechanism of Injury

Mechanism of Injury Percentage of Injury Total

Slips/trips/falls whilst walking trackside 40

Climbing 10

Strain – lifting 10

Car driving 10

Strain – handbrakes 10

Other (unrelated tasks/hit by object) 20

Slips, trips and falls were the highest reported mechanism of injury in the preceding 12 months. Following hazard identification across all tasks, the priority order of intervention was as follows:

• Task 1: Handbrake application and release;

• Task 2: Coupling and uncoupling of hoses whilst shunting;

• Task 3: Lifting and carrying bags;

• Task 4: Walking and working on and about the track - including ballast and access roads;

• Task 5: Access and egress from the locomotive cab; and

• Task 6: Locomotive provisioning.

Participatory ergonomics workshopsThe participatory workshops needed to be structured differently between sites. While needing to be scheduled for “shutdown” days to maximise crew attendance and minimise work disruption, and to ensure attendance at workshops captured both experienced and novice crew members, they also needed to be flexible to accommodate changes in work demands on the scheduled days, and to address work culture differences between sites. Preliminary discussions were held off-site to ascertain the level of available resources, the most suitable structure of the workshops, and most importantly to ensure site access to tasks identified as hazardous. Both sites had a core workforce of experienced crew – many having long term employment in the industry, however both sites had recently recruited a number of novice train crew from varying skill backgrounds.

Potential control measures were developed for each identified hazardous task at the second workshop at each site. While elimination is always the preferred control option, followed by engineering/design controls to remove or reduce the hazard, “administrative” controls were provided as short-term control options until elimination or design controls were agreed on and implemented. Work practices allowed the assessment of common themes across both sites (with the exception of locomotive provisioning), however it became apparent that quite different work cultures existed between the two sites visited. Where it was not possible to eliminate the task on currently used equipment, guidance was provided for management use in future procurement processes.

Risk Assessment Tasks are listed below in order of intervention priority following risk assessment.

Task 1: Handbrake application and release

Task Description

The task involves awkward postures and forceful muscular exertions. It is most often undertaken trackside where both ballast condition and weather conditions are largely unpredictable. The task occurs when a locomotive is either stowed or unstowed, when shunting, when a shutdown occurs, or at a breakdown. Handbrakes are applied to wagons at the beginning and end of the train, the number depending on company policy regarding application in a given situation (ie. gradient and location of track where shutdown/breakdown location). Typically the time taken for task completion is approximately 30-50 minutes, and may be performed in a breakdown situation by inexperienced crew/ at night.

Task Analysis

Winding the handbrake off requires the brake lever to be disengaged (a sharp thrusting movement of the wrist) which allows the brake wheel to be loosened using bilateral shoulder movement. The brake is then rolled on or off. The task is often performed above shoulder height depending on locomotive location and ballast condition. Frequently coal material lodges in the brake mechanism causing it to jam, requiring awkward postures of the neck, shoulders, upper limbs, and trunk while the lower body provides stability so

D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.

[ 4 ]

trapped material can be dislodged and the brake fully released. Wagons have bilateral brakes, requiring the opposing brake to be released/applied (Figure 1). The procedure is reversed for winding on the handbrakes, with additional force applied at the end of the procedure to ensure the brake is securely in

place. One crew member usually works from the front of the train and another from the rear of the locomotive.

Risk Assessment Scores

Risk assessment scores for this task are illustrated graphically in Figure 2.

Risk analysis indicates:

• High risk of acute injury to the shoulder and upper limb;

• Moderate risk of cumulative injury to shoulder and upper limb; and

• Moderate risk of both acute and cumulative injury to the back, and a low risk to the legs.

Possible Control Measures

An effective control measure implementation will likely require a combination of both short and medium term design or administrative controls to reduce crew exposure while task elimination options are investigated. Whilst not ideal, in reality short to medium term control measures may become longer term control measures depending on management financial commitment to eliminating crew exposure to injury risk. From the workshops the following control measures were developed:

Elimination:

• Spring loaded or pneumatic brakes on wagons.

Design/Engineering control options:

• Relocation of shaft to underside of deck of wagon.

• Reduce gearing to allow use of same amount of force throughout application.

• Use stainless steel chains (to prevent rusting).

• System to blow coal dust away (so dust does not “set like concrete” in the gear mechanism).

• A cover to reduce coal material jamming in the gear mechanism.

D. LyErgon

engi

prov

impl

(with

diffe

elim

futu

Risk

Task

Task

Task

most

large

shun

the b

appl

locat

be p

Figure

Task

thru

nas et al. nomics Australia.

neering/desi

vided as shor

emented. W

h the excepti

erent work cu

inate the tas

re procurem

Assessment

ks are listed b

k 1: Handbra

k Description

t often unde

ely unpredict

nting, when a

beginning an

ication in a g

tion). Typica

erformed in

e 1 A,B &C: Ha

k Analysis: W

sting movem

2013. 10:1.

ign controls t

rt-term contr

Work practice

ion of locom

ultures existe

sk on current

ent processe

t

below in orde

ake applicatio

: The task inv

ertaken track

table. The tas

a shutdown o

nd end of the

given situatio

ally the time

a breakdow

andbrake applic

Winding the ha

ment of the w

to remove o

rol options un

es allowed th

otive provisi

ed between t

tly used equi

es.

er of interven

on and relea

volves awkw

side where b

sk occurs wh

occurs, or at

e train, the nu

on (ie. gradie

taken for tas

n situation b

cation and relea

andbrake off

wrist) which a

r reduce the

ntil eliminati

he assessmen

oning), howe

the two sites

pment, guida

ntion priority

ase

ard postures

both ballast c

hen a locomo

a breakdown

umber depen

nt and locati

sk completio

by inexperien

ase

f requires the

allows the br

hazard, “adm

on or design

nt of commo

ever it becam

s visited. Wh

ance was pro

y following ri

s and forcefu

condition and

otive is either

n. Handbrak

nding on com

ion of track w

n is approxim

nced crew/ at

e brake lever

rake wheel to

ministrative”

n controls we

n themes ac

me apparent

here it was no

ovided for m

isk assessme

ul muscular e

d weather co

r stowed or u

kes are applie

mpany policy

where shutdo

mately 30-50

t night.

r to be diseng

o be loosene

” controls we

ere agreed on

ross both sit

that quite

ot possible to

anagement u

ent.

exertions. It i

onditions are

unstowed, w

ed to wagons

y regarding

own/breakdo

0 minutes, an

gaged (a sha

d using bilat

7

ere

n and

es

o

use in

is

e

when

s at

own

nd may

rp

eral

D. LyErgon

engi

prov

impl

(with

diffe

elim

futu

Risk

Task

Task

Task

most

large

shun

the b

appl

locat

be p

Figure

Task

thru

nas et al. nomics Australia.

