essay on train safety

• Search Menu
• Advance Articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About Transportation Safety and Environment
• About Central South University
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1. introduction, 2. standards and regulations, 3. discussion, 4. conclusions and recommendations, acknowledgements, conflict of interest statement.

• < Previous

A review of train passenger safety—Inspiration from passive safety passenger protection technology of automobile

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Ping Xu, Xianliang Xiao, Shuguang Yao, A review of train passenger safety—Inspiration from passive safety passenger protection technology of automobile, Transportation Safety and Environment , Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2022, tdab032, https://doi.org/10.1093/tse/tdab032

• Permissions Icon Permissions

A train collision accident will cause many casualties, so the passive safety protection of the train occupants is very important. The purpose of this article is to obtain recommendations on the research directions of train passenger safety by comparing the passive safety protection of passengers in the fields of automobiles and trains. First, we analyse the collision standards and regulations of automobiles and trains and summarize the content related to the passive safety protection of occupants. Then, based on an extensive literature review, the development status of passive safety protection for automobiles and trains is analysed from three aspects: interior, human characteristics and passenger posture. Finally, some conclusions and recommendations on passive safety protection of train passengers are put forward. The protection method provided by automobile interiors is mainly restraints, while in trains it is mainly separation. For human characteristics, in addition to male and female, the elderly, obese and children are also studied in the automobile. As for posture, the automobile mainly focuses on the posture in reality and future automated vehicles, while in train, there is more research on lateral passengers and standing passengers. Although the protection of automobiles and trains is different, for the passive safety protection of train passengers, the design of automobile interiors can be used for reference to reduce passenger injuries. In addition, human characteristics and posture have a great impact on passenger injury, which should be considered in the passive safety protection of trains.

The train is an important way of travel, but the train operating environment is complicated and collision accidents cannot be completely avoided [ 1 ]. In response, researchers are improving the crashworthiness of trains to provide optimum passenger protection, but casualties are still unavoidable in collisions [ 2 ]. For example, on 9 February 2016, two commuter trains crashed in Germany, killing at least 10 people and injuring more than 80 people; on 5 August 2021, three people were killed and dozens injured in a train collision in the Czech Republic. Once a collision accident occurs, it will bring great human injury and economic loss, so the passive safety of train occupants has become the focus of research. Since the last century, the United States has used dummy models in full-size train crash tests to assess the safety of passengers. In recent years, the research on passive safety of train passengers mainly focuses on interior structural safety [ 3–16 ], seat optimization design [ 17–23 ], type of passenger [ 24–35 ] and so on. However, due to the lack of research, there are certain limitations in the research direction.

Also as a land transportation, the passive safety of the automobile passenger has been studied earlier and extensively. For example, research on crashworthiness of vehicle [ 36–41 ] and the interior restraint system [ 42–51 ] is relatively mature. The requirement of passenger passive safety has formed relatively perfect standards and regulations in automobile collision, such as the regulations on frontal collisions FMVSS 208, ECE 94 [ 52 , 53 ] and the regulations on side collisions FMVSS 214, ECE95 [ 54 , 55 ].

Compared with the train, automobile collision has a larger amount of data, which can better statistically analyse the causes of accidents and occupant injuries [ 38 , 56 , 57 ]. In contrast, the number of train collision accidents is relatively small, and the number of passengers is relatively large, resulting in relatively few statistical analyses of passenger injuries after the accident. If only the passive safety protection of occupants is studied in the field of trains, there will be certain limitations. Analysing the passive safety protection of automobile passengers can provide ideas for research on train passengers.

In this paper, the standards of automobiles and trains in collisions are first analysed and the related contents of passenger passive safety protection are summarized. Then the existing literature on passive safety protection technology for automobiles and trains is summarized and compared, and the content obtained can be used for reference in the automobile field. Finally, the research direction for train passenger passive safety protection in the future is suggested.

Standards and regulations directly reflect the focus of passenger passive protection, so it is very important to obtain the contents of passenger passive safety protection related to automobiles and trains from the standards and regulations. The existing automobile collision forms can be roughly divided into: frontal collision, side collision, rear collision, column collision and dynamic rollover. According to the statistics of traffic accident types, among all collision types, frontal collisions account for the largest proportion, about 40%, and frontal collisions cause the highest death rate. Train collision accidents are also dominated by frontal collisions, so only frontal collisions are discussed in the standards and regulations analysis.

2.1 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)

The USA FMVSS standards are formulated and implemented by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) under the framework of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Law. Among them, the FMVSS 200-series mainly aim at the passive safety of automobiles and make requirements for reducing the injury of drivers and passengers in the event of collision accidents. For example, FMVSS 209 and FMVSS 210 put forward requirements for seat belts and restraint systems; FMVSS 202 and FMVSS 207 put forward requirements for headrest and seat system, respectively; FMVSS 208 puts forward requirements for frontal collision protection of passengers. In FMVSS 208, head, chest and neck injury values are described in detail. In addition to 50th percentile male, the upper limits of injury for 5th percentile female, 6-year-old child, 3-year-old child and 12-month-old child are also given.

2.2 Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation

ECE regulations are formulated by the Economic Commission for Europe for automobile safety, environmental protection and energy conservation. Since 1958, the regulations have been continuously revised and supplemented. So far, a complete system of 89 items has been formed, which has put forward unified requirements for the safety and environmental protection of motor vehicles and their components. For passive safety, ECE R12, ECE R16 and ECE R17 make requirements for steering mechanism, seat belts, restraint systems, seats and headrests, respectively. ECE R94 puts forward requirements for the passive safety of passengers in the frontal collision, and gives the upper limit of the head, neck and lower limb injuries of the 50th percentile male. In ECE R44, different requirements are put forward for the safety seat design according to the weight and height of the child.

2.3 Standards for train passenger safety

The current train occupant safety standards and regulations focus on the maintenance of the occupant's living space and the secondary collision requirements of the interior for the occupants.

Standard EN12663-2003, formulated by the European Union in 2003, puts forward requirements for the integrity of the passenger area structure [ 58 ]. In the current standard EN15227, the requirements of vehicle crashworthiness and structural integrity after collision are explained in more detail, the standard also specifies the living space for passengers and drivers after a collision [ 59 ].

The BS railway standard GM/RT2100 (British) stipulates the structural energy absorption requirements of vehicles in collisions and the requirements for secondary collisions between passengers and interiors [ 60 ]. The standard provides a relatively complete injury standard for 50th percentile adult male, including injury indexes for the head, chest, neck and lower limbs.

The American train passenger safety regulation ‘APTA PR-CS-S-016-99, Rev. 3 Standard for Passenger Seats in Passenger Rail Cars’ set requirements for minimum strength, crashworthiness passenger seats for use in passenger railcars. The static test of the seat including backrest strength, grab handle strength, vertical seat strength and the dynamic sled test including forward-facing human injury test and rearward-facing seat attachment and human injury test are required [ 61 ].

2.4 Comparison of standards for passenger safety in automobiles and trains

It can be found from the standards and regulations that the interior, human characteristics and posture are directly related to the passenger passive safety. For interior, the interior of the automobile is mainly based on seat belts and restraint systems, seats and headrests and steering control systems.

In contrast, there are more interiors in the train. In addition to the requirements for seats, tables and internal devices, the standard also sets requirements for transverse passenger seats, tip-up seats and folding seat back tables. At the same time, it also requires facilities such as cubicle doors, wheelchairs, toilets, catering equipment and luggage stowage.

In summary, there are more types of train interiors. However, for passengers in a certain position, the interior environment provided by the automobile is more complicated than that of the train. For human characteristics, FMVSS 208 puts forward the upper limit of injury index for men, women and children. ECE R137 puts forward requirements for the restraint system of male and female dummies, and the influence of different characteristics is considered in the design of child seats. Compared with the standard of automobile, the standard of train only requires 50th percentile male injuries. For posture, in the collision experiment, both the automobile standard and the train standard stipulate the posture of the dummy during the test. However, in some automotive standard static tests, the results under different postures are considered. For example, the test ‘Static tests of automatic suppression feature which shall result in deactivation of the passenger air bag' was mentioned in FMVSS 208 [ 52 ].

The interior requirements, human characteristics and passenger posture of the above three standards are shown in Table  1 . Next, this paper analyses the contents of the above three aspects in the existing literature of automobiles and trains, and puts forward research suggestions for the passenger passive safety of train.

Interior, human characteristics and posture in standards

3.1 Interior safety

A good interior design can absorb part of the kinetic energy of the passengers in a vehicle collision, reduce the intensity of the secondary collision between the passengers and the interiors, and effectively reduce the injuries of passenger in the accident.

The seat belt is the earliest interior restraint for the passenger; in automobiles, the risk of any major injury was significantly lower in belted passengers compared to unbelted passengers [ 47 ]. For children, seat belts also play a vital role [ 62 , 63 ]. The seat belt is mainly composed of webbing, retractor and fixing mechanism. In the research on the structural performance of the seat belt, it is found that the form of the seat belt, belt slack and the position of the fixing mechanism all have an impact on the passengers. The common form of seat belt is three-point, but there are also different forms proposed to reduce injury to the passengers. Bostrom and Haland [ 64 ] proposed a 3+2 points seat belt system, which can reduce the rotation of the chest during a frontal collision, reduce the displacement of the head during a side collision and reduce the upward movement of the head during rollover. Seatbelt stiffness also has a significant impact on the driver head injury in a frontal crash [ 45 ]. For belt slack, Nilson [ 65 ] found it has a significant impact on the tendency for submarining. Siegmund et al . [ 66 ] quantified how seat belt slack and anchor location affect occupant kinematics and kinetics in moderate severity frontal collisions; the results showed that passenger displacements, accelerations and loads change significantly with the change of seat belt slack. Parenteau et al . [ 43 ] compared the dummy kinematics in a low-speed lateral environment with and without shoulder belt slack: the results indicate that removing seat belt slack would be more beneficial for far-sided occupants than near-sided. Huston [ 67 ] explained the relationship between retractors and webbing slack through theoretical analysis and experimental verification. In order to reduce passenger injuries caused by the seat belt slack, Khim et al . [ 46 ] studied the potential benefits of seat belts and found that with the load limiter level being constant and pretensioner pay-in amount increased, dummy injury trends showed a reduction. In addition, Zellmer et al . [ 68 ] found through sled tests with different pretensioners and combinations of pretensioners that systems with either both retractor and anchor plate pretensioning, or buckle and anchor plate pretensioning gave direct reduction of the dummy chest acceleration values and forward displacement. Hare et al . [ 69 ] analysed rollover restraint performance with and without seat belt pretensioner in vehicle trips; in the tests with pretensioner activation, belt movement reduction compared to the non-pretensioner tests was only approximately 25 mm for the near-side occupant and 50 mm for the far-side occupant. The position of the seat belt fixing mechanism also has a significant impact on passenger injury. Eickhoff [ 44 ] found that the buckle position had a significant impact on chest compression. In order to reduce chest compression, the upper and lower diagonal belt force as well as the belt geometry could be adjusted.

The seat is an important component of the automobile, and it is also an interior that directly contacts the passengers. In the automobile design process, the seat must not only meet the needs of riding and aesthetics, but also ensure its safety performance. Mayrose et al . [ 70 ] found that when the strength of the seat back in the front row is insufficient, the unrestrained passengers pose a greater risk of injury or fatality during a frontal crash to both themselves as well as the driver seated in front of them. Peng et al . [ 71 ] analysed the effect of seat on passenger injury in frontal collision of a bus, and the results showed that poor seat layout and contact stiffness would increase passenger injury. Improving seat safety can effectively reduce passenger injury. For frontal collision, Pack et al . [ 72 ] proposed an intelligent seat: in a frontal collision, the seat will move backward to keep the driver away from the instrument panel and steering system, effectively reducing the injury of driver. For rear-end collision, reasonable seat settings can also effectively reduce passenger injury. Jo and Kim [ 73 ] studied the influence of the seat and head restraint foam stiffnesses on neck injury in low-speed offset rear impacts and the results showed that an appropriate combination of stiffnesses between seatback and head restraint allows minimization of a neck injury. Burnett et al . [ 74 ] put forward the hypothesis that there is a functional relationship between the optimal backrest stiffness, collision conditions and passenger posture. For neck whiplash injuries, Deter et al . [ 75 ] designed the Chalmers test seat, which can study the influence of various parameters of the seat on neck whiplash injuries, providing a basis for the design of safety seats. In addition, many automobile companies have also designed safety seats. For example, the WHIPS seat proposed by Volvo can move backward with the passengers in the rear-end collision and rotate at a certain angle backward, thus reducing the neck whiplash injuries of the passengers [ 50 , 51 ]. In addition, child seats also play an important role in protecting children. The studies showed that odds of injury were 81.8% lower for toddlers in child seats than belted toddlers; for children aged 2–3 years, child safety seats seem to be more effective rear seat restraints than lap-shoulder safety belts [ 76 ]. Therefore, improving the safety of child seats is of great significance to protect children. Lin et a l . [ 77 ] obtained the weak position of the seat frame through experiments, and made the baby car seat reach a high level of collision resistance through structure analysis. Cao et al . [ 78 ] introduced a new integrated child safety seat; the results of the test and simulation show that the seat can provide effective protection for the children aged from 3 to 10 years in frontal impact.

Unlike the interior environment of other passengers in the automobile, the driver may collide with the steering system when a collision occurs. The energy absorption steering system can effectively reduce the passenger injury. Altenhof et al . [ 79–81 ] studied the energy absorption characteristics of the three-spoke steering wheel armature and the four-spoke steering wheel armature through experiments and simulation. The results showed that the steering wheel armature is responsible for the majority of energy absorbed by the impact. Liu et al . [ 82 ] proposed a novel built-in energy-absorbing component which causes the impact load transmitted to the occupant to vary in accordance with the crash severity and the occupant mass. Qaiser et al . [ 83 ] proposed a patterned steering column which turns into an inverting tube and absorbs a good amount of energy during an accident; the results showed that the energy absorption with the proposed sinusoidaly patterned steering column is better than the conventional steering column.

Similar to car automobile, occupant protection in trains can also be achieved through restraint systems and seats, in addition to tables and handrails. For the constrained system, in the 1990s, Tyrell et al . [ 84 ] proposed that passenger restraint is an effective occupant protection strategy in train collisions. When the seat distance is large, the constrained occupants have a greater chance of survival. However, for some occupants of larger stature, wearing restraints may be more dangerous than not wearing restraints. This adverse situation may also occur for an average-size occupant if the seat distance is small. The Railway Safety and Standards Board of UK tested passenger restraint in 2007 [ 85 ] and the results showed that occupants restrained in a three-point passenger restraint received the lowest predicted injuries, followed by unrestrained occupants, and occupants restrained in a two-point passenger restraint received the worse predicted injuries. But they also studied the causes of occupant injury in six significant accidents, and the results showed that the restraint system can prevent the occupant from ejecting, but it may also keep the occupant in the seat and cause fatalities due to loss of survival space. Eventually they did not recommend installing three-point passenger restraints. Because of the uncertainty of the restraint system for occupant protection, the protection of occupants by other interiors is even more important.

Tyrell et al . [ 84 ] also proposed in the 1990s that friendly interior arrangement is an effective occupant protection strategy. The results indicated that compartmentalization can be as effective as a lap belt in minimizing probability of fatality for the 50th percentile male simulated. In order to obtain the level of passenger safety in the train, the Federal Railroad Administration of the United States carried out multiple full-scale rail car impact tests between 1999 and 2006 [ 9–15 , 86 ]. In the six tests, five kinds of interior environment on the passenger injury was considered: forward-facing occupants in inter-city seats, forward-facing occupants in commuter seats, rear-facing occupants in commuter seats, forward-facing occupants in locomotive operator seat and forward-facing commuter seat with table, as shown in Fig.  1 . The results show that although some seats in the test collapsed under the impact, they all provided a positive effect for separating the passengers. The restrained occupants remained seated, although the neck moment in the 5th percentile female exceeded the injury criterion. The workstation table is still fixed on the wall, the passenger injury indexes are within the specified standard value and the workstation table meets the design requirements. The improved seat back has enough capacity to separate the occupants, and stiffer and/or thicker padding on the seat back has been identified as a mean to further improve the head and neck injury.

ATDs (Anthropomorphic Test Devices) in full-scale impact test: (a) Forward-facing occupants in inter-city seats, forward-facing occupants in commuter seats and rear-facing occupants in commuter seats [ 12 ]; (b) forward-facing occupants in locomotive operator seat [ 10 ]; (c) forward-facing commuter seat with table [ 15 ].

At the same time, the Federal Railroad Administration of the United States also conducted quasi-static tests and sled tests on seats. The results showed that the back-to-back commuter rail seat can withstand the expected load in the quasi-static test, but the seat back partially or completely fails in the dynamic test. Except for neck injuries, passenger head, chest and femur injuries are all in the standard range. The studies also suggested that to compartmentalize passengers during a collision, seats must be relatively stiff. To limit the forces and accelerations associated with passenger injury, the seat must be compliant, absorbing the passenger's kinetic energy as it deforms. The objective of seat design crashworthiness requirements is to strike a balance between the competing objectives of compartmentalization, and minimizing passenger injury [ 7 , 8 ].

