Language Use in Railway Operation in
Europe
Study of language requirements and usage
in three chosen areas
Policy and Business Analysis
December 2008
Content .............................................................................................................................................3 1. Summary and Items of Debate..................................................................................................3 Engine drivers: .............................................................................................................................5 Traffic Administration .................................................................................................................5 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................5 Content
For the Danish National Rail Authority, Danish Technological Institute has conducted a study of
experiences with use of more languages for exchange of safety-related communication in railway
operations, primarily between engine drivers and the traffic administration.
In cooperation with the Danish National Rail Authority, we chose three different locations for the
study. They are areas that are a challenge in terms of languages, i.e., the traffic via the Oresund
connection (Danish – Swedish), the bi-lingual Belgium (French – Flemish), and Switzerland
(German – Italian – French) that use at least three languages in connection with the execution of the
railway traffic.
The study is based on interviews with representatives from the authorities, traffic administrations in
the countries in question, and engine drivers working in sections where the language question is
relevant. We have supplemented the interviews with material from the respondents and material
found on websites.
1. Summary and Items of Debate
We found three different language models in the three areas that are part of this study on how
language is handled across language borders:
•
Model 1: Communication between traffic control and the engine driver must take place in
the language spoken in the area where the locomotive is at present and where the traffic
control is.
•
Model 2: The traffic control and the engine driver speak their own language slowly and
clearly and without the use of slang.
•
Model 3: Model 3 combines the two other models. The engine driver and the traffic control
communicate in their own languages, but expressions concerning safety must be spoken in
the language belonging to the area, where the train is at present. Both parties, i.e., the engine
driver and the traffic control, are obliged to speak slowly and clearly when using their
mother tongue, in the same way as model 2.
In Denmark/Sweden and Belgium, numbers are pronounced individually (1-2-3-4-5). In
Switzerland, they may be pronounced in groups of two (12-34-5).
A tentative spreading on requirements and communication competencies for engine drivers in
relation to the table below:
Engine drivers in Denmark must meet level 3
Engine drivers in Belgium must meet level 3
Engine drivers in Switzerland must meet level 1
Description of Levels
5
— able to adjust language according to any conversation partner
— able to express a view
— able to negotiate
— able to persuade
— able to advise
4
— able to handle unpredictable situations
— able to state assumptions
— able to argue for ones point of view
3
— able to handle specific situations that involve an unexpected element
— able to give a description
— able to have a simple conversation
2
— able to handle simple, specific situations
— able to question
— able to answer questions
1
— able to express oneself by using rote learned sentences
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:315:0051:0078:DA:PDF)
The language border problem is handled in different ways, as seen from the three models. Model 1
and 2 share the fact that there are rules ensuring that the engine driver has understood a message, as
he must repeat it so that the traffic control to be sure that a message has been understood. This rule
seems to be practiced and maintained in the two areas.
All three models include safety procedures to ensure that if the communication does not work and it
is ascertained that the engine driver does not understand the message, the locomotive is stopped and
is prohibited from driving on. The safety perspective is hereby in order, but it may of course have
unfortunate consequences for timekeeping and keeping timetables.
The railways in question are aware of and regulate their behaviour in dealing with the different
languages. None of the interviewed persons has knowledge of language problems leading to safety
problems or accidents.
All three models are regional models and a common language (such as English) where all involved
parties use a third common language is not used anywhere. None of the persons we spoke to
reckons that it would be realistic to agree on using a common language for the European railway
net. A common language seems a remote, theoretical possibility, even though most agree that it
would be practical to communicate in only one language.
Their reservation is that it is unrealistic to imagine that all the many different operators on the
railway net will be able to agree on using a common language. Because of the many differences in
the railway nets across Europe, the respondents think that it would be pointless to discuss a
common language.
In the interviews, we have mentioned air traffic that practises a one-language model. The
interviewees responded that railway operations are more complex and demand more coordination
than “tower and plane” and railway operations are often carried out by old, former state-operated
businesses, connected to military operations, where different languages are seen as strength.
Third, there is a practical argument against the one-language model. e.g., if it were implemented, it
would have tremendous educational consequences. Many people are involved in railway operations,
and it would be a huge and costly task to educate and train everybody. The final argument against a
common language is that some traffic is still local or regional, and it seems absurd that employees
on a small local railway should be legally bound to communicate in a foreign language. However, it
seems possible to establish legislation on language use that excludes local traffic.