neering/desi

vided as shor

emented. W

h the excepti

erent work cu

inate the tas

re procurem

Assessment

ks are listed b

k 1: Handbra

k Description

t often unde

ely unpredict

nting, when a

beginning an

ication in a g

tion). Typica

erformed in

e 1 A,B &C: Ha

k Analysis: W

sting movem

2013. 10:1.

ign controls t

rt-term contr

Work practice

ion of locom

ultures existe

sk on current

ent processe

t

below in orde

ake applicatio

: The task inv

ertaken track

table. The tas

a shutdown o

nd end of the

given situatio

ally the time

a breakdow

andbrake applic

Winding the ha

ment of the w

to remove o

rol options un

es allowed th

otive provisi

ed between t

tly used equi

es.

er of interven

on and relea

volves awkw

side where b

sk occurs wh

occurs, or at

e train, the nu

on (ie. gradie

taken for tas

n situation b

cation and relea

andbrake off

wrist) which a

r reduce the

ntil eliminati

he assessmen

oning), howe

the two sites

pment, guida

ntion priority

ase

ard postures

both ballast c

hen a locomo

a breakdown

umber depen

nt and locati

sk completio

by inexperien

ase

f requires the

allows the br

hazard, “adm

on or design

nt of commo

ever it becam

s visited. Wh

ance was pro

y following ri

s and forcefu

condition and

otive is either

n. Handbrak

nding on com

ion of track w

n is approxim

nced crew/ at

e brake lever

rake wheel to

ministrative”

n controls we

n themes ac

me apparent

here it was no

ovided for m

isk assessme

ul muscular e

d weather co

r stowed or u

kes are applie

mpany policy

where shutdo

mately 30-50

t night.

r to be diseng

o be loosene

” controls we

ere agreed on

ross both sit

that quite

ot possible to

anagement u

ent.

exertions. It i

onditions are

unstowed, w

ed to wagons

y regarding

own/breakdo

0 minutes, an

gaged (a sha

d using bilat

7

ere

n and

es

o

use in

is

e

when

s at

own

nd may

rp

eral

D. LyErgon

engi

prov

impl

(with

diffe

elim

futu

Risk

Task

Task

Task

most

large

shun

the b

appl

locat

be p

Figure

Task

thru

nas et al. nomics Australia.

neering/desi

vided as shor

emented. W

h the excepti

erent work cu

inate the tas

re procurem

Assessment

ks are listed b

k 1: Handbra

k Description

t often unde

ely unpredict

nting, when a

beginning an

ication in a g

tion). Typica

erformed in

e 1 A,B &C: Ha

k Analysis: W

sting movem

2013. 10:1.

ign controls t

rt-term contr

Work practice

ion of locom

ultures existe

sk on current

ent processe

t

below in orde

ake applicatio

: The task inv

ertaken track

table. The tas

a shutdown o

nd end of the

given situatio

ally the time

a breakdow

andbrake applic

Winding the ha

ment of the w

to remove o

rol options un

es allowed th

otive provisi

ed between t

tly used equi

es.

er of interven

on and relea

volves awkw

side where b

sk occurs wh

occurs, or at

e train, the nu

on (ie. gradie

taken for tas

n situation b

cation and relea

andbrake off

wrist) which a

r reduce the

ntil eliminati

he assessmen

oning), howe

the two sites

pment, guida

ntion priority

ase

ard postures

both ballast c

hen a locomo

a breakdown

umber depen

nt and locati

sk completio

by inexperien

ase

f requires the

allows the br

hazard, “adm

on or design

nt of commo

ever it becam

s visited. Wh

ance was pro

y following ri

s and forcefu

condition and

otive is either

n. Handbrak

nding on com

ion of track w

n is approxim

nced crew/ at

e brake lever

rake wheel to

ministrative”

n controls we

n themes ac

me apparent

here it was no

ovided for m

isk assessme

ul muscular e

d weather co

r stowed or u

kes are applie

mpany policy

where shutdo

mately 30-50

t night.

r to be diseng

o be loosene

” controls we

ere agreed on

ross both sit

that quite

ot possible to

anagement u

ent.

exertions. It i

onditions are

unstowed, w

ed to wagons

y regarding

own/breakdo

0 minutes, an

gaged (a sha

d using bilat

7

ere

n and

es

o

use in

is

e

when

s at

own

nd may

rp

eral

Figure 1 A, B & C: Handbrake application and release

D. LyErgon

Risk

Poss

com

expo

nas et al. nomics Australia.

Figure 2: H

analysis indi

• High risk

• Moderat

• Moderat

legs.

sible control m

bination of b

osure while t

2013. 10:1.

Handbrake a

cates

k of acute inju

te risk of cum

te risk of bot

measures: An

both short an

ask eliminati

pplication an

ury to the sh

mulative injur

h acute and

n effective co

nd medium t

ion options a

nd release ri

oulder and u

ry to shoulde

cumulative i

ontrol measu

erm design o

are investigat

isk analysis a

upper limb;

er and upper

njury to the

ure impleme

or administra

ted. Whilst n

and evaluatio

r limb; and

back, and a l

ntation will l

ative controls

not ideal, in r

on

low risk to th

ikely require

s to reduce c

reality short t

9

he

e a

crew

to

Figure 2: Handbrake application and release risk analysis and evaluation

D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.

[ 5 ]

Administrative control options:

• Stow trains at locations suitable, designated and well maintained to standard.

• Consistency in company policy between written policy and field requirements regarding number of brakes needing to be applied.

• Supply appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for task and climate - gloves, clothing and footwear.

Task 2: Coupling and Uncoupling brake hoses

Task Analysis

On observation, significant variation in technique existed between experienced operators and novice or trainee crew when performing this task. Inexperienced operators needed to apply greater force to uncouple and couple the connection, usually taking longer to complete the task leading to awkward body posture being adopted for longer than that of an experienced operator (time pressure was reported by all operators when required to undertake the task in a trackside breakdown situation).

Uncoupling the brake pipe hoses requires the operator to squat between the wagons to reach the coupled hoses (Figure 3A), and again observed techniques varied between experienced operators and novices. One technique observed involved grasping the left (L) hose with the (L) hand and grasping the right (R) hose with the (R) hand and rolling the forearm over and around the hose so that the (R) hose could be lifted up and around in a scissor like mechanism to unlock the coupling (Figure 3B). Significant awkward wrist and upper limb postures were seen in combination with

excessive force application. Operators reported the coupling end could swing out of their hand and injury their shin so usually they braced with their (R) leg to protect themselves against injury. In another technique observed the coupled joint was braced with hands at each end of the joint and both hoses levered upwards in a symmetrical movement to break the coupling join, again requiring awkward wrist and upper limb postures combined with application of excessive force.

When recoupling, the (R) hose was held at 90 degrees upward and the (L) hose held in the (L) hand and brought up to meet the (R) hose allowing it to roll into the lock position – again awkward postures in combination with force was involved in task completion. Operators reported coal dust often jammed the mechanism meaning additional force was required to uncouple the joint (Figure 3C). Additional considerations to this task were walking on uneven ballast with/without long vegetation present, and working at night. No exposure to vibration was involved performance of this task.