Ambrósio et al . [ 16 ] established a collision scenario using a multi-rigid dummy and a finite element seat model, and studied the influence of simulation parameters. The results showed that friction force and seat structure had an impact on passenger injury. Xie and Tian [ 3 ] studied the influencing factors and sensitivity analysis of passenger impact injury in passenger compartment, the results showed that the head and chest injuries of a passenger facing a table and a passenger facing a seat back both increased with the SIV (secondary impact velocity). Then they studied the influence of each factor (impact acceleration, table height h, table to seat distance l1, interseat distance l2, table contact stiffness k1, seat contact stiffness k2, etc.) on the extent of occupant impact injury in a railway vehicle secondary collision. The response surfaces of the passenger's injury parameters and changes therein as the system's variables were altered showed that impact injury parameters and change thereto could be described intuitively and qualitatively. The research offered a guideline for the design and manufacture of a train's passenger compartment structure [ 5 ]. Based on it, Xie and Zhou [ 4 ] established a model forecasting passenger impact injury, which reduced repeat experiment times and improved the design efficiency of the internal compartment's structure parameters, and provided a new way for assessing the safety performance of the interior structural parameters in existing and newly designed railway vehicle compartments.

There are many types of passenger cabins in rail trains, and not all cabin interiors are equipped with tables, especially in short-distance trains, in which inline seats are the majority. Carvalho et al . [ 22 ] established a finite element model of the interior inline seating layout simulating a frontal rail impact event. The simulation results revealed a correspondence of the kinematics of the occupant numerical model, and its biomechanical responses show good correlations with the values measured in the experimental test, in particular the head injury criterion (HIC), which is the most critical injury index, for this type of seating configuration, as shown in Fig.  2(a) . They also analysed the effects of different seating positions on injury, and the results showed that in this seating configuration, both the interior- and aisle-seated passengers exhibit similar kinematics [ 18 ]. On this basis, they also optimized the seat, and the results showed that variations of about 10% on the thickness of the seat frame tubes and on the lower back seat plate led to measurable improvements on the injury criteria associated with the head and neck [ 20 ]. In addition, they introduced a head padding that conducted to a reduction of the HIC, but worsening the value of neck-bending moment in extension (NBME). The optimized design reduced HIC by 41%, but the NBME index increased by 49% [ 21 ]. Maršálek et al . [ 19 ] studied the influence of seat pitch on passenger injury criteria in regional railway traffic, and the results showed that head injury increased with increasing seat pitch. Wei et al . [ 17 ] proposed that the buffer springs can be an effective compartmentalization strategy, but the influence of the buffer spring coefficient K must be considered by the anthropomorphic test.

Interior environment for different types of passenger: (a) forward-facing passenger [ 22 ]; (b) lateral passenger [ 23 ]; (c) standing passenger [ 31 ].

In addition, the interior environment of different types of occupants is also different, as shown in Figs.  2(b) and (c). For lateral passenger, Omino et al . [ 6 ] analysed the influence of the side dividers on the passenger. According to the results, rib deformation caused to passengers by panel-type side dividers is less than that caused by the tubular type, meaning that fewer thoracic injuries occur with the panel-type divider, and there was no difference in chest deformation among the cases in which dividers had a 50% reduction in frame endurance, a 50% reduction in elastic modulus, a urethane foam covering or a filling of shock absorption material. Nakai et al . [ 23 ] also found that the handrails or partitions installed along bench seats to separate passengers were effective in mitigating injury to passengers. Yao et al . [ 31 ] analysed the effects of handrails on standing passengers, and the results showed that the shape of a vertical handrail has a significant impact on the injuries to passengers standing backward and sideways, and hand constraint will change the passenger's fall posture.

3.2 Passenger with different human characteristics

It can be seen from the standards and regulations that whether it is in the automotive or the train, research on passenger injury is mostly aimed at 50th percentile adult males. This model only represents the average human characteristics, but in actual situations age, body shape and size are diverse. For example, according to United Nations statistics, the global population aged 65 and over reached 727 million in 2020, and the proportion of the global population over 65 will rise from 9.3% in 2020 to 16.0% in 2050. In addition to the middle-aged and elderly, obesity has also increased dramatically. Statistics show that about one-third of the world's population is overweight, and adult obesity rates have increased by 50% in the last 20 years.

In a vehicle collision, the effect of age and human characteristics on passenger injury cannot be ignored. Accident statistics show that elderly drivers have a higher rate of serious injuries and deaths [ 87 , 88 ], and the maximum concise injury index for passengers also has a greater correlation with age [ 89 ]. Obese people also have different forms of injury compared to normal weight passengers. Simmons and Zlatoper [ 90 ] found that the death rate has a statistically significant positive linkage with the percentage of the population that is obese. Turkovich et al . [ 90 , 91 ] believed that the biggest reason for the injury of obese people is their heavier mass than normal passengers. For female passengers, accident statistics show that females are more likely to be seriously injured than males under the same collision conditions [ 92 ]. John et al . [ 93 ] also found that especially in older female passengers, injury increased significantly in the event of a collision. In addition, special groups such as children and pregnant women also have special forms of injury [ 94 ], so it is necessary to study passengers with different characteristics.

Due to the large difference in human size and weight, dummy models are generally divided into 95th, 50th and 5th percentiles, representing passengers with tall, average and short statures, respectively. However, these three types of dummies cannot sufficiently cover the range of passenger characteristics, so it is necessary to establish and modify the passenger models with different characteristics. There are two commonly used methods at present: one is to obtain the non-standard dummy model by scaling the 50th percentile dummy model, as shown in Fig.  3(a) [ 95 ], and the other is to obtain the non-standard dummy model through mesh deformation technology, shown in Fig.  3(b) [ 96 ]. Both methods have been widely used [ 96–100 ].

Methods to obtain the non-standard dummy model: (a) scaled passenger models [ 95 ]; (b) morphed passenger model [ 96 ].

Based on occupants with different characteristics, Hu et al . [ 101 ] studied the effects of age, sex, stature and body mass index (BMI) on injury risks in frontal crashes. The results showed that these factors have different degrees of influence on the injury of different parts of the passenger; for example, chest injury risk was strongly affected by age and sex, and knee-thigh-hip injury risk was strongly affected by BMI. Similarly, Cao et al . [ 102 ] established seven frontal impact simulation models of different human body models and analysed the head, chest and femur injuries in detail. The results shows that the injury risk of smaller human body is much higher than the taller human body. For obese passengers, Zhu et al . [ 103 ] found that obese men endured a much higher risk of injury to upper body regions during motor vehicle crash through real-world data and computer crash simulation. Joodaki et al .[ 104 ] also found that obese passengers experienced a higher risk of upper limbs, lower limbs and spinal injuries than other passengers. For women, Morassi et al . [ 105 ] found through experimental tests and numerical simulations that the head HIC, neck and chest compression of female drivers were significantly higher than those of male drivers, while the neck axial force and thigh axial force were lower than those of male drivers. Matsui et al . [ 106 ] also obtained similar conclusions after comparing AM50 and AF05 rear occupants injured in a frontal collision. In addition, children as passengers with special characteristics have also been extensively studied, such as the research on child seat belts and child safety seats mentioned above.

Compared with cars, there are relatively few studies on passenger characteristics in trains. The Federal Railroad Administration of the United States has put different percentile dummies in full-scale rail car impact tests. From the results, compared with the 50th percentile dummy, the neck of the restrained 5th percentile exceeds the standard value [ 12 ] and the knee and neck flexion and shear force of the unconstrained 95th percentile dummy exceed the standard value [ 11 ].

3.3 Passenger with different posture

Whether it is an automobile or a train, the standards and regulations give a certain posture for passenger in test. However, in actual situations, the posture of a passenger will not be exactly the same as in the standards and regulations. For example, Park et al . [ 107 ] found that posture is significantly related to age and body size. Reed et al . [ 108 ] investigated the sitting posture of the passengers during driving and found that the passenger's head was turned left or right, or tilted down, more than 35% of the time. And the torso was pitched forward or leaning to one side about 15% of the time. For this reason, after analysing the injuries of passengers of different postures, Kuznetcov and Telichev [ 109 ] proposed that in contrast to regulation testing, the real-world environment features have several uncertainties that can potentially increase the injury risk for passengers. In other words, the seat structure in specific test conditions can lead to increased risk in real-world collisions. They also found that the effect of the uncertainty in the seating posture on occupant injury is greater than that of acceleration pulse shape changes [ 110 ]. Therefore, research on different passenger postures cannot be ignored in the actual analysis.

Researchers have focused on the posture characteristics of passengers in automobiles. Compared with changing the human characteristic, changing the passenger's posture is relatively simple. Currently, the commonly used dummy models can adjust the posture directly by changing the relative positions of the two hinged parts. Leledakis et al . [ 111 ] established 35 groups of postures, including variations to the lower and upper extremities, torso and head postures, and analysed the effect of different postures on kinematic and kinetic responses during intersection crashes, as shown in Fig.  4(a) . Donlon et al . [ 112 ] analysed the passenger injury when the passenger left the normal seated position due to the steering before the collision, as shown in Fig.  4(b) . The results of these studies indicated that these realistic postures have a significant impact on passenger injury; for example, the lower extremities have the largest overall influence on the lower extremities, pelvi, and whole-body responses through the analysis of 35 groups of postures.

Different passenger positions in automobiles: (a) different postures of lower and upper extremities, torso and head [ 111 ]; (b) posture left the normal seated position [ 112 ]; (c) postures in future autonomous vehicles [ 113 ].

In addition to the current common postures, the researchers also analysed the postures in future autonomous vehicles, as shown in Fig.  4(c) . Ji et al . [ 113 ] believe that reclining is a dangerous posture for occupants in moving vehicles, not only because it can easily induce submarining and cause abdominal injury, but also because it may increase risk of spinal injury. Reed et al . [ 114 ] also proposed that highly reclined postures may be common among passengers in future automated vehicles and spine posture changes as the torso reclines in an automotive seat, and belt fit is altered by the change in posture. So they established a regression equation to predict posture and belt fit variables.

Because the space of the train is larger than that of the automobile, and the movement of the passengers is freer, there is more research on passenger posture than on human characteristics in trains. When analysing the riding comfort of train seats, Peng et al . [ 115 ] gave the comfortable ranges of joint angles of human body in sitting position. This range can be used as a parameter basis for studying the effects of sitting occupants on trains. Groenesteijn et al . [ 116 ] studied the main activities performed by the passengers, their main corresponding postures and their comfort experiences in a train seat. Associated with these four activities, eight different postures were found based on the variations in head position, back posture and seat pan contact. These postures can be used as objects for future research.

In addition to front-seated passengers, there are also lateral passengers and standing passengers in train. For lateral passenger, Nakai et al . [ 28 ] evaluated the behaviour and injuries of the ES-2 dummy on a longitudinal seat. The results of the test show that the collision position and the SIV of the dummy's head to the bench-end partition depends on the initial position of the dummy. The high-risk initial positions on longitudinal seating are passengers seated second-furthest and third-furthest away from the bench-end partition. On the basis of tests, Suzuki et al .[ 29 ] carried out numerical simulation of sled tests with MADYMO (Mathematical Dynamic Model software) and the results show that the dummy's behaviours of the numerical simulations, which are collision position and collision velocity, were almost equivalent to those of the sled tests. At the same time, they discussed the influence of acceleration pulse on the SIV and the influence of the friction of the longitudinal seats and the presence of the handrail on the behaviour of the passengers [ 27 , 30 ]. For standing passengers, Yao et al . [ 31 ] analysed the injuries to passengers using different handrails in subway train collision accidents, and provided a reference for the safety design of the interior of subway cars and for passengers standing in subway trains. Peng et al . [ 32 ] analysed the influence of coefficient friction, collision acceleration, standing angle and handrail heights on injuries, and the results showed that the horizontal handrail provides better protection in the three different standing passenger postures. Different friction coefficients and the standing angle have great impact on the head injuries of passengers in three different scenarios. The handrail height also has some effects on the head injury of passengers with different standing postures, so it should be considered when designing the interior layout of the subway. In order to reduce the injuries of the passengers in the collision, Omino et al . [ 117 ] proposed a method to estimate the passenger movements during the impact of train collisions and proposed a safety posture. Yang et al . [ 118 ] also proposed a self-protective posture with hands laced behind the head and the body curled up for passengers, and studied related parameters.

Compared with the passengers in the car, there are other different types of passengers in the train; for example, the train driver. The environment of the train driver is very different from that of the passengers on train and driver on automobile. Therefore, Wang et al . [ 26 ] analysed the train driver injury of secondary impact in railway crash events based on a biomechanical total human model for safety (THUMS) dummy. The results showed that the driver injury is serious and it is necessary to optimize the cab console parameters to reduce injury risk for the driver. Peng et al . [ 24 ] optimized the driver workspace parameters. Compared with the initial collision model, all six driver injury criteria after optimization obviously decrease, and are well within the tolerance limits. Hou et al . [ 25 ] established a decision tree model to explore the most important cab workspace dimensional parameter. The results showed that the distance between the console edge and knee bolster has the greatest effect on neck injury, and the distance between the console and seat and the pedal height are the secondary dominant attributes. These three parameters should be considered preferentially for establishing driver protection measures. In addition, research has been studied on special groups, such as pregnant women and people in wheelchairs [ 33–35 ].

The main research contents of automobile and train in interior, passenger characteristics and posture are shown in Table  2 .

Main research contents of automobile and train

The research on automobile interiors is mainly focused on seat belt, seat and headrest, steering system and child seat. The research on safety belts mainly includes seat belt slack, seat belt pretensioners and load limiters, and pretightening performance on the passenger injuries value. A good seat and headrest design can also protect the occupants, especially in a rear-end collision. A reasonable seat and headrest can effectively reduce the neck whiplash injuries of the passenger. For special people such as children, safety seats are also necessary. In addition, when the seat belt is not enough to protect the driver, the energy-absorbing steering system can effectively reduce driver injury. It can be seen that the protection provided by the interior of the automobile is mainly based on restraint methods, which restrain the passengers in the interior so as to reduce the injury. When the restraint method cannot be satisfied, the kinetic energy of the passenger is consumed through the energy absorption of the interior to reduce the injuries of the passenger. Different from the protection method provided by the interior of the automobile, seat belts are rarely equipped in trains; therefore, the requirements of the train interior are more stringent. In addition to the static strength of the seat, the impact resistance also needs to meet the requirements. The distance between the seats, the rotational stiffness of the backrest and the structural parameters of the seat all affect the passenger injuries. For different types of passengers, the lateral passengers can be protected by divider and the standing passengers can be protected by the handrail.

A large number of studies have shown that the effect of human characteristics on the passenger injuries cannot be ignored during an automobile collision. At present, there are two main methods for realizing non-standard dummies: scaling and mesh deformation. Through the above methods, the injury and protection measures of passengers with different characteristics in the automobile are analysed. Among them, the research objects are mainly obese people, female passengers and other special groups. As for trains, few studies have considered the effects of passengers with different characteristics. From the conclusion of the automotive field, the influence of human characteristics should also be considered in future studies of trains.

The research shows that posture also has a great influence on passenger injury. There are many changes in the posture of the passengers in an automobile, mainly focusing on head deflection, body tilt and special postures of the upper and lower limbs. In addition, more attention has been paid to the highly reclined posture in future highly automated vehicles. Because of the large space of train and the high degree of freedom of the passengers, there are many types of passengers, such as lateral passengers, standing passengers and drivers. In order to protect the safety of the passengers, the researchers also studied the protective posture.

In summary, the interior, human characteristics and passenger posture in automobiles and trains can be compared. The ways in which the interiors of automobiles and trains provide protection are very different. Restraints are not used in trains, but mainly through the separation of interiors such as seats and tables. But one thing similar to a car is that a reasonable seat design can effectively reduce passenger injuries. Therefore, we can learn from the design of seats in automobiles, such as installing headrests, designing active seats and other methods to reduce injury of passenger. For human characteristics, there have been many studies in automobiles, while only 50th percentile male and 5th percentile female have been studied in trains. It can be seen from the existing studies in the automotive field that human characteristics have a great influence on the injury and interior design. Therefore, it is necessary to consider human characteristics in the passive safety protection of train passengers. For posture, automobile passengers are all sitting, and the change of posture is mostly the change of head, torso and limbs. Because of the different riding styles of the passengers in the train, the posture changes greatly. It is also one of the research directions to analyse the influence of the posture of the passengers of different riding styles. At the same time, the influence of body changes should also be considered.

Based on the research on the current situation of passive safety protection of automobile passengers and the comparison with relevant literature on trains, the following directions for future research on passive safety protection of train passengers are provided from the aspects of interior, human characteristics and posture. If possible, add a safe restraint system. When there is no restraint system, reduce passenger injury by changing the interior around the passenger, such as the seat size and material, installing headrests, designing active seats and other methods. When studying protection measures, consider the protection effects of different characteristics and different postures to provide maximum safety protection for the passengers.

This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (Grant No. 2021JJ30853), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51675537) and the Leading Talents in Science and Technology of Hunan Province (Grant No. 2019RS3018)

None declared.

Forsberg R , Bjornstig U. One hundred years of railway disasters and recent trends . Prehosp Disaster Med . 2011 ; 26 : 367 – 373 .

Google Scholar

Wei L , Zhang L , Tong X , et al.  Crashworthiness study of a subway vehicle collision accident based on finite-element methods . Int J Crashworthiness . 2019 ; 26 : 159 – 170 .

Xie S , Tian H. Dynamic simulation of railway vehicle occupants under secondary impact . Veh Syst Dyn . 2013 ; 51 : 1803 – 1817 .

