Scenario Description, Barrier Model and Human Factor Classification to Analysis Freight Train Derailments, Part II: Case study

  • Hang Peng * Centre for Fundamental Computing Courses, College of Computer Science, Sichuan University
  • Hongyuan Meng * Centre for Fundamental Computing Courses, College of Computer Science, Sichuan University
  • Xin Xia * Centre for Fundamental Computing Courses, College of Computer Science, Sichuan University
Article ID: 5641
1 Views
Keywords: System Theory; Track Geometry Deterioration; Barrier Model; Performance Shaping Factor; HEART

Abstract

The background part of this work was firstly to learn the history of incident data at the SMIS and AEAT Rail derailment database, attributed to the causal factors analysis and the preliminary statistics process. The review of the vehicle acceptance test included the Y/Q derailment criterion and the bogie rotation inspection demonstrated the major technical reason; The track geometry deterioration model was calculated in the Markov Chain transition probabilistic model. The work explained the case analysis in the Porthkerry derailment: the track Vertical Longitudinal Split (VLS) failure mechanism study; the Heworth derailment: the track geometry degradation and Human Reliability Analysis (HRA); the Camden derailment: the freight train unevenly loading derailment compliant to the standard intervention.

Published
2025-12-18
How to Cite
Peng, H., Meng, H., & Xia, X. (2025). Scenario Description, Barrier Model and Human Factor Classification to Analysis Freight Train Derailments, Part II: Case study. Learning & Education, 14(4). Retrieved from https://ojs.piscomed.com/index.php/L-E/article/view/5641
Issue
Vol. 14 No. 4 (2025)
Section
Article

References

[1]Le Coze, J. C. (2015). Reflecting on Jens Rasmussen’s legacy. A strong program for a hard problem. Safety Science, 71, 123-141.

[2]Sklet, S. (2006). Safety barriers: Definition, classification, and performance. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries,

19(5), 494-506.

[3]Duijm, N. J. (2009). Safety-barrier diagrams as a safety management tool. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 94(2), 332-341.

[4]Duijm, N. J., &Goossens, L. (2006). Quantifying the influence of safety management on the reliability of safety barriers. J Hazard

Mater, 130(3), 284-292.

[5]Underwood, P., & Waterson, P. (2013). Systemic accident analysis: examining the gap between research and practice. Accident And

Prevention, 55, 154-164.

[6]Akyuz, E., Celik, M., Cebi, S., (2016), A phase of comprehensive research to determine marine-specific EPC values in human error

assessment and reduction technique, Safety Science, 87, 63–75

[7]Williams, J. C.. (1988). A Data-Based Method for Assessing And Reducing Human Error To Improve Operational Performance. Human Factors and Power Plants, 1988. Conference Record for 1988 IEEE Fourth Conference on. IEEE.

[8] Hollnagel, E.. (1998). Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method (CREAM).

[9] HAZARD AND BARRIER ANALYSIS GUIDANCE DOCUMENT (1996), OFFICE OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS AND FEEDBACK.