Risk Assessment

Risk analysis and evaluation (Figure 4) indicated:

• High risk of acute and cumulative injury to the upper limb.

• Moderate risk of acute and cumulative injury to all other areas of the body.

D. LyErgon

the c

com

out o

them

hand

brea

appl

F

mech

Whe

hand

awkw

repo

unco

balla

was

Risk

nas et al. nomics Australia.

coupling (Fig

bination with

of their hand

mselves again

ds at each en

ak the couplin

ication of ex

Figures 3A & B:

hanism

en recouplin

d and brough

ward posture

orted coal du

ouple the join

ast with/with

involved per

assessment:

• High risk

• Moderat

2013. 10:1.

ure 3B). Sign

h excessive f

d and injury t

nst injury. In

nd of the join

ng join, again

cessive force

Coupling and

g, the (R) ho

ht up to mee

es in combin

st often jam

nt (Figure 3C

hout long veg

rformance of

: Risk analysi

k of acute and

te risk of acu

nificant awkw

force applica

their shin so

n another tec

nt and both h

n requiring aw

e.

Uncoupling bra

se was held

t the (R) hos

ation with fo

med the mec

C). Additiona

getation pres

f this task.

s and evalua

d cumulative

te and cumu

ward wrist an

tion. Operat

usually they

chnique obse

hoses levered

wkward wris

ake hoses

at 90 degree

e allowing it

orce was invo

chanism mea

al considerati

sent, and wo

tion (Figure 4

e injury to the

ulative injury

nd upper lim

tors reported

braced with

erved the cou

d upwards in

st and upper

Figure 3C: Rem

es upward an

to roll into t

olved in task

aning additio

ions to this ta

rking at nigh

4) indicated:

e upper limb

to all other a

mb postures w

d the couplin

their (R) leg

upled joint w

a symmetric

limb posture

moving jammed

nd the (L) hos

the lock posit

completion.

onal force wa

ask were wa

ht. No expos

:

b.

areas of the

were seen in

ng end could

to protect

was braced w

cal movemen

es combined

d coal from the

se held in the

tion – again

. Operators

as required to

lking on une

ure to vibrat

body.

11

swing

ith

nt to

with

e brake

e (L)

o

ven

tion

D. LyErgon

the c

com

out o

them

hand

brea

appl

F

mech

Whe

hand

awkw

repo

unco

balla

was

Risk

nas et al. nomics Australia.

coupling (Fig

bination with

of their hand

mselves again

ds at each en

ak the couplin

ication of ex

Figures 3A & B:

hanism

en recouplin

d and brough

ward posture

orted coal du

ouple the join

ast with/with

involved per

assessment:

• High risk

• Moderat

2013. 10:1.

ure 3B). Sign

h excessive f

d and injury t

nst injury. In

nd of the join

ng join, again

cessive force

Coupling and

g, the (R) ho

ht up to mee

es in combin

st often jam

nt (Figure 3C

hout long veg

rformance of

: Risk analysi

k of acute and

te risk of acu

nificant awkw

force applica

their shin so

n another tec

nt and both h

n requiring aw

e.

Uncoupling bra

se was held

t the (R) hos

ation with fo

med the mec

C). Additiona

getation pres

f this task.

s and evalua

d cumulative

te and cumu

ward wrist an

tion. Operat

usually they

chnique obse

hoses levered

wkward wris

ake hoses

at 90 degree

e allowing it

orce was invo

chanism mea

al considerati

sent, and wo

tion (Figure 4

e injury to the

ulative injury

nd upper lim

tors reported

braced with

erved the cou

d upwards in

st and upper

Figure 3C: Rem

es upward an

to roll into t

olved in task

aning additio

ions to this ta

rking at nigh

4) indicated:

e upper limb

to all other a

mb postures w

d the couplin

their (R) leg

upled joint w

a symmetric

limb posture

moving jammed

nd the (L) hos

the lock posit

completion.

onal force wa

ask were wa

ht. No expos

:

b.

areas of the

were seen in

ng end could

to protect

was braced w

cal movemen

es combined

d coal from the

se held in the

tion – again

. Operators

as required to

lking on une

ure to vibrat

body.

11

swing

ith

nt to

with

e brake

e (L)

o

ven

tion

D. LyErgon

the c

com

out o

them

hand

brea

appl

F

mech

Whe

hand

awkw

repo

unco

balla

was

Risk

nas et al. nomics Australia.

coupling (Fig

bination with

of their hand

mselves again

ds at each en

ak the couplin

ication of ex

Figures 3A & B:

hanism

en recouplin

d and brough

ward posture

orted coal du

ouple the join

ast with/with

involved per

assessment:

• High risk

• Moderat

2013. 10:1.

ure 3B). Sign

h excessive f

d and injury t

nst injury. In

nd of the join

ng join, again

cessive force

Coupling and

g, the (R) ho

ht up to mee

es in combin

st often jam

nt (Figure 3C

hout long veg

rformance of

: Risk analysi

k of acute and

te risk of acu

nificant awkw

force applica

their shin so

n another tec

nt and both h

n requiring aw

e.

Uncoupling bra

se was held

t the (R) hos

ation with fo

med the mec

C). Additiona

getation pres

f this task.

s and evalua

d cumulative

te and cumu

ward wrist an

tion. Operat

usually they

chnique obse

hoses levered

wkward wris

ake hoses

at 90 degree

e allowing it

orce was invo

chanism mea

al considerati

sent, and wo

tion (Figure 4

e injury to the

ulative injury

nd upper lim

tors reported

braced with

erved the cou

d upwards in

st and upper

Figure 3C: Rem

es upward an

to roll into t

olved in task

aning additio

ions to this ta

rking at nigh

4) indicated:

e upper limb

to all other a

mb postures w

d the couplin

their (R) leg

upled joint w

a symmetric

limb posture

moving jammed

nd the (L) hos

the lock posit

completion.

onal force wa

ask were wa

ht. No expos

:

b.

areas of the

were seen in

ng end could

to protect

was braced w

cal movemen

es combined

d coal from the

se held in the

tion – again

. Operators

as required to

lking on une

ure to vibrat

body.

11

swing

ith

nt to

with

e brake

e (L)

o

ven

tion

Figure 3C: Removing jammed coal from the brake mechanism

Figures 3A & B: Coupling and Uncoupling brake hoses

Figures 4: Coupling and Uncoupling brake hoses risk analysis and evaluation

D. LyErgon

Poss

Elim

Desig

nas et al. nomics Australia.

Figure 4: C

sible control m

ination:

• Air cut o

gn/engineeri

• Change t

• Flexible h

joining/m

• Tool to h

applicati

2013. 10:1.