Xie S , Zhou H. Forecasting impact injuries of unrestrained occupants in railway vehicle passenger compartments . Traffic Inj Prev . 2014 ; 15 : 740 – 747 .

Suchao X , Hongqi T. Influencing factors and sensitivity analysis of occupant impact injury in passenger compartment . Traffic Inj Prev . 2013 ; 14 : 816 – 822 .

Omino K , Shiroto H , Saito A , et al.  Behavior analysis of passengers on bench seats in a train collision . Quarterly Report of RTRI . 2008 ; 49 : 47 – 52 .

Severson KJ , Tyrell DC. Crashworthiness requirements for commuter rail passenger seats . 2005 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition . 2005 .

Severson K , Perlman AB , Stringfellow R. Quasi-static and dynamic sled testing of prototype commuter rail passenger seats . Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE/ASME Joint Rail Conference . 2008 .

VanIngen-Dunn C. Railroad Commuter Service . Commuter rail seat testing and anlysis of facing seats . U.S. Department of Transportation . 2003 . https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/8847 .

VanIngen-Dunn C. Passenger Rail Train-to-Train Impact Test Volume II Summary of Occupant Protection Program . U.S. Department of Transportation . 2003 . https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/8845 .

VanIngen-Dunn C. Passenger Rail Two-Car Impact Test Volume II Summary of Occupant Protection Program . U.S. Department of Transportation . 2002 . https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/5226 .

VanIngen-Dunn C. Single Passenger Rail Car Impact Test Volume II Summary of Occupant Protection Program . 2000 .

Severson KJ , Parent DP. Train-to-train impact test of crash energy management passenger rail equipment occupant experiments . 2006 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition . 2006 .

Tyrell D , Zolock J , VanIngen-Dunn C. Train-to-Train Impact Test: occupant Protection Experiments. Rail Transportation2002 . U.S. Department of Transportation . 119 – 128 . https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/32930 .

Severson KJ , Parent DP , Tyrell DC. Two-Car Impact Test of Crash-Energy Management Passenger Rail Cars: analysis of Occupant Protection Measurements . ASME 2004 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition . 2004 . p. 87 – 96 .

Ambrósio J , Carvalho M , Milho J , et al.  A validated railway vehicle interior layout with multibody dummies and finite element seats models for crash analysis . Multibody SysDyn . 2021 . 10.1007/s11044-021-09794-w .

Wei L , Zhang L. Evaluation and improvement of crashworthiness for high-speed train seats . Int J Crashworthiness . 2017 ; 23 : 561 – 568 .

Carvalho M , Ambrosio J , Milho J . Implications of the inline seating layout on the protection of occupants of railway coach interiors . Int J Crashworthiness . 2011 ; 16 : 557 – 568 .

Maršálek P , Horyl P , Karásek T , et al.  Influence of seat pitch on passenger injury criteria in regional railway traffic . AIP Conference Proceedings . 2017 . 10.1063/1.4992516 .

Carvalho M , Milho J , Ambrosio J , et al.  Railway occupant passive safety improvement by optimal design . Int J Crashworthiness . 2016 ; 22 : 624 – 634 .

Carvalho MS , Martins AP , et al.  Railway seat design for injury mitigation in crash scenario . Int J Rail Transport . 2019 ; 8 : 215 – 233 .

Carvalho M , Martins A , Milho J. Validation of a railway inline seating model for occupants injury biomechanics . Int J Crashworthiness . 2017 ; 23 : 328 – 335 .

Nakai K , Omino K , Shiroto H , et al.  Simultation of passenger behavior on board a commuter train in the event of a level crossing accident . Quarterly Report of RTRI . 2012 ; 53 : 235 – 240 .

Peng Y , Hou L , Yang M , et al.  Investigation of the train driver injuries and the optimization design of driver workspace during a collision . Proc Inst Mech Eng Part F J Rail Rapid Transit . 2016 ; 231 : 902 – 915 .

Hou L , Peng Y , Sun D. Neck injury mechanisms in train collisions: dynamic analysis and data mining of the driver impact injury . Accid Anal Prev . 2020 ; 146 : 105725 .

Wang W , Ji J , Yue Z , et al.  Research on secondary impact safety of train driver based on THUMS dummy . MATEC Web of Conferences . 2016 ; 81 .

Suzuki Daisuke , Nakai Kazuma , Enami Shota , et al.  A countermeasure to reduce secondary impact velocity and rib deflection criterion of longitudinal-seat passengers in railway collisions . International Ircobi Conference on the Biomechanics of Injury 2017 .

Nakai K , Suzuki D , Enami S , et al.  An estimation of behaviour and severity of injury to rail passengers occupying longitudinal seats in event of collision . International Ircobi Conference on the Biomechanics of Injury . 2015 .

Suzuki D , Nakai Kazuma , Enami S , et al.  Proposal of simulation method for behaviour analysis of passengers on longitudinal seating in railway collision . International Ircobi Conference on the Biomechanics of Injury . 2015 .

Suzuki D , Nakai K , Enami S , et al.  Relation between secondary impact velocity and behaviour of longitudinal-seat passenger in railway collisions . International Ircobi Conference on the Biomechanics of Injury . 2016 .

Yao S , Li X , Xiao X , et al.  Injuries to standing passengers using different handrails in subway train collision accidents . Int J Crashworthiness . 2019 : 1 – 12 .

Peng Y , Xu T , Hou L , et al.  An investigation of dynamic responses and head injuries of standing subway passengers during collisions . Appl Bionics Biomech . 2018 ; 2018 : 1096056 .

Matsika E , Chirwa EC , Peng Q. Kinematics and injury risk of a wheelchair occupant in a railway vehicle crash . Int J Crashworthiness . 2014 ; 19 : 446 – 456 .

Matsika E , Chirwa EC , Peng Q , et al.  Wheelchair occupant kinematics during a rail carriage crash . Int J Crashworthiness . 2011 ; 16 : 487 – 500 .

Esat V , Acar BS. Effects of table design in railway carriages on pregnant occupant safety . Int J Crashworthiness . 2012 ; 17 : 337 – 343 .

Yu L , Gu X , Qian L , et al.  Application of tailor rolled blanks in optimum design of pure electric vehicle crashworthiness and lightweight . Thin-Walled Struct . 2021 ; 161 .

Yang N , Cao P , Liu T , et al.  Crashworthiness optimisation of A-pillar in passenger car in rear-end collision with truck . Int J Crashworthiness . 2016 ; 21 : 507 – 520 .

Chen Q , Xie Y , Ao Y , et al.  A deep neural network inverse solution to recover pre-crash impact data of car collisions . Transport Res Part C: Emerg Technol . 2021 ; 126 : 103009 .

Abdullah NAZ , Sani MSM , Salwani MS , et al.  A review on crashworthiness studies of crash box structure . Thin-Walled Struct . 2020 ; 153 : 106795 .

Xiong F , Zou X , Zhang Z , et al.  A systematic approach for multi-objective lightweight and stiffness optimization of a car body . Struct Multidisc Optimiz . 2020 ; 62 : 3229 – 3248 .

Newnam S , Watson B. Work-related driving safety in light vehicle fleets: a review of past research and the development of an intervention framework . Saf Sci . 2011 ; 49 : 369 – 381 .

Potula SR , Solanki KN , Oglesby DL , et al.  Investigating occupant safety through simulating the interaction between side curtain airbag deployment and an out-of-position occupant . Accid Analy Prev . 2012 ; 49 : 392 – 403 .

Parenteau C. A comparison of volunteers and dummy upper torso kinematics with and without shoulder belt slack in a low speed side/pre-roll environment . Traffic Inj Prev . 2006 ; 7 : 155 – 163 .

Eickhoff B , Schrenk W , Zellmer H , et al.  Optimization of seat belt buckle motion for reducing chest deflection, using rib eye sensors . International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles . 2011 .

Li Z , Zhang J , Lai Q , et al.  Development and optimization of a new occupant restraint system for improving mini vehicle safety . Ictis . 2011 . p. 1985 – 1992 .

Khim J , Son C , Kim J , et al.  A study of the relationship between seatbelt system and occupant injury in rear seat based on EuroNCAP frontal impact . 23rd International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) . 2013 . http://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/23/isv7/main.htm .

Fouda Mbarga N , Abubakari AR , Aminde LN , et al.  Seatbelt use and risk of major injuries sustained by vehicle occupants during motor-vehicle crashes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies . BMC Publ Health . 2018 ; 18 : 1413 .

Deng X , Potula S , Grewal H , et al.  Finite element analysis of occupant head injuries: parametric effects of the side curtain airbag deployment interaction with a dummy head in a side impact crash . Accid Anal Prev . 2013 ; 55 : 232 – 241 .

Zhou H , Zhong Z , Hu M. Design and occupant-protection performance analysis of a . New Tubular Driver Airbag Engineering . 2018 ; 4 : 291 – 297 .

Jakobsson L , Isaksson-Hellman I , Lindman M. WHIPS (Volvo cars' Whiplash Protection System)-the development and real-world performance . Traffic Inj Prev . 2008 ; 9 : 600 – 605 .

Xiao M , Ivancic PC. WHIPS seat and occupant motions during simulated rear crashes . Traffic Inj Prev . 2010 ; 11 : 514 – 521 .

FMVSS Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection . 2004 .

Regulation No. 94, Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicles with Regard to the Protection of the Occupants in the Event of a Frontal Collision . 2007 .

FMVSS Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection . 2016 .

Regulation No. 95, Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicles with Regard to the Protection of the Occupants in the Event of a Lateral Collision . 2005 .

Delen D , Tomak L , Topuz K , et al.  Investigating injury severity risk factors in automobile crashes with predictive analytics and sensitivity analysis methods . J Transp Health . 2017 ; 4 : 118 – 131 .

Topuz K , Delen D. A probabilistic Bayesian inference model to investigate injury severity in automobile crashes . Decision Supp Syst . 2021 . 150 . 10.1016/j.dss.2021.113557 .

GB11551-2003, The protection of the occupants in the event of a frontal collision for passenger car . 2003 .

BS EN 15227:2020, Railway applications—Crashworthiness requirements for rail vehicles . 2020 .

GM/RT2100, Structural Requirements for Railway Vehicles . 2010 .

APTA PR-CS-S-016-99, Rev. 3 Passenger Seats in Passenger Railcars . 2021 .

Durbin DR , Chen I , Smith R , et al.  Effects of seating position and appropriate restraint use on the risk of injury to children in motor vehicle crashes . Pediatrics . 2005 ; 115 : e305 – e309 .

Elliott MR , Kallan MJ , Durbin DR , et al.  Effectiveness of child safety seats vs seat belts in reducing risk for death in children in passenger vehicle crashes . Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med . 2006 ; 160 .

Bostrom O , Haland Y. Benefits of a 3+2-point belt system and an inboard torso side support in frontal, far-side and rollover crashes . Int J Vehicle Safety . 2005 ; 1 .

Nilson   G , Håland Y . An analytical method to assess the risk of the lap-belt slipping off the pelvis in frontal impacts [ Stapp Car Crash Conference ] 1995 . 10.4271/952708 .

Siegmund GP , Chimich DD , Heinrichs BE , et al.  Variations in occupant response with seat belt slack and anchor location during moderate frontal impacts . Traffic Inj Prev . 2005 ; 6 : 38 – 43 .

Huston RL. Use of elliptic functions to study skip-lock of automobile seat-belt retractors . Int J Non Linear Mech . 2000 ; 35 ( 2 ): 325 – 331 .

Zellmer H , Kahler C , Eickhoff B . Optimised pretensioning of the belt system—a rating criterion and the benefit in consumer tests . 9th ESV Conference 2005 . 2005 .

Hare BM , Lewis LK , Hughes RJ , et al.  Analysis of rollover restraint performance with and without seat belt pretensioner at vehicle trip . SAE 2002 World Congress & Exhibition . 2002 .

Mayrose J , Blatt A , Roberts DP , et al.  The effect of unrestrained rear-seat passengers on driver mortality . J Trauma . 2006 ; 61 : 1249 – 1254 .

Peng Q , Sun T , Zhu P , et al.  Occupant injury risk assessment and protective measures in frontal collision of a bus . Int J Crashworthiness . 2018 ; 24 : 429 – 441 .

Pack R , Yu H , Najm WG. Pre-crash sensing countermeasures and benefits . 2005 . Conference:  SAE Paper: 2005-05-0202 .

Jo H-C , Kim Y-E. A study on the influence of the seat and head restraint foam stiffnesses on neck injury in low speed offset rear impacts . Int J Precis Eng Manuf . 2009 ; 10 : 105 – 110 .

Burnett R , Carter J , Roberts V , et al.  The influence of seatback characteristics on cervical injury risk in severe rear impacts . Accid Anal Prev . 2004 ; 36 : 591 – 601 .

Deter T , Malczyk A , Kuehn M. Validation Of A Seat-Dummy Simulation Model For Rear-Impact . 2007 . Conference: SAE Paper: 07-0151. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthias-Kuehn-6/publication/268398768_Validation_Of_A_Seat-Dummy_Simulation_Model_For_Rear-Impact/links/56975efe08ae34f3cf1e454c/Validation-Of-A-Seat-Dummy-Simulation-Model-For-Rear-Impact.pdf .

Zaloshnja E , Miller TR , Hendrie D. Effectiveness of child safety seats vs safety belts for children aged 2 to 3 years . Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med . 2007 ; 161 .

Lin JC , Lee BY , Hsu YC , et al.  Strength analysis and safety design of baby car seat . Appl Mech Mater . 2012 ; 224 : 252 – 255 .

Cao LB , Chen H , Ren XJ , et al.  Study on an integrated child safety seat . Appl Mech Mater . 2010 ; 34-35 : 517 – 522 .

Altenhof W , Paonessa S , Zamani N. The distribution of energy absorbed by a three-spoke steering wheel armature in an impact with a deformable chestform . Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part D Journal of Automobile Engineering . 2001 ; 215 : 589 – 601 .

Altenhofa W , Paonessab S , Zamania N , et al.  An experimental and finite element investigation into the energy absorption characteristics of a steering wheel armature in an impact . Int J Impact Eng . 2002 ; 27 : 197 – 212 .

Altenhof W , Li Z , Zamani N. An investigation into the energy absorption characteristics of a four-spoke steering wheel armature subjected to impact loading . Int J Crashworthiness . 2002 ; 7 : 97 – 120 .

Liu DS , Tu CY , Fan CM , et al.  Numerical study of a novel built-In energy-absorbing component for adaptive steering columns . Proc Inst Mech Eng Part D J Automob Eng . 2010 ; 224 : 1417 – 1431 .

Qaiser Z , Qureshi OM , Awan KA , et al.  Numerical investigation of usage of patterned collapsible energy absorbers in steering column of an automotive vehicle . International Conference on Aerospace Science & Engineering . 2014 .

Tyrell DC , Severson KJ , Marquis BP. Analysis of occupant protection strategies in train collisions . 1995 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition . 1995 .

Assessment of three-point passenger restraints (seatbelts) fitted to seats on rail vehicles. Rail Safety and Standards Board ; 2007 . https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=1277 .

Tyrell D , Jacobsen K , Martinez E. A train-to-train impact test of crash energy management . 2006 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition . 2006 .

Carter PM , Flannagan CA , Reed MP , et al.  Comparing the effects of age, BMI and gender on severe injury (AIS 3+) in motor-vehicle crashes . Accid Anal Prev . 2014 ; 72 : 146 – 160 .

Ridella SA , Rupp JD , Poland K. Age-related differences in AIS 3+ crash injury risk, types, causation and mechanisms . International Ircobi Conference on the Biomechanics of Injury . 2012 .

Cormier JM. The influence of body mass index on thoracic injuries in frontal impacts . Accid Anal Prev . 2008 ; 40 : 610 – 615 .

Simmons WO , Zlatoper TJ. Obesity and motor vehicle deaths in the USA: a state-level analysis . J Econ Stud . 2010 ; 37 : 544 – 556 .

Turkovich M , Hu J , van Roosmalen L , et al.  Computer simulations of obesity effects on occupant injury in frontal impacts . Int J Crashworthiness . 2013 ; 18 : 502 – 515 .

Bose D , Segui-Gomez M , Crandall JR. Vulnerability of female drivers involved in motor vehicle crashes: an analysis of US population at risk . Am J Public Health . 2011 ; 101 : 2368 – 2373 .

Hill JD , Boyle LN. Assessing the relative risk of severe injury in automotive crashes for older female occupants . Accid Anal Prev . 2006 ; 38 : 148 – 154 .

Manoogian S. Comparison of pregnant and non-pregnant occupant crash and injury characteristics based on national crash data . Accid Anal Prev . 2015 ; 74 : 69 – 76 .

Huang Y , Wang C , Xia Y , et al.  Establishment of adaptive occupant restraint system optimization platform . The 13th China Conference of Automotive Safety Technology . 2010 .

Zhang K , Cao L , Fanta A , et al.  An automated method to morph finite element whole-body human models with a wide range of stature and body shape for both men and women . J Biomech . 2017 ; 60 : 253 – 260 .

Untaroiu CD , Crandall JR , Takahashi Y , et al.  Analysis of running child pedestrians impacted by a vehicle using rigid-body models and optimization techniques . Saf Sci . 2010 ; 48 : 259 – 267 .

Iyota T , Ishikawa T. The effect of occupant protection by controlling airbag and seatbelt . Proceedings of the 18th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles . 2003 .