Engine drivers None of the studied areas recruits engine drivers focusing on language competencies.
•
•
•
Denmark and Sweden conduct a two-day language course for engine drivers in connection
with courses for engine drivers for the Oresund section.
Switzerland conducted a language test a year ago. The engine drivers had to pass the test in
order to keep their jobs as engine drivers on trains crossing language borders.
In Belgium, language tests are carried out in connection with the training of engine drivers,
and supplementary language education is carried out when needed. Language competencies
are tested continuously and there are follow-up courses.
Traffic Administration In Belgium, staff in the national traffic administration must be fluent in both French and Flemish.
Traffic administration staff is recruited in relation to their language skills and receive continuous
language training.
In Denmark, traffic managers on the section where Swedish engine drivers are allowed to drive
must pass the same language course as the engine drivers. There are no specific language
requirements in the national traffic control. There is no need for it because the engine drivers
communicate with the traffic managers and the engine instructors.
There are no formal language requirements in the Swiss traffic administration.
Discussion It is apparent that trains cross language borders without causing safety problems. However,
although not documented in this study, language problems may cause operational problems such as
delays and irregularity.
The Swiss model (Model 2) is the most pragmatic of the three models with very little executive
management. Perhaps this is an expression of the fact that several languages are spoken in
Switzerland and that none of these languages is considered more important than the others in spite
of German being the language spoken by most people. The language borders must not become
actual limitations, and there is an awareness of the particular challenges this provides. However, the
Swiss authorities are not considering any basic changes, as there is total confidence in the way the
system is operated.
The Danish model (Danish/Swedish language model, i.e., Model 3) is also simple. Speak your own
language, but you must know the 20 most important safety related expressions (in Belgium 16
expressions). Should problems occur, and more communication become necessary, engine drivers
have their help desk/support in the engine instructors who can help in the engine driver’s own
language. This linguistic safety measure is not automatically included in Switzerland.
Belgium seems to be the most regulated area concerning language use. The simple rule is that the
same language is spoken in the train as outside the train, and this rule is observed. The question is
whether this reflects that Belgium is actually a bilingual country, where all official communication
is bilingual, concurrent with clear language borders and accordingly outlined areas where Flemish
and Belgian is the everyday language respectively.
Danish Technological Institute has been met with openness and interest from the respondents in
Denmark, Switzerland, and Belgium. This is a sign of language borders being an issue, not least in
the countries with language border problems within the country’s national borders.
Use of different languages or poor knowledge of languages has not been the direct cause of
accidents according to our sources. There is, however, concern as to how things will evolve in
relation to increased deregulation and competition in the future.
In Belgium and Switzerland, there is great interest in working with the language issue, and how to
handle it properly. Expectations are that it would be valuable to continue working with the subject
in a smaller forum that does not include all European operators.
Oresund
Belgium
Switzerland
Yes
Yes
Language model
Model 1. Speak the language of the traffic
manger
Model 2. Speak one’s own language
Model 3. Combination
Yes
Yes
Engine drivers
Highest level of language
Level 3. The engine driver must be able to ask
questions and answer questions in a foreign
language. Handle simple and specific
situations
No
Yes
No
Level 1. Engine drivers must be able to
express themselves in a foreign language,
using sentences learned by rote
Yes
Yes
Yes
Engine driver support
Yes
Yes
No
Standard forms are filled in and kept for each
contact with traffic administration
No
No
Yes
Dictionary
Yes
No
No
Standard list of words 15 – 20 words /
sentences
Yes
Yes
Yes
Tools
Standard for numbers
Pronounced individually 12-3
Pronounced individually
1-2-3
In groups of two 2345
Standard for letters
No
Nato
3 variables
Language education
2-day course
On-going
No
Test
No
Yes – on-going
Once
Level 3+. Traffic management must be able to
ask questions and answer questions in a
foreign language. Handle simple and specific
situations.
No
Yes
No
Level 1. Traffic management must be able to
express oneself in a foreign language using
sentences learned by rote
Yes
Yes
Yes
Language education
2-day course
Recruitment and training
No
Traffic Management