Coupling and

measures: Fr

ff - letting tra

ing controls:

the position

hoses (new h

moulded han

hold hosebag

on of excess

d Uncoupling

rom the work

ain moveme

of hoses so c

hoses are mo

nd grips/and/

gs in position

force/ use o

g brake hose

kshops the fo

nt separate c

coupling poin

ore rigid) - inc

/or a rubber

so they easi

of awkward p

s risk analys

ollowing con

cables.

nts are more

clusion of sn

cup for the j

ily drop dow

posture.

is and evalua

trol measure

accessible.

ap lock syste

oiner.

n and hook u

ation

es were deve

em of

up without

12

eloped:

D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.

[ 6 ]

Possible Control Measures

From the workshops the following control measures were developed:

Elimination:

• Air cut off - letting train movement separate cables.

Design/engineering controls:

• Change the position of hoses so coupling points are more accessible.

• Flexible hoses (new hoses are more rigid) - inclusion of snap lock system of joining/moulded hand grips/and/or a rubber cup for the joiner.

• Tool to hold hosebags in position so they easily drop down and hook up without application of excess force/ use of awkward posture.

• Design a seal for brake cable to keep coal dust off.

• Move the stopcock to side.

Administrative controls:

• Improved training - individual competency levels & particularly for new wagons coming in from China.

• Update maintenance strategies to minimise likelihood of needing to undertake the task trackside.

• Timetabling - so task not completed on night shift/difficult environments i.e. undertaken at areas of level ballast. The task was noted to be easier if two operators were rostered so could work from either side of the train.

• Negotiate with track owner for improved track maintenance.

• “Oncall” crew list to assist when required.

• PPE - when working at night - provision of head lamps and appropriate gloves (quality and purpose).

Task 3: Lifting and carrying bags

Task Description

Train crew carry bags containing their personal items with them onto and off of each shift involving awkward postures of the trunk and lower body while lifting above shoulder, and instability of the lower body. Bags vary in dimension and weight, and content is discretionary between individual crew members. Additionally, crew carry meal and water requirements for the duration of their shift, and procedure manuals/reference items required during the shift. The company has supplied a standard (high visibility) backpack but crew are not required to use this pack, nor are they restricted to one carry on bag. Locomotive access involves walking along track ballast (of varying heights and quality). Crew often stand on uneven surfaces while passing bags overhead to a crew member standing on the locomotive platform above (Figure 5). The ankle is particularly vulnerable to injury due to instability of the ballast surface. The task is undertaken infrequently, usually at start and completion of shift.

Risk Assessment

Risk analysis (Figure 6) indicates:

• High risk of acute injury to the shoulder and upper limb with this task.

• Moderate risk of cumulative injury for this area.

Figure 5 A&B: Lifting bags onto locomotive at start of shift

D. LyErgon

Figure

Risk

nas et al. nomics Australia.

e 5 A&B: Liftin

assessment:

• High risk

• Moderat

2013. 10:1.

g bags onto loc

: Risk analysi

k of acute inju

te risk of cum

comotive at sta

s (Figure 6) i

ury to the sh

mulative injur

art of shift

ndicates:

oulder and u

ry for this are

upper limb w

ea.

with this task..

14

D. LyErgon

Figure

Risk

nas et al. nomics Australia.

e 5 A&B: Liftin

assessment:

• High risk

• Moderat

2013. 10:1.

g bags onto loc

: Risk analysi

k of acute inju

te risk of cum

comotive at sta

s (Figure 6) i

ury to the sh

mulative injur

art of shift

ndicates:

oulder and u

ry for this are

upper limb w

ea.

with this task..

14

Figure 6: Lifting and carrying bags risk analysis and evaluation

Possible Control Measures

Design/engineering control options:

• Motorised pulley/boat cable winch system (hooked over handrail and bags winched up onto the locomotive).

• Hydraulic platform lift (similar to disabled taxis) accessed from the rear of the locomotive.

• Fold down pneumatic stairs.

• Luggage rack located on outside of locomotive.

D. LyErgon

Figu

Poss

Desig

nas et al. nomics Australia.

re 6: Lifting a

sible control

gn/engineeri

• Motorise

onto the

• Hydrauli

locomoti

• Fold dow

2013. 10:1.

and carrying

measures

ing control o

ed pulley/bo

e locomotive)

c platform lif

ive.

wn pneumati

g bags risk an

options:

at cable winc

).

ft (similar to

c stairs.

nalysis and e

ch system (h

disabled tax

valuation

ooked over h

xis) accessed

handrail and

from the rea

bags winche

ar of the

15

ed up

D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.

[ 7 ]

Administrative controls:

• Consider placing manuals/Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS)/route manuals on ipad /tablet to reduce bag.

• Consider placing essential manual information in hard copy on locomotives.

• Track maintenance - designated change points on network/improved track access.

Task 4: Walking and working on and about the track - including ballast and access roads

Task Description

The task is undertaken frequently by all crew and performed in a variety of environmental conditions (heat, wet weather, night) and locations. The difficulty in assessing this task is that it often involves specific maintenance tasks which need to be assessed individually to understand how targeted design/engineering controls can best be implemented. Crew drive by 4WD, often on unsealed access roads/tracks/ballast (of varying dimensions and quality) to access the locomotive, and undertake a number of observational/maintenance tasks including walking the length of the train to observe any faults or maintenance issues; carrying out maintenance work and routine procedures, such as handbrake application and release; and provisioning prior to commencement of shift. Stressful conditions may arise when fault detection and repairs are required either at initial inspection or following a breakdown during a shift. Awkward postures of the trunk and lower body are often adopted in order to provide trunk and lower stability while standing on an uneven surface and undertaking a specific task (Figure 7). The ankle is particularly vulnerable to injury due to reduced stability when standing on ballast. A moderate level of exertion may be required, if crew need to carry maintenance /replacement equipment and undertake maintenance tasks.

Figure 7 A, B & C: Examples of walking and working trackside

Risk Assessment

Risk analysis (Figure 8) indicates:

• Moderate risk of acute injury to the shoulder, upper limbs and back.

• Low risk of injury to the lower body.

The assessment tool does not give consideration to the terrain in which the task is performed – the uneven and shifting nature of the ballast surface underfoot indicates ankle injury may occur with this task.

Figure 8: Walking and working on and about track risk analysis and evaluation

Possible Control Measures

Design/engineering control options:

• Individual maintenance tasks need to be assessed to understand if targeted design/engineering controls can be implemented.

• Designated maintenance/change out platforms.

• Design tools that are light weight and appropriate for the task.

Administrative controls:

• Maintenance of track and walkways to acceptable standard/Improved vehicle access/4WD training.

• Provision of tool belt - to carry water bottle, tools etc.

• Provision of appropriate footwear.

• Provision of appropriate clothing for environment.

D. LyErgon

Adm

Task

Task

envi

this t

indiv

Crew

qual

inclu

out m

prov

dete

shift

trun

(Figu

on b

/rep

Figure

Risk

nas et al. nomics Australia.