Zhu F , Jiang B , Hu J , et al.  Computational modeling of traffic related thoracic injury of a 10-year-old child using subject-specific modeling technique . Ann Biomed Eng . 2016 ; 44 : 258 – 271 .

Shi X , Cao L , Reed MP , et al.  Effects of obesity on occupant responses in frontal crashes: a simulation analysis using human body models . Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin . 2015 ; 18 : 1280 – 1292 .

Hu J , Zhang K , Reed MP , et al.  Frontal crash simulations using parametric human models representing a diverse population . Traffic Inj Prev . 2019 ; 20 : S97 -S105.

Cao LB , Cui CZ , Zhu NY , et al.  Study on the difference of frontal impact response among people of different sizes . Appl Mech Mater . 2010 ; 34-35 : 111 – 116 .

Zhu S , Kim JE , Ma X , et al.  BMI and risk of serious upper body injury following motor vehicle crashes: concordance of real-world and computer-simulated observations . PLoS Med . 2010 ; 7 : e1000250 .

Joodaki H , Gepner B , McMurry T , et al.  Comparison of injuries of belted occupants among different BMI categories in frontal crashes . Int J Obes (Lond) . 2020 ; 44 : 1319 – 1329 .

Morassi PR , Akiossi A , Blinder L , et al.  Effectiveness of a vehicle restraint system considering different anthropometric human standards . Sae Brasil Congress & Exhibit . 2010 .

Matsui Y , Tanaka Y , Hosokawa N. Comparison of rear seat occupant injuries in AM50 and AF05 in frontal crashes . Int J Crashworthiness . 2011 ; 16 : 263 – 273 .

Park J , Ebert SM , Reed MP , et al.  A statistical model including age to predict passenger postures in the rear seats of automobiles . Ergonomics . 2016 ; 59 : 796 – 805 .

Reed MP , Ebert SM , Jones MLH , et al.  Prevalence of non-nominal seat positions and postures among front-seat passengers . Traffic Inj Prev . 2020 ; 21 : S7 -S12.

Kuznetcov A , Telichev I. Influence of non-standard seating postures on safety of motorcoach passengers in frontal collisions: a numerical study . Saf Sci . 2019 ; 113 : 1 – 8 .

Kuznetcov A , Telichev I. Effect of acceleration pulse shape on the safety of unbelted motorcoach passengers in frontal collision under uncertainty of their seating posture . Int J Crashworthiness . 2019 ; 25 : 231 – 241 .

Leledakis A , Osth J , Davidsson J , et al.  The influence of car passengers' sitting postures in intersection crashes . Accid Anal Prev . 2021 ; 157 : 106170 .

Donlon JP , Richardson R , Jayathirtha M , et al.  Kinematics of inboard-leaning occupants in frontal impacts . Traffic Inj Prev . 2020 ; 21 : 272 – 277 .

Ji P , Huang Y , Zhou Q . Mechanisms of using knee bolster to control kinematical motion of occupant in reclined posture for lowering injury risk . Int J Crashworthiness . 2017 ; 22 : 415 – 424 .

Reed MP , Ebert SM , Jones MLH. Posture and belt fit in reclined passenger seats . Traffic Inj Prev . 2019 ; 20 : S38 -S42.

Peng B , Yang Y , Huang L . Analysis for the impact of the geometric parameters of train seat on riding comfort based on human body CAD models . 2009 International Conference on Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation . 2009 . p. 737 – 741 .

Groenesteijn L , Hiemstra-van Mastrigt S , Gallais C , et al.  Activities, postures and comfort perception of train passengers as input for train seat design . Ergonomics . 2014 ; 57 : 1154 – 1165 .

Omino K , Shiroto H , Saito A. Estimation of passenger movements against the impact in train collision . Quarterly Report of RTRI . 2002 ; 43 : 77 – 82 .

Yang W , Xie S , Li H , et al.  Design and injury analysis of the seated occupant protection posture in train collision . Saf Sci . 2019 ; 117 : 263 – 275 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2631-4428
• Copyright © 2024 Central South University
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Donor Portal Sign In
• PBS Sign In

Stay off the tracks: We all need to take rail safety seriously

How often did you think about rail safety before the train derailment in East Palestine earlier this year?

For me, the answer was hardly ever. My dad drilled into me when I was learning how to drive to be cautious around train tracks. But aside from that, I rarely ever thought about the danger trains pose to me or my community. But I should have.

There are about three train derailments every day in the United States, according to data from the Federal Railroad Administration. Few of them are as disastrous as the one in East Palestine, but train derailments in 2022 left 16 people injured and one person dead.

And those are just derailments. There were 2,197 vehicle-train collisions at public and private rail crossings in 2022, causing 274 deaths and 812 injuries, according to the FRA . Every three hours, a person or vehicle is hit by a train, according to the the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio .

Most of us frequently pass over train tracks in our daily commutes or live close enough to one for derailments to be a concern. So how can we be safer around train tracks? And how can trains be safer when coming through our communities?

Here are a few tips from the state on how you can be safer around railways:

• Always expect a train.
• Don't walk on or beside railroad tracks. That's actually illegal. According to the FRA, trespassing is the leading cause of rail-related deaths in the U.S., causing more than 400 deaths annually.
• Only cross tracks at designated public crossings with traffic signs, flashing red lights or a gate. Crossing anywhere else is also illegal.
• Walk bikes across the tracks instead of riding.
• Stay off railroad bridges and out of railroad tunnels. There's only room for the train.
• No photo is worth the risk. Although its a popular backdrop, taking pictures on train tracks is dangerous and illegal.
• Call the Ohio Rail Hotline at 866-814-7245 with any railroad crossing questions.

Since the train derailment in East Palestine, increased regulation for freight rail companies has been top of mind for lawmakers, regulators and rail experts.

Two big pieces of legislation have been introduced in Congress to better regulate the rail industry: the Railway Safety Act in the Senate and the Reducing Accidents in Locomotives Act in the House. Both bills would increase inspections of trains, require rail carriers to give advanced notice of what trains are carrying and strengthen regulation to prevent wheel bearing failures.

The National Transportation Safety Board will release a full report next year on the derailment in East Palestine, which will include policy and safety recommendations to prevent future derailments.

Norfolk Southern, the freight rail company whose train derailed in East Palestine, has promised to increase the safety of its trains. That includes training first responders on how to respond to train derailments. The company brought its safety train to Bellevue earlier this year to give first responders hands on experience with rail equipment. The safety train will be back in Ohio this week to train first responders in Lorain.

As we follow the progress of regulation legislation, I strongly encourage you to take rail safety into your own hands. Be safe and aware around train tracks and learn about the risks rail can pose to your community.

"The Cut" is featured in Ideastream Public Media's weekly newsletter, The Frequency Week in Review. To get The Frequency Week in Review, The Daily Frequency or any of our newsletters, sign up on Ideastream's newsletter subscription page.

Passenger and Transit Rail Safety

Operation Lifesaver's rail safety education materials - available in English and Spanish - promote safe practices for transit riders and communities with operating or planned rail transit systems - light rail, streetcar service, subway and commuter rail.

Take The Transit Safety Pledge

Make your communities safer. Take the Transit Safety Pledge today!

You Can Help #STOPTrackTragedies.

Transit Safety Posters in English and Spanish

Our five   transit posters in English and Spanish remind transit riders to make safe choices when traveling on transit and commuter trains. The impactful posters feature close-up face images capturing transit rider attention with actionable safety advice.

View and Download All Transit Safety Posters

The posters are available in five designs and four sizes in English and Spanish for transit agencies and others.

TRANSIT SAFETY PSAs

Safety at transit stations.

Rail Transit Crossing Safety

Safety around Streetcars and Light Rail

Spanish Transit Videos

Kids Transit Safety PSA

Six things to know about light rail and commuter train safety:

1. STAND BACK

Observe the pavement markings. Stand back from the platform, behind the painted or raised markings. Trains overhang tracks. Never run or ride scooters, skateboards or bicycles in a station.

2. STAY OFF THE TRACKS

If you drop an item on the tracks, do not attempt to retrieve it. Notify transit personnel.

3. SEE TRACKS? THINK TRAIN ®

Remain alert for oncoming trains on station platforms and while driving or walking. Listen and watch for pedestrian and traffic signals.

4. BE AWARE OF HIGH VOLTAGE

Never walk next to or in between the rails. High voltage electrical power can run underground on a third rail or above trains.

5. CROSS LEGALLY AND SAFELY

Cross only at designated crossings. Observe signs, signals and pavement markings. Always look for a train.

6. WAIT, LOOK BOTH WAYS

Always expect a train. Trains are closer and faster than they appear. Multiple tracks may mean multiple trains. Look for additional trains on adjacent tracks.

Watch Maurice's Story

Locomotive engineer Maurice Taylor shares his story to show why Operation Lifesaver tells people to Stay Off! Stay Away! Stay Safe!

Watch Nick's Story

Watch Nick Sayer’s story to see why you should always stay focused at commuter rail and rail transit stations and facilities.

Near Miss Incidents

In the Interest of Safety: Transit Video

Help #STOPTrackTragedies. Operation Lifesaver provides free rail safety presentations for transit riders and communities with operating or planned rail transit systems.

An official website of the United States government Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

FACTSHEET ON RAIL SAFETY

Since President Biden took office, the Biden-Harris Administration has taken key steps to improve the safety of our railways by deploying funding from the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, holding railroads accountable, raising rail safety standards, and supporting first responders and rail workers. Following the Norfolk Southern derailment last year, the Administration has mobilized a comprehensive, cross-agency effort to support the people of East Palestine, Ohio. And, while the President has been pushing to increase rail safety, House Republicans have actively worked against this progress by voting to cut rail safety measures.  

For nearly two centuries, railroads have been an indispensable part of America’s economy, society, and way of life. They are a vital component of our supply chains and get goods and people where they need to go. But no transportation system can succeed, long-term, if it is not safe—safe for the workers who operate it, and for the communities that rely on it. Safety is the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) top priority. That means ensuring each and every day that the freight rail industry lives up to its obligations to keep communities and workers safe. It means funding infrastructure projects to improve both the safety and the efficiency of our nation’s rail network. And it means working with Congress to advance regulation in areas that need it.  

In the early 2010s, we saw a number of high-profile freight rail incidents across the U.S. and Canada, including one that left nearly 50 people dead. Those events led to the passage of significant new rail safety rules—over strong opposition from industry. Since those changes, we have seen real improvement: derailments decreased by 15% on main line tracks, and lives were certainly saved. A decade later, this progress has plateaued, with Class I freight railroad safety performance data showing that rates of derailments and preventable incidents continue to impact communities and workers in unacceptable ways. 

But, as last year’s Norfolk Southern derailment in East Palestine demonstrated, we can and must do more. DOT is using the full range of its authority, as well as funding available from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, to improve rail safety, as detailed below. The Department has taken action to raise rail safety standards, hold railroads accountable, support first responders, and protect rail workers. But DOT cannot do this alone.  

Achieving the highest level of rail safety requires active and continued partnership from Congress. And rail companies must also take urgent, dedicated action that includes not just complying with current standards, but decisively putting the long-term safety of workers and communities ahead of short-term opportunities to supercharge profits. 

Deployment of Funding under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law : In 2023, the Department deployed a historic level of infrastructure funds for programs including the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program, the new Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) program, and Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) program to modernize and upgrade rail infrastructure, including track improvements, bridge replacements and rehabilitations, highway-rail grade crossing eliminations, at-grade rail crossings, upgrades on routes carrying hazardous materials, support for workforce development and training activities, and more.  These federal investments address long-standing rail needs and support communities nationwide by moving people and goods safely, efficiently, reliably, and conveniently.  

• Through the first ever Railroad Crossing Elimination Program, DOT awarded $570 million to 32 states to eliminate or improve more than 400 at-grade crossings—making our roads and railways safer, while also helping countless Americans save time on their commutes.  Award information is available here: https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/railroad-crossing-elimination-rce-program-program-fy2022-selections . 
• In September 2023, through the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program, DOT made passenger and freight rail safer, more efficient, and more reliable, awarding $1.4 billion to 70 projects. https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/fy-2022-consolidated-rail-infrastructure-and-safety-improvement-program-selections-project . 
• And, just last week, DOT opened a new round of funding for the CRISI program—making more than $2.4 billion available to invest in projects nationwide. 
• In November 2023, FRA announced $16.4 billion in grant awards under the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Program to support 25 passenger rail projects of national significance along the Northeast Corridor, the nation’s busiest passenger rail corridor. Information on these awards is available here: https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/fy22-23-FSP-NEC-fact-sheets .     
• In December 2023, FRA announced $8.2 billion for grants for 10 passenger rail projects across the country to be awarded through the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Program – National. More details on the awards are available here: https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/fy22-23-FSP-National-rail-program-project-fact-sheets .    
• Also in December 2023, FRA announced the selection of 69 proposed passenger rail corridors in 44 states through the Corridor Identification and Development Program, another Bipartisan Infrastructure Law mandate. More information is available here: https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/fy22-CID-program-selections .     

Holding Railroads Accountable : 

• Focused Inspection Programs:  DOT’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) initiated multiple inspection programs in 2023 and completed a focused review of tank cars transporting hazardous materials. FRA also completed the field work for its high hazard flammable train (HHFT) route assessment, a focused inspection and investigation program encompassing approximately 7,500 inspections to assess the condition of track and signal and train control infrastructure, equipment, and operating practices along HHFT routes and routes where large quantities of hazardous materials travel. This program in total inspected over 40,000 freight cars, 76,888 miles of track (87% were on routes over which hazardous materials are transported), and thousands of wayside detectors on over 25 different railroads . FRA is taking action based on these finding, and the inspections completed are prompting railroads to take corrective actions to increase safety. The results are available here . 
• Safety Assessment of Norfolk Southern : FRA conducted a supplemental safety assessment of Norfolk Southern’s safety culture and safety practices. FRA is in the process of conducting comprehensive assessments of the safety culture, practices, and regulatory compliance of each Class I railroad. FRA also is assessing issues, trends, and commonalities across the multiple railroads reviewed. 
• Rail Worker Confidential Close Call Reporting System : After Secretary Buttigieg pressed them,  all Class I freight railroads agreed to participate in the Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C3RS) for rail employees to help identify and better prevent safety issues. But adoption has been too slow. Norfolk Southern recently announced they would be joining a pilot program C3RS with some of their workers. No other Class I railroad has. FRA is still pressing the issue and expects the Class 1 railroads will make good on their commitment. 
• FY23 Annual Enforcement Report : FRA issued its yearly report in February outlining civil penalties against railroads for safety violations. The report includes a summary of safety and hazmat compliance inspections and audits as well as recommended enforcement actions.  
• 2024 Civil Penalties Update : FRA recently updated all of its rail safety civil penalties schedules and guidelines to reflect new inflation-adjusted statutory minimum and maximum civil penalties, updating the guidelines on a line-by-line basis. This update includes adding specific penalties for statutory hours of service provisions, which were not previously in the guidelines. 
• DOT put Norfolk Southern on notice for needed safety reforms and called for an end to the rail industry’s “vigorous resistance” to increased safety measures, which in the past has included lobbying and litigation to kill commonsense rail safety reforms.   

Raising Rail Safety Standards: 

• Final Rule on Train Crew Size Safety Requirements : FRA issued a long-awaited rule that ensures trains are safely staffed by establishing minimum safety requirements for the size of train crews, codifying crew staffing rules at a federal level and ensuring that freight and passenger rail operations are governed by consistent safety rules in all states. The new rule will enhance safety in the rail industry by generally requiring and emphasizing the importance and necessity of a second crewmember on all trains. Certification of Signal and Dispatcher Employees : FRA is pushing forward rulemakings that would require railroads to develop written programs for certifying dispatchers and signal employees.  
• Final Rule Requiring Emergency Escape Breathing Apparatus : FRA issued a final rule requiring railroads to provide emergency escape breathing apparatus to train crews and other employees when transporting certain hazardous materials. 
• Calling for rail industry and Congress to step up . DOT is pressing for passage of the bipartisan Railway Safety Act, which would phase in newer, safer tank cars, increase fines against railroads for safety violations, require defect detectors, expand the list of hazardous materials that qualify for strict safety precautions, and more.  
• Advisory on Long Trains : FRA issued a Safety Advisory to increase awareness of the potential complexities associated with operating longer trains and urged railroads to address them to ensure safety. The advisory also highlights several safety risks relating to blocked crossings, notably the impacts blocked rail crossings can have on first responders as they work to address emergencies and reach people in need. FRA has also undertaken efforts to gather more information on long trains and recently received approval to officially begin requesting train length data from Class I freight railroads. 
• Advisory on Train Makeup : FRA issued a Safety Advisory calling on freight railroads to prioritize proper train makeup, and provided recommendations to improve train safety and reduce the risk of future accidents. The advisory makes clear that railroads need to take proactive measures to ensure the configuration of railcars and the loading of cargo is performed safely and railroad workers are supported and trained fully to ensure safety. The configuration of railcars and how cargo gets loaded can be critical to the risk of derailment.  
• Advisory for Tank Car Covers : DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) acted on initial findings from the NTSB investigation into the Norfolk Southern derailment in East Palestine, and issued a Safety Advisory for tank car covers.  
• Advisory on Tank Car Type : PHMSA released a Safety Advisory pressing rail tank car owners and hazmat shippers of flammable liquids to remove their DOT-111 and CPC-1232 tank cars and replace them with DOT-117 tank cars. The incident in East Palestine, OH, demonstrated that DOT-111 and CPC-1232 tank cars do not perform at the highest level of survivability during derailments and fires, unlike the DOT-117 tank cars.    
• Advisory for Hot Bearing Detectors : FRA urged railroads using hot bearing detectors (HBDs) to evaluate their inspection process, prioritize the proper training and qualification of personnel working with HBDs, and improve the safety culture of their organizations related to HBDs decision-making. The full advisory can be found here. 
• Safety Advisory on Roadway Maintenance Machines : FRA issued a Safety Advisory to emphasize the importance of rules and procedures regarding the safety of roadway workers who operate or work near roadway maintenance machines. The advisory recommends reviewing and updating rules regarding the safety of roadway workers who operate or work near these machines. 
• Safety Bulletin on Hand-Operated Main Track Switches : FRA issued a Safety Bulletin to emphasize the importance of ensuring safe operations of hand-operated main track switches. FRA is investigating an April 16 train collision and derailment involving a misaligned switch that resulted in serious injuries to crew members.      
• Safety Bulletin on Car Switching Hazards : FRA issued a Safety Bulletin to increase awareness of the hazards relating to switching cars. FRA is investigating a recent switching accident that resulted in a crewmember leg amputation. 

Supporting First Responders and Rail Workers : 

• Sick leave :  Since the Administration has pressed railroads to provide paid sick leave for railroad workers,  approximately 89 percent of railroad workers now have paid sick leave. 
• Funding Hazmat Rail First Responders : In September 2023, PHMSA announced more than $30 million to support firefighters, and local hazardous materials safety planning and response efforts. These grants help train first responders, strengthen safety programs, improve general safety, reduce environmental impacts, and educate the public on local safety initiatives. In recent years thousands of responders nationwide have received training thanks to this program, including 2,500+ responders in 137 different locations in Ohio. 
• Advanced Notifications : PHMSA proposed a new rule last June to require railroads to always maintain — and update in real-time — accurate, electronic information about rail hazmat shipments in a train consist that would be accessible to authorized emergency response personnel. Railroads would also be required to proactively “push” that information to authorized local first response personnel as soon as the railroad is aware of an accident involving any hazardous materials.   
• Opening an expanded HAZMAT training facility : Earlier this year, PHMSA  expanded its National Training and Qualifications Branch (NTQB) facility. This expansion will allow PHMSA to train more first responders than ever before -- increasing throughput by 150%. Since 2013, this national training facility has trained thousands of pipeline and hazardous materials transport investigators, inspectors, and staff, as well as other hazardous materials safety professionals, and first responders from around the United States and around the world. 
• Advisory for Emergency Response Plans : PHMSA urged all railroad operators to create and maintain emergency response plans for the transport of hazardous materials, strengthen the accessibility of the AskRail system that provides real-time information on shipments to first responders, and inform PHMSA when they identify responders who are not able to access PHMSA’s grant-funded training. The full advisory can be found here . 
• Advisory for 9-1-1 call centers : PHMSA encouraged 9-1-1 call centers to use technologies such as the AskRail application that provide critical information to first responders regarding rail incidents. The advisory is available here : 
• High Hazard Train Regulations : PHMSA has announced the initiation of a rule to increase regulations on High-Hazard trains. In this rulemaking, PHMSA will amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations to implement regulatory requirements and operational controls on a larger set of newly-designated High-Hazard Trains thus ensuring more stringent standards for more classes of hazardous materials than railroads currently follow. 

Essay on Train Accident

Students are often asked to write an essay on Train Accident in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Train Accident

Introduction.

Train accidents are unfortunate events where trains derail or collide, causing damage and loss.

These accidents often result from human error, mechanical failures, or natural disasters.

Train accidents can lead to loss of lives, property damage, and disruption of services.

Regular maintenance, strict safety rules, and advanced technology can prevent train accidents.

While train accidents are tragic, they can be reduced through careful measures and improved safety standards.

Also check:

• Paragraph on Train Accident

250 Words Essay on Train Accident

The prevalence of train accidents.

Despite the significant advancements in technology and safety measures, train accidents remain a global concern. They are characterized by derailments, collisions, or incidents at grade crossings, causing significant loss of life and property.

Causes of Train Accidents

The primary causes of train accidents are human error, technical failure, and natural disasters. Human error includes negligence by railway staff, while technical failure pertains to faults in the signaling or mechanical systems. Natural disasters like landslides and floods can also lead to catastrophic accidents.

Impacts of Train Accidents

Train accidents have far-reaching impacts. They result in loss of lives, injuries, and property damage. Additionally, they disrupt transport systems, causing delays and economic losses. The psychological trauma experienced by survivors and their families is also profound.

Preventing Train Accidents

Preventing train accidents requires a multi-faceted approach. This includes regular maintenance of railway infrastructure, rigorous training of railway staff, and implementation of advanced technologies like Automatic Train Control (ATC) systems. Public awareness about railway safety is also crucial to minimize accidents at grade crossings.

In conclusion, train accidents pose a significant challenge to the global community. While the causes are varied, a comprehensive approach that includes technological advancements, stringent safety measures, and public awareness can effectively mitigate these incidents. It is a collective responsibility to ensure the safety and reliability of our railway systems.

500 Words Essay on Train Accident

Train accidents, a significant concern in the domain of transportation safety, have been a persistent issue across the globe. These incidents not only result in loss of lives and property but also disrupt the critical railway infrastructure, leading to significant socioeconomic impacts. This essay delves into the causes, impacts, and potential mitigation strategies for train accidents.

Train accidents can be attributed to a multitude of factors. One primary cause is human error, which includes mistakes made by train operators, such as exceeding speed limits or misreading signals. These errors are often due to fatigue, distraction, or lack of proper training.

Technical malfunctions, including brake failure, signal malfunction, or structural failures in tracks or bridges, also contribute to train accidents. These incidents often reflect inadequate maintenance and inspection protocols.

Furthermore, environmental factors like landslides, floods, or extreme weather conditions can lead to derailments and collisions. Lastly, inadequate safety measures at railway crossings can lead to accidents involving pedestrians and vehicles.

The impacts of train accidents are multifaceted, ranging from immediate to long-term effects. The immediate impact is the loss of human lives and property. Train accidents often result in severe injuries and fatalities, causing immense grief and trauma to the victims and their families.

The economic impact is also considerable. The cost of repairing damaged infrastructure, compensating victims, and the loss of service during recovery periods can be enormous. Moreover, the disruption of rail services affects the transport of goods and passengers, impacting the economy at large.

Train accidents also have environmental impacts. Derailments and collisions can lead to the spillage of hazardous materials, causing soil, water, and air pollution. This not only harms local ecosystems but also poses health risks to nearby communities.

Preventing train accidents requires a comprehensive approach that addresses the causes at their roots. This involves improving operator training, ensuring regular maintenance and inspection of trains and tracks, and upgrading safety measures at railway crossings.

Technological advancements can play a pivotal role in accident prevention. For instance, Automatic Train Control (ATC) systems can automatically apply brakes if the train exceeds the speed limit or approaches a red signal. Similarly, Early Warning Systems (EWS) can alert operators about potential hazards like landslides or floods.

Public awareness campaigns can also contribute to reducing accidents at railway crossings. By educating the public about the dangers of trespassing on tracks or ignoring crossing signals, these accidents can be mitigated.

Train accidents pose serious threats to human life, economic stability, and environmental health. However, with concerted efforts towards improved operator training, regular maintenance, technological advancements, and public awareness, the incidence of these accidents can be significantly reduced. As we move towards an era of rapid technological growth, harnessing these advancements for ensuring railway safety must be a top priority.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Train
• Essay on Traffic Problems
• Essay on Traffic Signal

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > Railway Research - Selected Topics on Development, Safety and Technology

A Systems View of Railway Safety and Security

Submitted: 19 November 2014 Reviewed: 30 November 2015 Published: 16 December 2015

DOI: 10.5772/62080

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Edited Volume

Railway Research - Selected Topics on Development, Safety and Technology

Edited by Krzysztof Zboinski

To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India: CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. www.cbspd.com | [email protected]

Chapter metrics overview

4,665 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Total Chapter Views on intechopen.com

This chapter approaches the concerns over safety and security of modern mainline and light railways from a systems perspective. It addresses the two key concerns from the view point of systemic emergence arising from the interaction between all the principal constituents of the railway system, namely infrastructure, rolling stock, energy and human element comprising workers, passengers and the neighbours of the railways.

• Railway safety
• Railway security
• Railway system
• Requirements

Author Information

Ali g. hessami *.

• Vega Systems, London, UK

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

Modern railways have moved a long way from the slow, noisy, polluting and poor safety record of their earlier ancestors and offer speed, comfort, convenience and enhanced safety approaching those of air travel these days. This is largely driven by incorporation of many modern innovations into the infrastructure, rolling stock and operations comprising advanced computing on-board and track side, high-speed communications, energy efficient traction systems and new track materials. These evolutionary changes have rendered railways a highly attractive mode of transportation in today’s world.

2. A Life-cycle Perspective

The systematic safety assurance of a product, system or process (PSP) requires the consideration of key activities at each phase of the development and deployment. This is referred to as the life-cycle perspective and constitutes the backbone of the most standards and codes of practice.

The generic PSP safety life-cycle comprises 12 phases as follows:

Concept Definition

Detailed Definition and Operational Context

Risk Analysis and Evaluation

Requirements (including Safety Requirements) Specification

Architecture and Apportionment

Design and Implementation

Manufacture/Production

System Integration

Operation, Maintenance and Performance Monitoring

Decommissioning.

The life-cycle concept constitutes the backbone of the systems engineering practice and the most system safety processes, standards and codes of practice. It exists in a variety of forms and detailed stages depending on the source. One old reference from railway safety standards [ 1 , 2 ] depicts this as a 12–14 phase process by separating many of the later stages such as monitoring and modification into distinct phases as depicted in Figure 1 .

System Safety Life-cycle According to CENELEC Standards

3. System Level Requirements and Classifications

The starting point of a comprehensive understanding of a desired or existing system is the so-called system level perspective. Once a level of interest in the hierarchy is stated, then the clear description of the system is the principal starting step.

3.1. System Level Perspective

The question of perspective and level is quite fundamental to understanding the system, its constituents, the topology, interfaces and dynamic behaviour. The so-called ‘top-level’ system perspective is a vision and representation that includes four classes of constituents, namely

People comprising users, operators, suppliers and the public (the latter category is relevant to the safety and security issues) that is sometimes referred to as stakeholders,

Control and automation system that performs functions based on embedded logic and algorithms in machines of mechanical, electro-mechanical or electronic nature,

The infrastructure that supports the functioning of the system. This includes supporting systems and the host environment that surrounds the system including the energy supply, major interfaces with neighbouring or supporting systems/sub-systems, etc.,

Processes and rules that govern the interactions between people, automation and the infrastructure. These are a broad range of operational, legal, commercial and emergency response conventions that create a common understanding for all system stakeholders. The socio-economic setting within which a system is realized and operated can also be considered as a part of the environmental rules and constraints that influence the functions and behaviours of the systems.

A general view of the broad system composition is depicted in Figure 2 as the so-called top-level system perspective.

Top-level Railway System Constituents Perspective

The system of interest exists within such a setting and delivers a utility function or service as part of a larger natural or socio-economic system. However, the systematic study and analysis of the most systems requires the forms of conceptualisation, representation and formalisation that provides a backdrop for the study and understanding of the system properties.

Most system studies start with a ‘rich-picture’ representation that places the system in its host environment and where possible, includes many of the four classes of information detailed above. One such illustration is given in Figure 3 for the safety study of a school within the proximity of a railway environment.

Rich-picture Representation of a Top-level System Perspective

The rich-picture representation and associated often pictorial forms of top-level system representation are largely employed in requirements capture and safety studies at the early phases of the life cycle.

3.2. System Level Requirements

In the life-cycle perspective, especially the one depicted in Figure 1 above, the specification of requirements including the safety requirements commence in phase 4 of the system life cycle. This in practice is unreal and untrue. Most system requirements and indeed some high-level safety requirements are known at the start of the life cycle. These are broadly derived from a number of sources comprising:

Past experience of similar or reference systems,

Customer and stakeholder expectations,

Contractual documents,

Operational principles known in the domain and derived or represented in the concept of operation (ConOps),

Regulations, standards, rules and codes of practice.

It is worth noting therefore that the system performance requirements are not strictly the matter for a specific time or phase in the life cycle and can predate the system. It is also an evolutionary and iterative process that gains more details the further development moves down the life-cycle phases. The derivation of system level requirements (SLR) is depicted in Figure 4 .

Derivation of System Level Requirements

The feedback loop from later phases of the life cycle such as the system integration phases back to the SLR is quite normal and in the same sense that system safety properties evolve in terms of understanding and detail, requirements, especially at system level may emerge much later than desired. This is a natural consequence of complexity of requirements, expected functions and behaviours as well as the evolving understanding or operational expectations of the client that may impose additional expectations on the system after the early phases of the life cycle.

3.2.1. Classification of SLR

Given the diversity of stakeholders and forms of requirements, it is constructive to classify a large list of requirements into distinct and verifiable classes. These classes are often chosen from performance point of view of stakeholder groupings to make reference and satisfaction arguments simpler and more efficient. The typical classes for such groupings of requirements within a railway context constitute a broad range as depicted in Table 1 :

Classification of System Level Requirements for a Railway Context

Any PSP may have an impact or specifically fit within one or more of the above classes. In this spirit and contrary to the immediate focus on a technical system, the classifications depicted in Table 1 should be used as a check-list to capture potential impact of any PSP on wider classes of requirements than mere technical and safety dimensions.

4. System Level Safety and Security Requirements

Safety is a system level emergent property and can best be understood and assured through a systems and high-level perspective. The highest level of perspective for the railways the so-called ‘top-level’ is the entire railway as a system comprising the constituents detailed in Section 3.1. Understanding of the total railway system safety performance requires a systematic study of the system level interactions between the system constituents and people exposed to the machinery, infrastructure and operations of the railway system. The CENELEC Technical Report TR50451 [ 3 ] developed to support EN50129 developed in 1998 details a perspective on the whole railway safety in which three key stakeholders collaborate to understand, analyse and communicate the principal requirements. The principal active stakeholders are the infrastructure manager (IM) and the railway undertakings (RU) who operate the services. The third key stakeholder involved is the safety regulator, often a government appointed entity. The proposed perspective is for the principal stakeholders who understand the operational railway, that is the RU and IM, to conduct safety analysis, identify system level hazards, conduct risk analysis and determine the tolerability level for the key system level hazards that they manage. This is referred to as the determination of the tolerable hazard rate (THR). The concept is depicted from CENELECTR50451 in Figure 5 .

Collaborative Approach to Railway System Safety, Stakeholders and Responsibilities

The tolerable rate for a hazard (THR H ) and the derivation of safety integrity level (SIL) are presented in Figure 5 in the relative order and ownership.

The manufacturers, service providers and supply chain are expected to employ the published THRs to determine what hazards relate to their services/products and determine their share of the hazards affected and SIL applicable to their PSP/service. This is principally a collaborative approach to the achievement of system safety that is likely to render more benefits to the industry than the current disjointed and market driven approach.

4.1. Product Level Safety Requirements Specification

The system safety life cycle as depicted in Section 2 implies that the specification of the system requirements, especially the safety requirements for a PSP commences after system risk analysis, that is in phase 4 and well after the start of a project or programme. Whilst many of the detailed safety requirements emerge from the identification of the product/system behaviours that lead to hazardous states, in a similar manner to the general system requirements, many of the safety requirements are known at a high level of detail at the start of a project or programme. These come from a multiplicity of sources, standards, rules, reference products/systems, regulations, customer needs, existing operational safety performance data, existing operational principles, safety functions and finally, any industry level set of safety hazards. This is depicted in Figure 6 . These are all recorded in the product/SLR as detailed in Table 1 and the system level safety requirements (SLSR) that constitute a subset.

In principle, if the national level safety data in terms of principal railway hazards and the THRs are known, then these can used together with a causal analysis and apportionment to derive the safety requirements for a complete PSP. Alas, in the absence of such desirable data, the process depicted here is the next best alternative solution to the identification of PSP safety requirements.

Derivation of System Level Safety Requirements for a PSP

It is also customary to initiate safety activities at the outset of a project or programme through conducting high-level hazard studies. The preliminary hazard studies that lead to an understanding of the potential system hazards are referred to as PHA. These often employ a system representation in the form of rich-picture or Process & Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) and lead to the identification and capture of hazardous states arising from system composition, placement or the environment since at this stage, not much is known about the total system functionality or design. The PHA is then followed by IHA/OHA/SHA/SSHA at later stages of the life cycle as the design and development, integration and construction progresses.

The relationship between safety studies and the life-cycle phases is depicted in Table 2 .

LC Phase-related Principal Safety Activities

In principle, safety requirements of a composite system comprise functional and non-functional categories. The automation and control systems generally deliver algorithmic safety functions hence largely satisfy functional safety requirements (FSaR) even though any product, system, process/service may additionally have non-functional requirements that affect its safety performance.

The FSaR category is depicted in the class definition in Table 3 .

Functional Safety Requirements Class

The non-functional category largely relate to operating and environmental conditions, health and safety issues, materials, packaging and manufacturing aspects of a PSP and are not treated in this guidance. The non-functional safety requirements (NFSaR) are depicted in the class definition in Table 4 .