• Luggage

ministrative co

• Consider

/tablet to

• Consider

• Track ma

k 4: Walking

k Description

ronmental co

task is that it

vidually to un

w drive by 4W

ity) to access

uding walking

maintenance

visioning prio

ection and re

t. Awkward p

k and lower

ure 7). The an

ballast. A mo

lacement eq

e 7 A, B & C: Ex

assessment:

2013. 10:1.

rack located

ontrols:

r placing man

o reduce bag

r placing esse

aintenance -

and working

: The task is

onditions (he

t often involv

nderstand ho

WD, often on

s the locomo

g the length

e work and ro

or to commen

pairs are req

postures of t

stability whi

nkle is partic

oderate level

quipment and

xamples of wal

: Risk analysi

d on outside o

nuals/Standa

g.

ential manua

designated c

g on and abo

undertaken f

eat, wet wea

ves specific m

ow targeted d

n unsealed ac

otive, and un

of the train t

outine proce

ncement of s

quired either

he trunk and

le standing o

ularly vulner

l of exertion

d undertake

lking and worki

s (Figure 8) i

of locomotiv

ard Operating

al informatio

change point

out the track

frequently by

ather, night) a

maintenance

design/engin

ccess roads/t

dertake a nu

to observe an

edures, such

shift. Stressf

at initial ins

d lower body

on an uneven

rable to injur

may be requ

maintenance

ing trackside

ndicates:

ve.

g Procedures

n in hard cop

ts on networ

- including b

y all crew an

and location

tasks which

neering contr

tracks/ballast

umber of obs

ny faults or m

as handbrak

ful conditions

pection or fo

y are often ad

n surface and

ry due to red

uired, if crew

e tasks.

s (SOPS)/rou

py on locomo

rk/improved

ballast and a

d performed

s. The difficu

need to be a

rols can best

t (of varying

servational/m

maintenance

e application

s may arise w

ollowing a br

dopted in ord

d undertaking

uced stabilit

w need to car

te manuals o

otives.

track access

access roads

d in a variety

ulty in assess

assessed

t be impleme

dimensions

maintenance

issues; carry

n and release

when fault

eakdown du

der to provid

g a specific ta

y when stand

ry maintenan

16

on ipad

.

of

sing

ented.

and

tasks

ying

e; and

ring a

de

ask

ding

nce

D. LyErgon

Adm

Task

Task

envi

this t

indiv

Crew

qual

inclu

out m

prov

dete

shift

trun

(Figu

on b

/rep

Figure

Risk

nas et al. nomics Australia.

• Luggage

ministrative co

• Consider

/tablet to

• Consider

• Track ma

k 4: Walking

k Description

ronmental co

task is that it

vidually to un

w drive by 4W

ity) to access

uding walking

maintenance

visioning prio

ection and re

t. Awkward p

k and lower

ure 7). The an

ballast. A mo

lacement eq

e 7 A, B & C: Ex

assessment:

2013. 10:1.

rack located

ontrols:

r placing man

o reduce bag

r placing esse

aintenance -

and working

: The task is

onditions (he

t often involv

nderstand ho

WD, often on

s the locomo

g the length

e work and ro

or to commen

pairs are req

postures of t

stability whi

nkle is partic

oderate level

quipment and

xamples of wal

: Risk analysi

d on outside o

nuals/Standa

g.

ential manua

designated c

g on and abo

undertaken f

eat, wet wea

ves specific m

ow targeted d

n unsealed ac

otive, and un

of the train t

outine proce

ncement of s

quired either

he trunk and

le standing o

ularly vulner

l of exertion

d undertake

lking and worki

s (Figure 8) i

of locomotiv

ard Operating

al informatio

change point

out the track

frequently by

ather, night) a

maintenance

design/engin

ccess roads/t

dertake a nu

to observe an

edures, such

shift. Stressf

at initial ins

d lower body

on an uneven

rable to injur

may be requ

maintenance

ing trackside

ndicates:

ve.

g Procedures

n in hard cop

ts on networ

- including b

y all crew an

and location

tasks which

neering contr

tracks/ballast

umber of obs

ny faults or m

as handbrak

ful conditions

pection or fo

y are often ad

n surface and

ry due to red

uired, if crew

e tasks.

s (SOPS)/rou

py on locomo

rk/improved

ballast and a

d performed

s. The difficu

need to be a

rols can best

t (of varying

servational/m

maintenance

e application

s may arise w

ollowing a br

dopted in ord

d undertaking

uced stabilit

w need to car

te manuals o

otives.

track access

access roads

d in a variety

ulty in assess

assessed

t be impleme

dimensions

maintenance

issues; carry

n and release

when fault

eakdown du

der to provid

g a specific ta

y when stand

ry maintenan

16

on ipad

.

of

sing

ented.

and

tasks

ying

e; and

ring a

de

ask

ding

nce

D. LyErgon

Adm

Task

Task

envi

this t

indiv

Crew

qual

inclu

out m

prov

dete

shift

trun

(Figu

on b

/rep

Figure

Risk

nas et al. nomics Australia.

• Luggage

ministrative co

• Consider

/tablet to

• Consider

• Track ma

k 4: Walking

k Description

ronmental co

task is that it

vidually to un

w drive by 4W

ity) to access

uding walking

maintenance

visioning prio

ection and re

t. Awkward p

k and lower

ure 7). The an

ballast. A mo

lacement eq

e 7 A, B & C: Ex

assessment:

2013. 10:1.

rack located

ontrols:

r placing man

o reduce bag

r placing esse

aintenance -

and working

: The task is

onditions (he

t often involv

nderstand ho

WD, often on

s the locomo

g the length

e work and ro

or to commen

pairs are req

postures of t

stability whi

nkle is partic

oderate level

quipment and

xamples of wal

: Risk analysi

d on outside o

nuals/Standa

g.

ential manua

designated c

g on and abo

undertaken f

eat, wet wea

ves specific m

ow targeted d

n unsealed ac

otive, and un

of the train t

outine proce

ncement of s

quired either

he trunk and

le standing o

ularly vulner

l of exertion

d undertake

lking and worki

s (Figure 8) i

of locomotiv

ard Operating

al informatio

change point

out the track

frequently by

ather, night) a

maintenance

design/engin

ccess roads/t

dertake a nu

to observe an

edures, such

shift. Stressf

at initial ins

d lower body

on an uneven

rable to injur

may be requ

maintenance

ing trackside

ndicates:

ve.

g Procedures

n in hard cop

ts on networ

- including b

y all crew an

and location

tasks which

neering contr

tracks/ballast

umber of obs

ny faults or m

as handbrak

ful conditions

pection or fo

y are often ad

n surface and

ry due to red

uired, if crew

e tasks.

s (SOPS)/rou

py on locomo

rk/improved

ballast and a

d performed

s. The difficu

need to be a

rols can best

t (of varying

servational/m

maintenance

e application

s may arise w

ollowing a br

dopted in ord

d undertaking

uced stabilit

w need to car

te manuals o

otives.

track access

access roads

d in a variety

ulty in assess

assessed

t be impleme

dimensions

maintenance

issues; carry

n and release

when fault

eakdown du

der to provid

g a specific ta

y when stand

ry maintenan

16

on ipad

.

of

sing

ented.

and

tasks

ying

e; and

ring a

de

ask

ding

nce

D. LyErgon

The

the u

with

Poss

nas et al. nomics Australia.