Non-Functional Safety Requirements Class

It is also important to note that the apparent overlap between various hazard studies from PHA to SHA is matters of perspective and detail. What is identified at PHA is largely very high level and coarse issues akin to core hazard concept developed in the UK system level study and later adopted by ETCS, the European Train Control System. The more detailed hazards identified at the system and sub-system level often fit within these Core Hazard categories hence no repetition of the effort or waste of energies should occur in subsequent hazard studies.

5. System Level Safety Study–UK National Railways

To this date and since the initial publication of the CENELEC TR-50451 [ 3 ] initially published as R009-004 in 1999, only one system level study of the whole railway infrastructure and operations has been conducted in the United Kingdom, largely designed and implemented by the author and the supporting team at Railtrack plc in 1996.

The so-called risk profiling of UK Railways attempted to study the whole railway system from the view point of safety risks posed to three key groups, namely:

The Passengers,

The Workers and Employees,

The General Public and the railway Neighbours.

This national level study was scoped at the level of the whole UK national railway system and after three years resulted in identification, verification and publication of three hazard logs relating to the three groups studied and an integrated quantified safety and environmental risk model.

The idea of core hazard was devised to classify and group hazards with similar root, causation or synergy into larger classes and avoid dealing with many tens of detailed issues identified in the course of the national level study. The core hazards and the detailed hazards are the basis of determining the system level safety requirements (SLSR) for the entire railway. However, since the hazards and the requirements are system level properties that are heavily influenced by the national culture, it is not possible or indeed could be misleading to adopt the SLSR safety requirements from another country. In reality, each nation state needs to conduct their own studies to arrive at a current and culture sensitive nature of the safety risks of their national railways to the population.

The risk profiling of Railways project employed a detailed scenario-based scrutiny of the exposure of each group of people to the operational and infrastructure hazards of the national railway. The scenarios were themed around a ‘Day in the Life of...’ each group and took three years to complete. The hazards identified through the study were verified against a number of sources by a number of independent engineering safety consultancy organisations. After verification and checks for coverage and completeness, the identified hazards were modelled employing a systematic framework comprising causal, consequence and loss evaluation stages [ 4 ] in order to establish the risks and strive towards generating a safety risk profile for the national railways. The outcome was the first total railway system level integrated risk model that was capable of being employed to assess the impact of various changes, technologies and innovations on the safety performance of the national level railway or aspects of it. It also generated THRs for all the published groups of hazards for use in the supply chain. This study influenced TR-50451 [ 3 ] and the approach to collaboration in railway safety.

In principle, a national level railway Hazard Portfolio for each of the three affected groups, followed by determination of the risk tolerability level for the occurrence of these hazards is the only systematic approach to understanding system level safety issues and apportioning these products, systems and processes/services in a traceable, realistic and meaningful manner.

5.1. Passengers group

The national level safety study of the passenger group was planned and conducted over a number of workshops with diverse participants from many of the stakeholder groups. A series of pictographics and photos were taken and composed into ‘A Day in the Life of a Railway Passenger’ that covered most credible scenarios that a typical passenger would interact with the railways. This comprised entering a railway station, using the facilities, going to a platform, boarding a train, travelling, reaching their destination, alighting and eventually leaving the railway premises. The rich-picture representations were employed as the backdrop to a creative Hazop style process to identify all deviations from the normal behaviour that could result in a hazardous state to which a passenger was exposed to.

By the end of the national level workshops, 101 hazards had been identified [ 5 ] for the passenger group taking into account variations in age, conditions and luggage handling. The identified hazards were shared with the participants for offline verification and completeness checks. Through a further review, all hazards with common causality or synergy were grouped as a cluster under a core hazard. For the passenger group, each core hazard was tagged with a H for Hazard, P for Passenger and a unique number that represents the relative proximity of the hazard to an accident scenario. The core hazards for the passenger group, relating to the exposure scenarios throughout a railway journey are depicted as follows.

5.1.1. Core Hazard: HP500 – Abnormal or Criminal Behaviour

The HP500 addresses the range of abnormal and criminal behaviours that are known to take place within the railway infrastructure. This does not, however, address abnormal working practices of railway personnel, with the exception of train drivers and senior conductors. This cluster comprises a number of lower level hazards that were identified at the stakeholder workshops, namely

HP425 Irresponsible behaviour

HP426 Destructive behaviour (all forms)

HP427 Crossing line at station

5.1.2. Core Hazard: HP502 – Crowding

The causal model for HP502 represents the range of factors that potentially could cause a crowding situation to arise (e.g. a special event causing an increase in passengers, or an incident causing panic amongst an otherwise manageable number of passengers).

The consequence model for HP502 represents the development of a crowding situation to a level at which injuries or loss of balance (see HP506) could occur. This hazard cluster comprises:

HP502 Crowding

5.1.3. Core Hazard: HP503—Loss of Passenger Compartment Integrity During Movement

The scope of this core hazard includes the following:

Doors opened early on stopping slam shut or CDL trains, potentially resulting in passengers and workers on the train falling out of the train or passengers and workers on the station platform being struck by open doors.

Slam shut or CDL trains departing with a door open, potentially resulting in passengers and workers on the station platform being struck by the open door or the open door being struck by a passing train.

Doors opened during train movement, potentially resulting in passengers or workers falling out of the train.

Doors on the wrong side of the platform unlocked (on trains with sliding or CDL doors) or opened (on trains with slam shut doors), potentially leading to passengers or workers getting off the train on the wrong side, or falling out of the train onto the track. Also included here are incidents where doors which are on the same side of the train as the platform but which are not adjacent to the platform (e.g. when a train is longer than the platform) are unlocked or opened and passenger or worker leaves or falls out of the train.

Train carriage decoupling during movement, potentially leading to passengers or workers falling off the train.

Doors failing to open at a station are included within this core hazard in the causal analysis for consistency with earlier work but consequence barriers are not modelled as it is considered that there are no safety implications within the scope of this core hazard associated with doors failing to open. Train doors are barriers to consequence escalation for other core hazards, for example HP507 ‘Onset of fire/explosion’, but failure of train doors to open does not in itself present a hazard. This cluster comprises:

HP503 Loss of passenger compartment integrity during movement

5.1.4. Core Hazard: HP504—Passengers in Path of Closing Train Doors

This hazard encompasses ‘passenger in path of closing train door’ (HP504) and ‘worker in path of closing train’ (HW503). The scope of this core hazard includes

Passenger or worker hit by closing door.

Passenger or worker caught in door of stationary train, potentially leading to the train moving off, dragging the person along the platform.

Passenger or worker trying to board a moving train, potentially leading to apparel being caught on the door and dragged along the platform or opening the door then falling and being hit by the door or caught up in the door.

The cluster comprises;

HP504 HP504 passenger/apparel in path of closing train door

5.1.5. Core Hazard: HP506—Loss of Balance

We have excluded from this core hazard falls to trespassers and falls occurring on level crossings. The scope of passengers has been enlarged to include all persons in a railway station. We also excluded a few falls that were suicide attempts, but included some where there was no clear determination. We have excluded passengers falling as a result of trying to enter or leave the train, while it is still moving. This cluster comprises

HP413 Loss of balance on the ground

HP414 Loss of balance on stairs and escalators

HP415 Loss of balance getting on and off trains

HP416 Loss of balance whilst in a train

5.1.6. Core Hazard: HP509—Inappropriate Separation between Running Railways and Passengers

The HP509 Core Hazard for inappropriate separation between running rail and passengers has been developed to include those situations where the distance between the running rail and people is not sufficient to ensure the safety of passengers.

This core hazard does not include Core Hazard HN501 failure of level crossing to protect the public from passing trains. This model also does not include incidents of inappropriate separation between running rail and passengers resulting from suicide. Finally, this model does not include incidents of inappropriate separation between running rail and people caused by derailment. This cluster comprises:

HP509 Inappropriate separation between rail & passengers

5.1.7. Core Hazard: HP510—Inappropriate Separation between Un-insulated Live Conductors and Passengers

The scope of ‘Inappropriate separation between un-insulated live conductors and passengers’ includes the following:

HP417 Occurrence of DC power arc

HP418 Existence of touch potential

HP419 Inappropriate separation from DC conductor rail

HP420 Structure in contact with live conductor rail

HP421 Inappropriate separation from OHL

HP422 Structure in contact with OHL

HP423 Occurrence of AC power arc

HP424 Inappropriate separation from OHL induced voltage

5.1.8. Core Hazard: HP512—Passenger Protruding Beyond Train Gauge During Movement

Core Hazards HP512, passenger protruding beyond train gauge during movement, have been developed to include all situations in which a person is protruding outside the gauge of a moving train.

The model excludes incidents resulting from suicide or attempted suicide— these are assumed to be covered under HP500 Abnormal or Criminal Behaviour. The cluster comprises

HP512 Passenger protruding beyond train gauge

5.1.9. Core Hazard: HP513—Unsecured Objects at Height

This core hazard falls within the generic grouping of ‘Objects Falling from Height’ affecting passengers (HP513) which includes the following:

Objects falling from height within stations (HP513, HP512) as a result of degradation (e.g. falling glass) or maintenance or construction work.

Objects thrown at trains (HP513, HW512).

Falling luggage stored at height on trains and falling train furniture (HP513).

Dropped crane loads (HW512).

The cluster comprises

HP513 Unsecured objects falling from height

5.1.10. Core Hazard: HP515—Inappropriate Separation between Passengers and Moving Vehicle (Other Than Rail Vehicle)

The scope of this core hazard is concerned with inappropriate separation between passengers (HP515) and moving vehicles (not rail vehicles). This encompasses the following:

Accidents involving road vehicles in collision with pedestrians, other vehicles or structures in the vicinity of stations and work sites (including workers at level crossings in local control mode).

Accidents involving non-road motorised vehicles, push trolleys and catering trolleys.

Accidents involving overturned machinery and inadequate control of wheel set movements.

The cluster comprises:

HP515 inappropriate separation between passenger and moving vehicle (non-rail)

5.1.11. Core Hazard: HP516— Handling Heavy Loads

The hazard is defined to assume some error had occurred in handling a heavy load since otherwise the estimated number of incidents would be so high to be meaningless as a hazard. Various scenarios were identified, including strain injuries from carrying and lifting luggage, luggage falling on to other passengers usually inside trains and cases of luggage falling down escalators and stairs.

HP516 Error in handling heavy load

5.1.12. Core Hazard: HP517—Incompatibility of Train and Structure Gauge

The HP517 (incompatibility of train and structure gauge) have been developed to include those situations where the clearances between trains and infrastructure have been compromised. This hazard includes events where the train or its load extend beyond the specified gauge due to errors in loading, equipment failures or damage; movement errors leading to the train going onto the wrong route; track defects/misalignment; failures or damage leading to civil structures compromising the clearance. This core hazard does not consider events which have resulted in objects on the line (HP511), railway construction/ maintenance works, unsound structures (HP514) or unsecured objects at height (HP513). The cluster comprises

HP517 incompatibility of train and structure gauge

5.1.13. Core Hazard: HP600—Abnormal Deceleration

The risk model for HP600 ‘Abnormal deceleration’ has been developed to strictly model only those instances of a train’s slowing sharply when not actually as a part of a derailment or collision scenario. The consequences of the abnormal deceleration part of derailment and collision scenarios are assumed to be included in the loss estimation for those events. The cluster comprises

HP600 Abnormal Deceleration (super-set of HP518 &HW516)

5.1.14. Core Hazard: HP601—Uncontrolled Approach to Buffer

In the causal model, malicious or reckless behaviour on the part of the driver of the relevant train has been assumed to have been included in the data for ‘Driver error’. The causal model has been populated using the SMIS database and data from Health and Safety Executive (HSE) reports.

The consequences of this hazard have been taken forward only to the point of the accident’s occurring, that beyond is assumed to be calculated by loss modelling. Therefore, the incidence of fire due to buffer-stop collision has not been separately developed in the consequence model. The consequences have been assumed to fall into three bands: collisions at speeds at or below that for which the buffers have been designed; collisions at speeds greater than that for which the buffers have been designed; and collisions with siding buffer-stops. The effects of TPWS and ATP have been ignored, as they were fitted in only a small minority of cases at the time. The consequence model has been populated using expert judgement. The cluster comprises

HP601 Uncontrolled approach to buffer (HP501 &HW501)

5.1.15. Core Hazard: HP602—Loss of Train Guidance (Passenger Trains)

The risk model for HP602 ‘Loss of train guidance (Passenger Train)’ has been developed to strictly model only those instances where a derailment actually occurs. The losses associated with this model include those occurring before the derailment due to abnormal deceleration, if there are any. However, where such deceleration avoids a derailment, the consequences are included in the ‘Abnormal Deceleration’ model. The cluster comprises

HP602 Loss of train guidance (Passenger Train) (HP412, HW409 &HN402)

5.1.16. Core Hazard: HP603—Loss of Train Guidance (Freight Trains)

The risk model for HP603 ‘Loss of train guidance (Freight Train)’ has been developed to strictly model only those instances where a derailment actually occurs. The losses associated with this model include those occurring before the derailment due to abnormal deceleration, if there are any. However, where such deceleration avoids a derailment, the consequences are included in the ‘Abnormal Deceleration’ model. The cluster comprises

HP603 Loss of train guidance (Freight Train) (HP411, HW408 &HN401)

5.1.17. Core Hazard: HP604—Objects/Animals on the Line

The risk model for HP604 ‘Objects/Animals on the line’ has been developed to model only the instances of animals or objects being on the running railway and having some effect thereon. There may be many instances of animals entering and leaving the railway having no effect at all and being entirely unnoticed. These scenarios are not modelled, neither are those in which other objects, such as litter, come to rest on the railway, but do not affect the system at all. Instances of objects and animals on the line causing fires are captured in the fire models and not within this model. This model also specifically excludes all causes and consequences arising from the Core Hazard HN501 ‘Crossing running railway at a Level Crossing’. The cluster comprises

HP604 Object/animals on line (HP511, HW510 &HN514)

5.1.18. Core Hazard: HP605—Inappropriate Separation between Trains

The risk model for HP605 ‘Inappropriate separation between trains’ has been developed to address only the scenarios in which the separation between trains, normally provided by the signalling system, has broken down. This hazard is defined such that there is no interface between it and the ‘Loss of Balance’ core hazards. The cluster comprises:

HP605 Inappropriate separation between trains (HP505, HW504, HN505)

5.1.19. Core Hazard: HP606—Onset of Fire/Explosion

Core Hazard HP507 onset of fire/explosion for passengers has been developed to include those situations where fire is a spontaneous event, however, the situations where fire is a secondary consequence of a train collision or derailment are excluded. Noxious fumes are included when the cause is fire related.

Consideration has been given to the interface of his Core Hazard with Core Hazard HP500 / HW500 / HN500 abnormal or criminal behaviour. The cluster comprises:

HN400 Fire at line side

HP400 Fire inside passenger carriage

HP401 fire outside passenger electric train

HP402 fire outside diesel passenger train

HP403 Fire at station

HW400 fire on electric freight train

HW401 fire on diesel freight train

5.1.20. Core Hazard: HP607—Unsound/Unsecured Structures

The HP514 Core Hazard for Unsound/Unsecured Structure has been developed to include those situations where structures are unstable creating a threat to passengers or neighbours. This core hazard shall not include instability of trains or the movement of materials on trains. Consideration has been given to the interface of this core hazard with the core hazards object on line and inappropriate separation between trains.

All structures going beyond the railway boundary are covered here and not in HP509, inappropriate separation between running rail and passenger.

Neither the causal nor the consequence models refer to situations where structures are unstable creating a threat to workers. This is a part of Core Hazard HW512 Unsecured Objects at Height and Core Hazard HW517 Collapsing Machinery/Materials/ Structures. The cluster comprises

HP404 Unsound/Unsecured Tree

HP405 Unsound/Unsecured Tunnel

HP406 Unsound/Unsecured Under-bridge / Culvert

HP407 Unsound/Unsecured over-bridge

HP408 Unsound/Unsecured Station

HP409 Unsound/Unsecured Signalling Structure

HP410 Unsound/Unsecured Electrification Structure

5.2. Workers Group

The national level safety study of the railway workers group was planned and conducted over a number of workshops with diverse participants from many of the stakeholder groups. A similar set of prompts and photos focused on this group were taken and composed into ‘A Day in the Life of a Railway Worker’ that covered most credible scenarios that employees/workers interact with the railways. This comprised planning, operating, station duties, maintenance and driving of trains. The pictorial scenarios were likewise employed as the backdrop to a creative Hazop style process to identify all circumstances where railway employees/workers were potentially exposed to hazardous states.

By the end of the national level workshops, 119 hazards had been identified [ 5 ] for the workers group. Through a further review, all hazards with common causality or synergy were grouped as a cluster under a core hazard. For the passenger group, each core hazard was tagged with a H for hazard, W for workers and a unique number that represents the relative proximity of the hazard to an accident scenario. The core hazards for the workers group, relating to the exposure scenarios are depicted as follows.

5.2.1. Core Hazard: HW500—Abnormal or Criminal Behaviour

The model developed for HW500 addresses the range of abnormal and criminal behaviours that are known to be performed within the railway infrastructure. They do not, however, address abnormal working practices of railway personnel, with the exception of train drivers and senior conductors. This was agreed with the experts at the start of the modelling process. The cluster comprises

HW426 Irresponsible behaviour

HW427 Destructive behaviour

HW428 Crossing line at station

5.2.2. Core Hazard: HW502—Loss of Passenger Compartment Integrity During Movement

Doors opened early on stopping slam shut or CDL trains, potentially resulting in workers on the train falling out of the train or workers on the station platform being struck by open doors.