• Moderat

• Low risk

assessment t

uneven and s

this task.

Figure 8: W

sible control m

2013. 10:1.

te risk of acu

of injury to t

tool does no

shifting natu

Walking and

measures:

te injury to t

the lower bo

ot give consid

re of the bal

working on

the shoulder,

ody.

deration to th

last surface u

and about tr

, upper limbs

he terrain in

underfoot in

rack risk ana

s and back.

which the ta

dicates ankle

alysis and eva

ask is perform

e injury may

aluation

17

med –

occur

D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.

[ 8 ]

Task 5: Access and egress from the locomotive cab

Task Description

Access and egress is typically performed once per shift unless unforeseen maintenance issues arise. Locomotive access and egress is via a vertical ladder situated toward the rear of the locomotive, leading onto an external platform (within the profile of the train) to the cab of the locomotive (Figure 9A). The platform is narrow requiring crew to walk side-step along it to the cab (approximately 10 metres) and is accessed via an outward opening door. To egress, crew pivot on the platform so as to exit facing backwards and retaining three points of contact (Figure 9B). The final step down to ballast/ground may be up to half a metre and onto uneven and moving surface/with or without long grass surrounding it. Depending on change of shift location crew may be required to undertake this task in the dark, and/or on unfamiliar sections of the track.

Figures 9A & B: Access and egress from locomotive cab

Risk Assessment

Risk analysis (Figure 10) indicates:

• Moderate risk of acute injury to the shoulder and upper limb.

• Low risk of injury to the lower body (consideration needs to be given to the state of the ballast surrounding the ladder as this may influence the potential for ankle injury).

• Moderate risk of cumulative injury to back.

Possible Control Measures

The workshops provided the following information regarding control measures for reducing the likelihood of injury from this task. Effective control measure implementation may involve a combination of both design controls and some administrative controls, if elimination of the task is not possible.

Figure 10: Access and egress from locomotive risk analysis and evaluation

Design/engineering control options:

• Redesign the locomotive ladder - consider retracting stairs/extension ladder with spring adjustment release.

• Install LED lighting on bottom rung of ladder.

• Install handrails on bottom of locomotive footplate - provide support when walking on uneven ballast.

• Longer handle on door locking mechanism of cab door.

Administrative controls:

• Increase number of change platforms on line.

• Maintenance of ballast.

Task 6: Locomotive provisioning

Task Description

This task is performed infrequently, and varies between the two lines. One line (A) has contractor assistance with provisioning. The other line (B) does not - meaning all provisioning undertaken by one person usually taking around two hours to complete. Currently, the task is performed outside and in all weather conditions. Forceful manual effort and awkward body postures are required while connecting the fuel hoses, during the refueling process itself, and while starting the compressors to power the sand pods (Figures 11 A & B). Line (A) has a vehicle fitted with a motor operated platform providing operator access to refueling points without the

D. LyErgon

Desig

Adm

Task

Task

main

the r

the c

alon

egre

cont

unev

shift

secti

Figure

nas et al. nomics Australia.

gn/engineeri

• Individua

design/e

• Designat

• Design to

ministrative co

• Mainten

access/4

• Provision

• Provision

• Provision

k 5: Access a

k Description:

ntenance issu

rear of the lo

cab of the loc

g it to the ca

ess, crew pivo

tact (Figure 9

ven and mov

t location cre

ions of the tr

es 9A & B: Acc

2013. 10:1.

ing control o

al maintenan

engineering c

ted maintena

ools that are

ontrols:

ance of track

4WD training

n of tool belt

n of appropri

n of appropri

and egress fro

: Access and

ues arise. Loc

ocomotive, le

comotive (Fig

ab (approxim

ot on the pla

9B). The final

ving surface/w

ew may be re

rack.

ess and egress

options:

nce tasks nee

controls can b

ance/change

light weight

k and walkwa

.

t - to carry wa

iate footwea

iate clothing

om the locom

egress is typ

comotive acc

eading onto a

gure 9A). Th

mately 10 met

tform so as t

step down t

with or witho

equired to un

from locomotiv

ed to be asse

be implemen

e out platform

t and approp

ays to accept

ater bottle, t

ar.

for environm

motive cab

pically perfor

cess and egre

an external p

he platform is

tres) and is a

to exit facing

to ballast/gro

out long gras

ndertake this

ve cab

essed to unde

nted.

ms.

riate for the

table standa

tools etc.

ment.

rmed once pe

ess is via a ve

platform (wit

s narrow req

accessed via a

g backwards a

ound may be

ss surroundin

s task in the d

erstand if tar

task.

rd/Improved

er shift unles

ertical ladder

thin the profi

quiring crew t

an outward o

and retaining

e up to half a

ng it. Depend

dark, and/or

rgeted

d vehicle

ss unforeseen

r situated tow

ile of the trai

to walk side-

opening doo

g three point

metre and o

ding on chan

on unfamilia

18

n

ward

in) to

-step

r. To

ts of

onto

ge of

ar

D. LyErgon

Desig

Adm

Task

Task

main

the r

the c

alon

egre

cont

unev

shift

secti

Figure

nas et al. nomics Australia.

gn/engineeri

• Individua

design/e

• Designat

• Design to

ministrative co

• Mainten

access/4

• Provision

• Provision

• Provision

k 5: Access a

k Description:

ntenance issu

rear of the lo

cab of the loc

g it to the ca

ess, crew pivo

tact (Figure 9

ven and mov

t location cre

ions of the tr

es 9A & B: Acc

2013. 10:1.

ing control o

al maintenan

engineering c

ted maintena

ools that are

ontrols:

ance of track

4WD training

n of tool belt

n of appropri

n of appropri

and egress fro

: Access and

ues arise. Loc

ocomotive, le

comotive (Fig

ab (approxim

ot on the pla

9B). The final

ving surface/w

ew may be re

rack.

ess and egress

options:

nce tasks nee

controls can b

ance/change

light weight

k and walkwa

.

t - to carry wa

iate footwea

iate clothing

om the locom

egress is typ

comotive acc

eading onto a

gure 9A). Th

mately 10 met

tform so as t

step down t

with or witho

equired to un

from locomotiv

ed to be asse

be implemen

e out platform

t and approp

ays to accept

ater bottle, t

ar.

for environm

motive cab

pically perfor

cess and egre

an external p

he platform is

tres) and is a

to exit facing

to ballast/gro

out long gras

ndertake this

ve cab

essed to unde

nted.

ms.

riate for the

table standa

tools etc.

ment.

rmed once pe

ess is via a ve

platform (wit

s narrow req

accessed via a

g backwards a

ound may be

ss surroundin

s task in the d

erstand if tar

task.

rd/Improved

er shift unles

ertical ladder

thin the profi

quiring crew t

an outward o

and retaining

e up to half a

ng it. Depend

dark, and/or

rgeted

d vehicle

ss unforeseen

r situated tow

ile of the trai

to walk side-

opening doo

g three point

metre and o

ding on chan

on unfamilia

18

n

ward

in) to

-step

r. To

ts of

onto

ge of

ar

D. LyErgon

Risk

nas et al. nomics Australia.

assessment:

• Moderat

• Low risk

ballast su

• Moderat

Figure 10:

2013. 10:1.

: Risk analysi

te risk of acu

of injury to t

urrounding t

te risk of cum

Access and

s (Figure 10)

te injury to t

the lower bo

he ladder as

mulative injur

egress from

indicates:

the shoulder

ody (consider

this may inf

ry to back.

locomotive

and upper li

ration needs

luence the p

risk analysis

imb.

to be given t

otential for a

s and evaluat

to the state o

ankle injury)

tion

19

of the

.

D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.

[ 9 ]

need for excessive manual effort or awkward postures (Figure 11 C). Postural demands were far greater on Line B with the procedures having less variation in movement patterns and being largely repetitive in nature, while Line A procedures had more dynamic and varied movement patterns. The task is performed infrequently but may take up to two hours to complete (short periods of varied tasks) on Line B.

Figures 11 A & B: Provisioning of Locomotive (Line B) Figure 11 C: Provisioning (Line A)

Risk Assessment

Risk analysis (Figure 12) indicates:

• High risk of acute injury to the back and moderate risk to the shoulder, arms and legs.

• Moderate risk of cumulative injury for all areas.

Noise levels while provisioning was identified by crew as a problem, and a recommendation was made to also engage an occupational hygienist to review air particle contaminants associated with the provisioning process.

Possible control measures

The workshops provided the following information regarding control measures for reducing the likelihood of injury from this task. Hazardous procedures were identified when undertaking various components of the task - these included fuelling, sanding/sand pod use, lifting of oil drums and subsequent oil leaks.

Elimination:

• Construct purpose built facility or hire the existing facility from track owner.

Design/engineering control measures:

Fuelling:

• Consider a lighter fuel hose.

Sanding:

• Gas struts/lighter material for lid - existing heavy to remove.

• Sand hose nozzle heavy - replace with aluminum/lighter weight material.

• Portable sanding delivery system.

• Extend current gravity feed hose (apparently 60cm too short).

• Fit a “T piece” to the sand hose.

• Provide additional pods - reduce need to move equipment during task.

Oiling:

• Purpose built platform for oiling requirements.

• Air pressure drum (with hose reel) to dispense oil.

• Oil drum on stand/reservoir moved to increase accessibility.

• Oil in smaller container (5 litre) rather than lifting 20 litre drum (only small quantities are required to complete task).

• Redesign access point for oil delivered to compressors for easier access.

• Work from the head end for provisioning/fault finding - eliminates need to walk back to the remotes.

• Dipsticks re-positioned either side for checking engine oil.

• Provide degreaser to counter oil spillages.

Administrative control measures:

• Provide additional staff/third driver (night fuelling of remote locomotives).

D. LyErgon

Figur

Risk

Nois

mad

with

nas et al. nomics Australia.

res 11 A & B

assessment:

• High risk

• Moderat

se levels whil

e to also eng

the provisio

2013. 10:1.

Provisioning o

: Risk analysi

k of acute inju

te risk of cum

e provisionin

gage an occu

oning process

of Locomotive

s (Figure 12)

ury to the ba

mulative injur

ng was ident

upational hyg

s.

e (Line B) Figu

indicates:

ack and mode

ry for all area

ified by crew

gienist to rev

ure 11 C: Pro

erate risk to

as.

w as a problem

iew air partic

visioning (Line

the shoulder

m, and a reco

cle contamin

e A)

r, arms and l

ommendatio

nants associa

21

egs.

on was

ted

D. LyErgon

Figur

Risk

Nois

mad

with

nas et al. nomics Australia.

res 11 A & B

assessment:

• High risk

• Moderat

se levels whil

e to also eng

the provisio

2013. 10:1.

Provisioning o

: Risk analysi

k of acute inju

te risk of cum

e provisionin

gage an occu

oning process

of Locomotive

s (Figure 12)

ury to the ba

mulative injur

ng was ident

upational hyg

s.

e (Line B) Figu

indicates:

ack and mode

ry for all area

ified by crew

gienist to rev

ure 11 C: Pro

erate risk to

as.

w as a problem

iew air partic

visioning (Line

the shoulder

m, and a reco

cle contamin

e A)

r, arms and l

ommendatio

nants associa

21

egs.

on was

ted

D. LyErgon

Figur

Risk

Nois

mad

with

nas et al. nomics Australia.

res 11 A & B

assessment:

• High risk

• Moderat

se levels whil

e to also eng

the provisio

2013. 10:1.

Provisioning o

: Risk analysi

k of acute inju

te risk of cum

e provisionin

gage an occu

oning process

of Locomotive

s (Figure 12)

ury to the ba

mulative injur

ng was ident

upational hyg

s.

e (Line B) Figu

indicates:

ack and mode

ry for all area

ified by crew

gienist to rev

ure 11 C: Pro

erate risk to

as.

w as a problem

iew air partic

visioning (Line

the shoulder

m, and a reco

cle contamin

e A)

r, arms and l

ommendatio

nants associa

21

egs.

on was

ted

Figure 12: Train provisioning (B line) analysis and evaluation

D. LyErgon

Poss

mea

iden

sand

Elim

Desig

nas et al. nomics Australia.

Figure 12:

sible control m

sures for red

tified when u

ding/sand po

ination:

• Construct

gn/engineeri

2013. 10:1.

Train provis

measures: Th

ducing the lik

undertaking

d use, lifting

purpose buil

ing control m

sioning (B lin

he workshop

kelihood of in

various com

g of oil drums

lt facility or h

measures:

ne) analysis a

ps provided th

njury from th

ponents of t

s and subseq

hire the exist

and evaluatio

he following

his task. Haza

he task - the

uent oil leak

ting facility fr

on

information

ardous proce

ese included f

ks.

rom track ow

regarding co

edures were

fuelling,

wner.

22

ontrol

D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.