Slam shut or CDL trains departing with a door open, potentially resulting in workers on the station platform being struck by the open door or the open door being struck by a passing train.

Doors opened during train movement, potentially resulting in workers falling out of the train.

Doors on the wrong side of the platform unlocked (on trains with sliding or CDL doors) or opened (on trains with slam shut doors), potentially leading to workers getting off the train on the wrong side, or falling out of the train onto the track. Also included here are incidents where doors which are on the same side of the train as the platform but which are not adjacent to the platform (e.g. when a train is longer than the platform) are unlocked or opened and passenger or worker leaves or falls out of the train.

Train carriage decoupling during movement, potentially leading to workers falling off the train.

Doors failing to open at a station are included within this core hazard in the causal analysis for consistency with earlier work but consequence barriers are not modelled as it is considered that there are no safety implications within the scope of this core hazard associated with doors failing to open. Train doors are barriers to consequence escalation for other core hazards, for example HP507 ‘Onset of fire/explosion’, but failure of train doors to open does not in itself present a hazard.

HW502 Loss of passenger compartment integrity during movement

5.2.3. Core Hazard: HW503—Worker in Path of Closing Train Doors

This hazard encompasses workers in path of closing train (HW503). The scope of this core hazard includes

Worker hit by closing door.

Worker caught in door of stationary train, potentially leading to the train moving off, dragging the person along the platform.

Worker trying to board a moving train, potentially leading to apparel being caught on the door and dragged along the platform or opening the door then falling and being hit by the door or caught up in the door.

HW503 HW503 worker/apparel in path of closing train door

5.2.4. Core Hazard: HW505—Loss of Balance

We have excluded from this core hazard any falls occurring on level crossings, although works crossings were included. There is some overlap at the consequence side with HW508. We have included falls getting on and off trains by drivers and cleaning staff who often have to negotiate steps and gaps which would not be encountered by passengers. The cluster comprises

HW410 Loss of balance on the ground

HW411 Loss of balance on stairs and escalators

HW412 Loss of balance getting on and off trains

HW413 Loss of balance whilst in a train

HW414 Loss of balance when working at height

5.2.5. Core Hazard: HW508—Inappropriate Separation between Running Railways and Workers

The HW508 Core Hazard for inappropriate separation between running rail and workers has been developed to include those situations where the distance between the running rail and people is not sufficient to ensure the safety of workers.

This core hazard does not include Core Hazard HN501 failure of level crossing to protect the public from passing trains. This model also does not include incidents of inappropriate separation between running rail and workers resulting from suicides. Finally, this model does not include incidents of inappropriate separation between running rail and people caused by derailment. The cluster comprises

HW402 Red zone working

HW403 Green zone working

5.2.6. Core Hazard: HW509—Inappropriate Separation between Un-insulated Live Conductors and Workers

The scope of ‘Inappropriate separation between un-insulated live conductors and workers’ includes the following:

HW415 Occurrence of DC power arc

HW416 Existence of touch potential

HW417 Structure exposed to leakage current [DC]

HW418 Inappropriate separation from conductor rail

HW419 Structure in contact with live conductor rail

HW420 Inappropriate separation from OHL

HW421 Structure in contact with live OHL

HW422 Inappropriate separation from OHL induced voltage

HW423 Inappropriate separation from ground potential

HW424 Occurrence of AC power arc

HW425 Structure exposed to current leakage [AC]

5.2.7. Core Hazard: HW511—Worker Protruding Beyond Train Gauge During Movement

Core Hazard HW511, worker protruding beyond train gauge during movement, have been developed to include all situations in which a person is protruding outside the gauge of a moving train.

The model developed excludes incidents resulting from suicide or attempted suicide—these are assumed to be covered under HHW500 abnormal or criminal behaviour. The cluster comprises

HW511 Worker protruding beyond train gauge

5.2.8. Core Hazard: HW512—Unsecured Objects at Height

This core hazard falls within the generic grouping of ‘Objects Falling from Height’ affecting workers (HW512) that includes the following:

Objects thrown at trains (HP513, HW512) or hung in front of trains (HW512).

Falling luggage stored at height on trains and falling train furniture (HP513, HW512).

Falling objects from the infrastructure (HW512, HN512).

HW512 Unsecured objects at height

5.2.9. Core Hazard: HW513—Inappropriate Separation between Workers and Moving Vehicle (Other Than Rail Vehicle)

The scope of this core hazard is concerned with inappropriate separation between the workers (HW513) and moving vehicles (not rail vehicles). This encompasses the following:

HW513 inappropriate separation between workers and vehicles

5.2.10. Core Hazard: HW514—Handling Heavy Loads

The core hazard was defined to assume some error had occurred in handling a heavy load since otherwise the estimated number of incidents could be so high to be meaningless as a hazard. We scoped the hazard to cover manual handling of loads, including unloading from vehicles.

We did not formulate a definition of a heavy load as a specific weight but considered any incident where the handling of a load caused some loss and where the weight of the load was a factor. We followed the general approach of HP516 of dividing the hazard into problems with lifting, carrying or stacking a load. The cluster comprises

HW514 Improper manual handling of heavy load

5.2.11. Core Hazard: HW517—Unsound/Unsecured Machinery/Materials or Structures

Crane and rail crane collapse potentially leading to a worker being crushed.

Collapse of stacked materials potentially leading to a worker being crushed.

Inadequate protection for working at height potentially leading to a worker falling whilst working at height.

Misuse or inadequate maintenance of tools causing worker injury.

HW517 unsound/unsecured machinery/materials/structures

5.2.12. Core Hazard: HW518—Work in Confined Spaces

We kept the scope of this hazard quite large to include events where workers are in spaces such as offices and drivers in cabs and are exposed to hazards such as fumes from batteries. There is probably some overlap with core hazard area HW512 in the consequences relating to workers in a confined space being affected by toxic or hazardous fumes. We have excluded shunting incidents since these are being dealt with under Core Hazard area HW508.

HW518 Work taking place in confined space

5.2.13. Core Hazard: HW519—Contaminated Water and/or Land

The core hazards for contaminated water and/or land for workers and neighbourhood (HW519 and HN502, respectively) have been defined as the release of harmful substances likely to cause contamination of the environment. This allows the consideration of detection, mitigation and remediation barriers in the consequence domain. The release of toxic gases likely to cause harm to workers or neighbours has also been considered under this core hazard.

This core hazard considers harm to workers or neighbours as a result of coming into contact with land, water or air contaminated with harmful substances, rather than coming into contact with the harmful substances themselves although the toxicology is similar, the frequency and dispersion will differ. Core Hazard HW521, workers in proximity to harmful substances covers the case where water or land contamination is not an issue.

HW519 Release of hazardous substances

5.2.14. Core Hazard: HW520—Inappropriate Working Methods/Environment

The scope of this hazard was defined to include most ‘occupational’ accidents where typically a single worker is affected. We also included the case of crane loads and other mechanical equipment fouling trains passing nearby as this was always due to operator error. Any particular scenario where an inappropriate working method was applied to result in an incident which was also covered by another core hazard was excluded. For example, if an inappropriate lifting technique was applied to a task involving a heavy object, we did not consider this part of this core hazard but dealt with it under HW514.

HW520 Inappropriate working methods/environment

5.2.15. Core Hazard: HW521—Workers in Proximity to Harmful Substances

The Core Hazards Workers in Proximity to Harmful Substances (HW521) have been defined as the hazard presented to workers when in proximity to uncontrolled harmful substances. This includes those harmful substances carried by the railway (dangerous goods) as well as harmful substances routinely used in the running and maintenance of the railway (fuel oils, caustics, etc.). It does not include substances which are harmful only due to their physical state, for example boiling water or hot food, or indeed, railway food in general.

The case where workers come into proximity to harmful substances through contaminated water or land is not considered in this report as that case is covered under Core Hazard HW519 contaminated water and/or land. The cluster comprises

HW521 Workers in proximity to harmful substances

5.2.16. Core Hazard: HW522—Road Vehicle Accidents

Core Hazard HW522, road vehicle accidents covers accidents to workers in road vehicles whilst on railway business, but on the public highway. The model excludes incidents on Railtrack property and controlled infrastructure—these are covered under Core Hazards HW513/HP515 inappropriate separation between workers/passengers and Moving Vehicle (other than Rail Vehicle).The cluster comprises:

HW522 Road Vehicle Accident

5.2.17. Core Hazard: HW523—Objects Thrown or Falling from Train

The core hazard considered in this report considers the impact on workers of ‘Objects Thrown or Falling from Train’. The impact on neighbours of objects thrown or falling from trains is included in the work scope for HN511 and is not included in the scope of work reported here. The work scope for HW523 includes the following:

Objects deliberately thrown from trains.

Objects falling off trains, for example shattered brake disk.

Loads falling from freight trains, including ballast.

HW523 Object thrown or falls from train

5.3. Neighbours group

The national level safety study of the railway neighbours group was planned and conducted over a number of workshops with diverse participants from many of the stakeholder groups. Neighbours are those who live within proximity of the railway environment and cross the line at level crossings. A similar set of prompts and photos focused on this group were taken and composed into ‘A Day in the Life of a Railway Neighbour’ that covered most credible scenarios that neighbours of the railways get exposed to generally involuntarily. The pictorial scenarios were employed as the backdrop to a creative Hazop style process to identify all circumstances where railway neighbours were potentially exposed to hazardous states.

By the end of the national level workshops, 64 hazards had been identified [ 5 ] for the neighbours group. In a similar manner, Core Hazards were developed for the neighbour group; each Core Hazard was tagged with a H for Hazard, N for Neighbour and a unique number that represents the relative proximity of the hazard to an accident scenario. The core hazards for the neighbour group, relating to the exposure scenarios are depicted as follows.

5.3.1. Core Hazard: HN500—Abnormal or Criminal Behaviour

The models for HP500, HW500 and HN500 address the range of abnormal and criminal behaviours that are known to be performed within the railway infrastructure. They do not, however, address abnormal working practices of railway personnel, with the exception of train drivers and senior conductors. This was agreed between Human Engineering and Railtrack at the start of the modelling process. The cluster comprises

HN416 Suicide attempt

HN417 Trespass

HN418 Abnormal behaviour at special events

5.3.2. Core Hazard: HN501—Crossing Running Railway at Level Crossing

Core Hazard HN501, crossing running railway at a level crossing, has been developed to include all situations in which a user (i.e. a Neighbour) is present on a level crossing without the intended degree of protection from trains. This may arise from intentional or inadvertent misuse of the crossing by the neighbour as well as from failures and errors in railway equipment and procedures.

The definition excludes situations in which harm may arise when using a level crossing as intended, for example if a user falls and injures themselves on a crossing but is still able to cross within the design time limit. Such occurrences are assumed to be subsumed within Core Hazard HN506, loss of balance.

The model excludes incidents at level crossings resulting from suicide or attempted suicide—these are assumed to be covered under HN500 abnormal or criminal behaviour

The model is limited to neighbour hazards and thus does not consider hazards at worker crossings provided within stations, depots, sidings etc. Un-authorised neighbour use of such crossings should be regarded as abnormal or criminal behaviour (HN500), being a form of trespass. (Unauthorised passenger use is covered in Core Hazards HP509 inappropriate separation between running railway and workers/ passengers.)

It should be noted that HN509, inappropriate separation between running railway and neighbourhood, did not consider level crossing hazards. HN501 and HN509 are thus taken to be mutually exclusive.). The cluster comprises

HN480 crossing running railway at a manual level crossing

HN481 crossing running railway at an automatic level crossing

HN482 crossing running railway at user worked level crossing

HN484 crossing running railway at a level crossing

5.3.3. Core Hazard: HN502—Contaminated Water and/or Land

The core hazards for contaminated water and/or land for neighbours have been defined as the release of harmful substances likely to cause contamination of the environment. This allows the consideration of detection, mitigation and remediation barriers in the consequence domain. The release of toxic gases likely to cause harm to workers or neighbours has also been considered under this core hazard.

This core hazard considers harm to workers or neighbours as a result of coming into contact with land, water or air contaminated with harmful substances, rather than coming into contact with the harmful substances themselves—although the toxicology is similar, the frequency and dispersion will differ. The cluster comprises

HN502 Contaminated Water and/or Land

5.3.4. Core Hazard: HN503—Electro-Magnetic Interference (EMI) Caused to by Railway Operations

EMI caused by railway operations to businesses, general public, adjacent buildings, hospitals, HN503 has been developed to include those situations where EMI from the infrastructure or rolling stock could affect the safety of neighbours directly. This core hazard does not include EMI caused by infrastructure or rolling stock to signalling and track circuits, or interference between the rolling stock and infrastructure. Such interference could be considered part of the base event frequencies for other core hazards. Interference caused by radio systems is not explicitly examined, it is considered to be subsumed into the frequencies of the initiating events identified and would be subject to the same design controls and regulations. In addition, this core hazard does not consider the effects of earth leakage currents causing corrosion of steel pipelines or structures. Thus issues such as HN30 (corrosion of structures from dc rail systems) are covered under HN510. That core hazard also covers the possibility of electrocution due to inductive pickup in cables running adjacent to the AC electrified lines. The cluster comprises

HN503 EMI impact on neighbourhood

5.3.5. Core Hazard: HN504—Impact from Railway Construction/Maintenance Works

The scope of ‘impact from railway construction and maintenance works’ includes the following:

Inappropriate construction and maintenance practices’ not included under other core hazards

Dumping heavy loads onto roads, buildings and property of neighbours

Release of flammable materials (other than gas mains) and damage to electrical cabling and gas mains

HN504 Impact from railway construction/maintenance works

5.3.6. Core Hazard: HN506—Loss of Balance

We have excluded from this core hazard falls to trespassers and falls occurring on level crossings. As all persons on stations are regarded as passengers for the purpose of this project, the relevant neighbours for this core hazard are basically those persons using footpaths and footbridges which form part of the railway infrastructure. Footpaths alongside public roads are part of the public highway and are excluded. The cluster comprises

HN403 Loss of balance on the ground

HN404 Loss of balance on stairs

5.3.7. Core Hazard: HN509—Inappropriate Separation between Running Railway and Neighbourhood

The HN509 Core Hazard for inappropriate separation between running rail and neighbours have been developed to include those situations where the distance between the running rail and people is not sufficient to ensure the safety of passengers, workers or neighbourhood.

This core hazard does not include Core Hazard HN501 failure of level crossing to protect the public from passing trains. This model also does not include incidents of inappropriate separation between running rail and neighbourhood resulting from suicide. Finally, this model does not include incidents of inappropriate separation between running rail and people caused by Derailment. The cluster comprises

HN509 Inappropriate separation between rail &neighbours

5.3.8. Core Hazard: HN510—Inappropriate Separation between Un-insulated Live Conductors and the Public

The scope of ‘inappropriate separation between un-insulated live conductors and the public’ includes the following:

HN405 Occurrence of DC power arc

HN406 Existence of touch potential

HN407 Structure exposed to leakage current [DC]

HN408 Inappropriate separation from DC conductor rail

HN409 Structure in contact with live conductor rail

HN410 Inappropriate separation from OHL live conductor

HN411 Structure in contact with live OHL

HN412 Inappropriate separation from OHL induced voltage

HN413 Inappropriate separation from ground potential

HN414 Occurrence of AC power arc

HN415 Structure exposed to leakage current [AC]

5.3.9. Core Hazard: HN511—Flying Debris from Moving Train and Objects Falling from Trains

HN511 Core Hazard for flying debris from moving trains and objects falling from trains has been developed to include those situations where parts of the train and objects carried on the train are separated from the moving train and are a potential hazard to neighbours.

This core hazard does not include things falling from bridges into the surrounding neighbourhood. These incidents are covered in the Core Hazard HN512 unsecured objects at height.

Neither the causal nor the consequence models refer to situations where parts of the train and objects carried on the train are separated from the moving train and are a potential hazard to passengers or workers. The cluster comprises

HN511 Flying debris / objects falling from trains

5.3.10. Core Hazard: HN512—Unsecured Objects at Height

This core hazard falls within the generic grouping of ‘Objects Falling from Height’ affecting neighbours (HN512) which includes the following:

HN512 Unsecured objects falling from height

6. System Level Security Issues

• U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis

Antisocial Behaviour and Vandalism

IP Espionage/Violations

Theft, Extortion, and Fraud

Robberies, Assaults

Terrorism and CBRN Attacks

Whilst vandalism is of limited consequence and often related to adventure seeking youth, the other categories of concern specifically terrorism pose a largely new sinister development often beyond the powers of transportation authorities to predict, prevent or contain. This is where the power of scientific structured approaches and methodologies principally applied in safety engineering can be exploited to render assurance in transportation security in road, rail, shipping and aviation transport hubs.

The proficient assessment, control and mitigation of safety and security risks demand a systematic and objective approach to understanding and proactive management of response processes. However, the traditional focus of security relating to the physical infrastructure and systems is now extended to cyber systems in view of the extensive deployment of modern communications and computing in the railways. A systematic approach to system level security should consider physical and cyber threats and vulnerabilities to assure adequate security throughout the life cycle of the product, process, system or undertaking.

Many facets of a system’s performance are inter-related and overall optimisation requires a reasonable insight into the desirable system properties and performance profile. This is equally applicable to the transportation and railways where the provision of service is nowadays taking place within a commercial and cost/performance conscious environment.