[ 10 ]

Discussion and conclusion

This research has focused on the tasks over which the organisation has the greatest opportunity to implement effective injury reduction control measures. Part of the overall value of the participatory ergonomics process is the demonstration of “ownership” of the task by crew and their willingness to share information within a group where their expert knowledge is recognised and utilised. Crew also need the confidence that management supports moving forward and is willing to demonstrate commitment to the reduction of manual task injury within their workforce. The workshops provided crew with the tools and knowledge needed to accurately identify risk, assess tasks within their work environment, interpret the results of their assessment and translate the findings into effective control measure options. Additionally, they provided a forum for discussion, and an extensive list of control measures were developed during the workshops. The participatory ergonomics approach has both successes and setbacks which were demonstrated within this study. While the workshops generated practical solutions across all levels of the hierarchy of controls, no “site champion” emerged from crew level across either site - this lead to management delegating the role of champion to “mid-level” management personnel at each site. A weakness, or threat to the opportunity of success of a project like the one identified in this case study is turnover of key staff within the organisation, resulting in failure to ensure sufficient numbers of staff remain engaged in the project with adequate influence within the organisation to drive initiatives forward.

There was difficulty within the workshops gaining consensus of control measure options across both sites, and within sites across different shift working crews. Different workplace cultures appeared to exist between sites - this was most noticeable in crew comments regarding perceived management commitment to the process. A weakness that may significantly impact upon the success of this project is the speed of implementation of agreed control measures, and the subsequent message this sends to workers about management support for the success of the project. A more significant setback to the program may be that suggested interventions are not implemented at all by management, or not implemented in the form envisaged by those providing the expert knowledge input to the workshops. This project operated across two sites, different geographical locations with no interaction between crew from each site, but under the same management administration. This highlights the need for effective and open communication between all parties involved and strengthens the need for facilitation of this process, whether by the designated “site champion” or the facilitator engaged for the participatory ergonomics process.

Implementation of a participative ergonomics program is an effective evidence based method of reducing injury risks associated with manual tasks [29, 15]. Involving workers can produce effective control measure options. Translation of this knowledge into effective implementation strategies requires genuine management “buy in” and willingness to take the appropriate actions to demonstrate commitment to reducing injury risk in their workforce.

References

1. Safe Work Australia, 2012. Compendium of workers’ compensation statistics, Australia 2010-11. Canberra: Safe Work Australia.

2. Nagamachi M. Requisites and practices of participatory ergonomics, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 1995; 15: 371-377.

3. Elden M. Sociotechnical systems ideas as public policy in Norway. Empowering participation through worker-managed change. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science. 1986; 22: 239-255.

4. Liker JK, Nagamaci M and Lifshitz YR. A comparative analysis of participatory ergonomics programs in US and Japan manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 1995; 3: 185-199.

5. Haims M and Carayon P. Theory and practice for the implementation of “in-house” continuous improvement participatory ergonomics programs. Applied Ergonomics. 1998; 29: 461-472.

6. Haines H, Wilson JR and Koningsveld E. Validating a framework for Participatory ergonomics (the PEF). Ergonomics. 2002; 45, 309-327.

7. Haslam RA. Targeting ergonomics interventions – learning from health promotion. Applied Ergonomics. 2002; 33 (3), 241-149.

8. Wilson JR and and Haims HM. Participatory ergonomics in: Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, G. Salvendy ed., 2nd Edn, Wiley, New York 1997; 490 -513.

9. van Eerd D, Cole E, Irvin Q, Mahood, K, Keown, N, Therberge, J, St Vincent M and Cullen K. Report on process and implementation of participatory ergonomic interventions: stakeholder engagement, Institute for Work and Health, Toronto 2008.

10. Hendrick H. Good Ergonomics Good Economics. HFES press, Santa Monica 2001.

11. Vink P, Koningsveld EAP and Molenbroed, JF. Positive outcomes of participatory ergonomics in terms of higher comfort and productivity. Ergonomics. 2006; 37; 537-546.

12. DeJong AM and Vink P. Participatory ergonomics applied in installation work. Applied Ergonomics. 2002; 33 (5), 439-448.

13. Straker L, Burgess-Limerick R, Pollock C, and Egeskov R. A randomised and controlled trial of a participative ergonomics intervention to reduce injuries associated with manual tasks: physical risk and legislative compliance. Ergonomics. 2004; 47: 166-188.

14. Carrivick PWJ, Lee AH, Yau KKW and Stevenson MR. Evaluating the effectiveness of a participatory ergonomics approach in reducing the risk and severity of injuries from manual handling. Ergonomics. 2005; 48;8, 907-914.

15. Rivilis I, Cole D, Fraser M, Mardon B, Kerr M, Wells R and Ibrahim, S. Valuation of a participatory ergonomic intervention aimed at improving musculoskeletal health. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 2006; 49 (10), 801-810.

16. Marciel R. Participatory ergonomics and organisational change. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 1998;

D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.

[ 11 ]

22;319-325.

17. Halpern C and Dawson K. Design and implementation of a participatory ergonomics program for machine sewing tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 1997; 20: 429-440.

18. Moore J and Garg A. Participatory ergonomics in a red meat packing plant, Part 1: evidence of long term effectiveness. American Industrial Hygiene Association. 1997; 58: 127-131.

19. Rosecrance J and Cook T. The use of participatory action research and ergonomics in the prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the newspaper industry. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 2000; 15: 255-262.

20. Evanoff BA, Bohr PC and Wolf LD. Effects of a participatory ergonomics team among hospital orderlies. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 1999; 41: 293-297.

21. Straker LM. Work – associated back problems: collaborative solutions. Journal of the Society of Occupational Medicine. 1990; 40: 75-79.

22. de Jong A and Vink P. THE adoption of technological innovations for glaziers: evaluation of a participatory ergonomics approach. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2000; 26: 39-46.

23. Burgess-Limerick R, Straker L, Pollock C, Dennis G, Leveritt S, and Johnson S. Implementation of the

Participative Ergonomics for Manual tasks (PErforM) programme at four Australian underground coal mines. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2007; 37: 145-155.

24. Laing A, Fraser M, Cole D, Kerr M, Wells R and Norman R. Study of the effectiveness of a participatory ergonomics intervention in reducing worker pain severity through physical exposure pathways. Ergonomics. 2005; 48: 150-170.

25. Hignett S, Wilson JR and Morris W. Finding ergonomic solutions – participatory approaches. Occupational Medicine. 2005; 55: 3, 200 – 207.

26. Perhkonen I, Nykyri E, Riihmaki H,Takala E, Ketola R, Viikari Jutera et al. Evaluation of a participatory ergonomic intervention process in kitchen work. Applied Ergonomics. 2009; 40: 115-123.

27. Burgess-Limerick R. Procedure for Managing Injury Risks Associated with Manual Tasks. 2008.

h t t p : / / b u r g e s s - l i m e r i c k . c o m / d o w n l o a d /manualtaskprocedure.pdf

28. Ergoanalyst, www.ergoenterprises.com.au

29. Cole D, Theberg N, Dixon S, Rivilis W and Wells R. Reflecting on a program of participatory ergonomics interventions: A multiple case study. Work. 2009; 34: 161-178.

Cite this article as: Lynas and Burgess-Limerick. Participatory Ergonomics Case Study: Coal Handling Train Crew Operations. Ergonomics Australia. 2013, 10:1.