Adoption of a systemic and numerate approach to safety and security assurance within an integrated systems framework yields a more inclusive understanding of key facets of performance and the inevitable trade-offs between cost, reliability, quality, safety, security and capacity, journey time/punctuality in the railway context. It also generates rational criteria in support of decision making thus reducing the dependency upon opinion-based subjectivity, lengthy processes and less-informed costly choices. The enhanced objectivity and transparency would result in streamlined decision making and more efficient/responsive processes thus saving time and cost and fostering progress. Additionally, it generates major economic benefits by arriving at a right solution first time. In short, a more objective and numerate approach could help to avoid the subjectivity which be-devils much of the current approach to safety and security management.

Finally, an integrated approach to safety and security assurance that is based on a generic accident model is intuitively more pertinent than one based on anecdotal observation and view of available technologies. It rebalances focus on risks that arise during design, installation, operation, maintenance and retrofitting. It cuts across organisational boundaries, roles, responsibilities and requisite competences that, in the system life-cycle approach, tend to be overlooked thus constraining our perception of risks.

• UITP-UIC Press Release June 2004

Systematic and scientific study of transportation networks with a view to identify vulnerabilities to malicious intent in a multi-modal environment whilst also identifying safety and environmental issues.

Assessment of the risks associated with significant hazards, vulnerabilities or threats.

Identification of principal elimination, control and mitigation measures.

Cost-benefit studies to provide technical, procedural and organisational risk elimination/control/mitigation measures with highest potential impact.

Transportation threat/vulnerability log to keep key stakeholders informed and engaged in the overall assurance process.

Transportation surety cases to capture the system, safety and security issues (hazards, threats and vulnerabilities), control and mitigation measures and the rationale for the continued vigilance and continual improvement.

Safety and security (Surety) management systems to provide a framework for continued control and fulfilment of the obligations by the duty holders.

The key benefits will accrue from a structured and cost-effective and high-performance approach to the integrated safety and security assurance of products, systems and services hence surety. In view of the generic nature of the process, these capabilities can be extended to provide the integrated services beyond transportation.

Integrated framework for assurance of safety and security is highly pertinent to the emerging profile of the railways in that, whilst safety is subject to an impressive record of improvement, security is a largely unknown and poses the bigger challenge in the overall assurance landscape.

The risk profiling of the national railways depicted in Section 5 did not take security threats and system level vulnerabilities into account. This was largely driven by the concerns over network safety at the time and lack of immediate security threats to the railways. Ever-since, railways and mass transit systems in the European mainland and indeed in Asia have been targets of attacks and terrorism highlighting the need for a consistent, comprehensive and effective approach to security assurance alongside that of safety.

7. Safety Roles and Competences

The safety performance of the various transportation modes is on the steady improvement largely driven by better regulation, improved deployment of communications and computing technologies in spite of rising speeds and passenger numbers. Many countries in North West Europe outperform the European average for passenger and workforce fatalities with Denmark, United Kingdom and Netherlands in the top three best performing countries that have performance an order of magnitude below the European average.

The European Railway Agency (ERA) has published indicative statistics on the relative safety of various transportation modes that indicates railways are approaching aviation levels of safety on a normalised (per billion kilometre of passenger travel) basis ( Table 5 ).

Relative Safety of Transportation Modes (Source ERA)

Taking the top level system’s constituents perspective as depicted in Figure 2 , we postulate that whilst advancing technology has made significant contributions to the reliability and integrity of the automation and infrastructure, the human (people and process) aspects have lagged behind in the relative scale of improvement. The principal aspects relating to people’s influence on the safety performance relate to their competence and the collective values/behaviours referred to as safety culture. The rules, codes of practice and standards constitute the other key contributory facet of overall system safety framework. The desired improvements in rules and standards as well as understanding and improving collective safety culture are beyond the scope of the current discussion. Here, we concentrate on the systematic characterisation, evaluation, assessment and management of safety competences as a key aspect of the human dimension in safety performance.

7.1. Competence

The European Guide to good practice in knowledge management [ 6 ] defines competence as an appropriate blend of knowledge, experience and motivational factors that enables a person to perform a task successfully. In this context, competence is the ability to perform a task correctly, efficiently and consistently to a high quality, under varying conditions, to the satisfaction of the end client. This is a much more demanding portfolio of talents and capabilities than successful application of knowledge. So a competent person is much more than and knowledge worker [ 20 ]. Competency may also be attributed to a group or a team when a task is performed by more than one person in view of the multi-disciplinary nature, complexity or the scale. A competent person or team requires a number of requisite qualities and capabilities, namely

The domain knowledge empirical, scientific or a blend of both.

The experience of application (knowing what works) in different contexts and the requisite skills.

The drive, motivation to achieve the goals and strive for betterment/excellence as well as appropriate behaviours such as team work, leadership, compliance with professional codes etc.

The ability to adapt to changing circumstances and demands by creating new know-how.

The ability to perform the requisite tasks efficiently and minimise wastage of physical and virtual resources.

The ability to sense what is desired and consistently delivers a high quality to the satisfaction of the end client(s).

The right blend of these abilities renders a person or group of people (a team) competent in that they would achieve the desired outcomes consistently, efficiently, every time or more often than not satisfying or exceeding the expectations of the clients over varying circumstances. Such persons/groups will be recognised for their mastery of the discipline and not just considered a fount of relevant knowledge often characterised by qualifications. In this spirit, competence is the ability to generate success, satisfaction, value and excellence from the application of knowledge and knowhow.

The Business Dictionary [ 7 ] defines competence as a cluster of related abilities, commitments, knowledge and skills that enable a person (or an organisation) to act effectively in a job or situation. It further states that competence indicates sufficiency of knowledge and skills that enable someone to act in a wide variety of situations. Because each level of responsibility has its own requirements, competence can occur in any period of a person’s life or at any stage of his or her career. With reference to the legal profession, the dictionary defines competence as the capacity of a person to understand a situation and to act reasonably. The disputes regarding the competence of an individual are settled by a judge and not by a professional (such as a doctor or a psychiatrist) although the judge may seek expert opinion before delivering at a judgment.

In the context of UK’s Managing Health and Safety in Construction (CDM Regulations), [ 8 ] the HSE elaborates on the necessity for competence as follows.

To be competent an organisation or individual must have:

Sufficient knowledge of the tasks to be undertaken and the risks involved.

The experience and ability to carry out their duties in relation to the project, to recognise their limitations and take appropriate action to prevent harm to those carrying out construction work, or those affected by the work.

The HSE [ 9 ] further maintain that competence develops over time. Individuals develop their competence through a mix of initial training, on-the-job learning, instruction, assessment and formal qualification. In the early stages of training and experience, individuals should be closely supervised. As competence develops, the need for direct supervision should be reduced. If you are engaging a person or organisation to carry out construction work for you, then you need to make a reasonable judgement of their competence based on evidence. The evidence will usually be supplied to you by the person or organisation quoting or bidding for the work. There are many industry card schemes which can help in judging competence. However, the possession of a card by an individual is only one indication of competence. You are expected to make efforts to establish what qualifications and experience the cardholder has.

7.2. Recent Developments

The matters of competence and relevance of the deployed human resource to the requirements of mission and safety critical tasks have always been recognised but not been explicitly formalised until recently. The European Standard for Safety Critical Software [ 11 ] in the rail sector is potentially the first to recognise and formalise human competence requirements in the context of high-integrity software development for railway applications. The tables in Annex B of the standard have ten normative role specifications in the development of high-integrity software for safety applications, namely

B.1: Software Requirements Manager

B.2: Software Designer

B.3: Software Implementer

B.4: Software Tester

B.5: Software Verifier

B.6: Software Integrator

B.7: Software Validator

B.8: Software Assessor

B.9: Software Project Manager

B.10: Software Configuration Manager.

For each one of the above roles, a template based on the UML Class for the role is developed to describe the minimum essential competence requirements in terms of attributes (qualities) and operations (key activities and responsibilities) in the development and deployment of safety critical software. Whilst these appear simplistic and potentially inadequate, the significance of recognising and incorporating human characteristics in a traditional process only standard cannot be under-stated. In this respect, the competence requirements in the safety critical software standard are just a start and a foundation for more elaborations!

In principle, many of the normative software roles are generic and can be modified and applied to hardware, sub-system and system aspects. In a complex and safety critical project, it is beneficial if not necessary to adopt a systematic approach to characterising, assessing and managing competence in the key roles since as a minimum; these will be required for sub-system and system level software developers where a fair proportion of the change will originate from. To this end, a Competence Assessment and Management System is an essential aspect of a credible strategy within the context of a safety critical programme.

7.3. Competence Assessment and Management, a Systems Approach

Given the six facets of competence elaborated earlier under 7.1, the acquisition, assessment, development and management of competence poses a challenge beyond the traditional education and curriculum vitae. Whilst a blend of all six facets is a pre-requisite for competency and mastery in a given discipline, the significance of each is highly dependent on the context and requirements of a given domain. Whilst theoretical knowledge plays a more significant role in abstract scenarios, experience of application, adaptability and creativity may become more prominent in other domains. Whatever the domain, however, a systems framework for the evaluation, development and enhancement of competence is called for. This by necessity comprises two inter-dependent framework one focused on evaluation and assessment and the other on the management of competence.

7.3.1. Assessment of Competence

The competence assessment framework provides an integrated perspective on competence in a given context whilst additionally empowering the duty holders or the organisation to benchmark each aspect, measure, assess and where necessary take actions to enhance various elements in the framework. [ 20 ] This is illustrated in the Weighted Factors Analysis (WeFA) schema of Figure 7 . The latter aspects of benchmarking, evaluating, assessing and potentially enhancing competence are inherent in the underpinning WeFA methodology [ 12 ] and not elaborated here. The Schema details are omitted and elaborated in the subsequent section.

The Systemic Competence Assessment Framework

The determination, benchmarking, evaluation and quantified performance assessment of six drivers and three inhibitor Goals in the above WeFA schema is carried out as follows

7.3.1.1. Driver Goals

The requisite ‘domain knowledge and understanding’ in a given context as depicted in the driver Goal 1 (G1) is broadly supported by relevant industry’s skill/competence frameworks. There are a number of such frameworks in use largely within various engineering disciplines in the United Kingdom, for example OSCEng, [ 13 ] IRSE [ 14 ] and IET [ 15 ]. Given the poor state of attention to competence and systematic approaches to its recognition, evaluation and assessment internationally, United Kingdom appears amongst the leading proponents globally [ 16 ].

The composition and extent of ‘skill and relevant experience’ in a given context as depicted in the driver Goal 2 (G2) in the assessment framework is supported by subsequent decomposition of G2 into lower-level WeFA structures, the so-called Level 2 and Level 3 goals. This principally helps determine the driver and inhibitor goals for the higher-level goal, the domain experience.

The requisite ‘psycho-physical factors and behaviours’ in a given context as depicted in the driver Goal 3 (G3) in the framework is supported by subsequent decomposition of G3 into lower-level WeFA structures in WeFA. This principally helps determine the driver and inhibitor goals for motivational, behavioural and drive aspects.

The essential determinants of ‘efficiency and waste minimisation’ in carrying out tasks in a given context as depicted in the driver Goal 4 (G4) in the framework is supported by subsequent decomposition of G4 into lower-level WeFA structures that drive or inhibit this goal.

The key determinants of ‘quality, excellence and consistency’ in carrying out tasks in a given context as depicted in the driver Goal 5 (G5) in the framework is supported by subsequent decomposition of G5 into lower-level WeFA structures, drivers and inhibitors, respectively.

Finally, the degree of ‘adaptability, innovation and creativity’ in a given context as depicted in the driver Goal 6 (G6) in the framework is supported by subsequent decomposition into lower-level factors relevant to this focus.

Given the hierarchical nature of WeFA schema, the so-called level 1 goals in the proposed individual competence assurance system are generic and universal. The decomposition of these goals into appropriate drivers and inhibitors in levels 2 and beyond will help tailor the generic model towards specific requirements of a given role in a given context. The driver and inhibitor goals in levels 2 and below in a competence role schema denote the specific measurable predictors for generic level 1 goals such as knowledge, experience.

Once a role is completely characterised through decomposition of the generic model (level 1) into a number of predictors (levels 2 and below), the schema is subsequently weighted by the same expert panel that have helped with the development of the schema. This assigns relative significance to the factors in the schema thus rendering it compatible with the values, preferences and possibly culturally driven norms within the application environment. A calibrated schema is then reviewed, enhanced and validated for general application within the context of use. In an automated environment, a validated/authorised schema can be assigned to every member of staff in a given role, enabling them to evaluate themselves against the criteria and develop a competence profile to establish the areas in need of further development.

7.3.1.2. Inhibitor Goals

The key aspects and the extent of ‘lack or inadequacy of relevant new learning’ in a given context of application as depicted in the inhibitor Goal 1 (G1) in the proposed framework is supported by subsequent decomposition into lower-level WeFA structures, the so-called Level 2 and Level 3 drivers and inhibitors.

The key predictors and the extent of the ‘absence or inadequacy of relevant practice’ in a given context as depicted in the inhibitor Goal 2 (G2) in the framework is supported by subsequent decomposition into lower-level WeFA structures.

Finally, the degree of ‘recurrent errors and violations’ in a given context as depicted in the inhibitor Goal 3 (G3) in the framework is supported by subsequent decomposition into specific predictors of these behaviours and outcomes in the schema.

A suitably developed and validated WeFA schema for competence assessment in a given role, context/domain additionally requires a measurement scale for each goal (driver or inhibitor) as well the weights, that is the strengths of influence(s) from each goal, on higher-level goals. Once established, the weighted framework lends itself to application for assessment and management of individual’s or groups’ competence in fulfilling tasks in the particular context as depicted by the framework. This would render a number of advanced features and benefits, namely

Up to five levels of competence comprising apprentice, technician, practitioner, expert, leader in a given role/domain;

Identification of the gaps and training/experience/mentoring requirements;

A consistent and systematic regime for continual assessment and enhancement.

It should be noted that assessment here is devised and intended as a tool in the service of systematic approach to staff development and should not be misconstrued as an adversarial instrument for classification of people’s contributions to the organisation.

7.3.2. Management of Competence

The deliverables of the engineering process applied to the creation and realization of parts, products, systems or processes often follow a life cycle from concept to decommissioning as popularised by engineering standards as detailed in Section 2.

In this spirit, the human resource involvement/employment within an engineering environment, organisation or project likewise follows a life-cycle comprising seven key phases essential to the systematic and focused management of knowledge, [ 20 ] namely

Proactivity comprises corporate policy, leadership, mission, objectives, planning, quality assurance and commitments to competency and service delivery for the whole organisation;

Architecting and profiling which comprises specification and development of a corporate structure aligned with the strategy and policy objectives together with the definition of roles and capabilities to fulfil these;

Placement which essentially involves advertising and attracting candidates matching the role profiles/requirements involving search, selection and induction. Selection relates to deriving role focused criteria and relevant tests to assist with the systematic assessment, scoring and appointment tasks. Induction involves a period of briefing, familiarisation and possibly training the extent of which is determined by the familiarity and competence of the individual concerned and the complexity and novelty of the role;

Deployment and empowerment which involves a holistic description depicting the scope of the responsibility, accountability and technical/managerial tasks associated with a specific role and empowering the individual to fulfil the demands of the role. This would include training, supervision, coaching, resourcing, delineation of requisite authority and accountabilities, mentoring and potential certification as means to empowerment for achievement and development;

Appraisal which involves the planning and setting performance objectives, and identification of the performance indicators/predictors synergistic to the demands of a role and the individual’s domain knowledge, aimed at ensuring all relevant and periphery aspects of the role are adequately addressed and the necessary provisions are made for learning where a need is identified. The evaluation and appraisal provides the necessary feedback on compliance with individual and organisational objectives and achievement, enabling the organisation to identify and reward good performance and develop remedial solutions where necessary;

Organisation and culture which involves clarification of role relationships and communications, support, reward and motivational aspects for competency development including requisite resources and learning processes for attaining the policy objectives. This is intended to develop and foster a caring and sensitive approach/culture nurturing talents and paving the way towards an innovating organisation;

Continual development and progression: this comprises identifying the synergistic aspects which may serve as a complementary and rewarding extension to individuals’/teams’ specific roles. Development may involve managerial, technical, support functions or an appropriate blend of duties at the whole life-cycle level or extensions to the role-specific activities and vision/ career paths above an existing role into other parts of an organisation and even beyond. The review and assessment of success in all the principles inherent in the framework also fall within the continual development principle.

The seven focal areas/principles constitute a systematic competency management framework. It is worth noting, however, that employment and project/product life cycles are orthogonal in that securing the requisite human resource and competence for any phase of an engineering production activity would potentially involve all the seven phases of the competence management.

The traditional process-based prescriptive rules and standards [ 4 ] have served the industry over a century where product and system complexities were generally low permitting good design and sufficient testing to ensure integrity of products, processes and systems. The pervasive complexities arising from adoption of new ICT technologies have necessitated a continuous approach to assurance throughout the life cycle as advocated by modern standards. This is now the accepted norm in the most safety and mission critical applications and industries.

Alas, the significance and role of the human agent has been largely ignored so far on the unfounded assumption that a recipe given to any capable and qualified person will ensure quality and integrity of the outcomes. With the ever increasing embedded knowledge contents in most products, processes and systems, the necessity to focus on the humans as the source of such creation, and their fitness for the task in hand is now gaining momentum. In the face of such realisation and demands, our capacity to understand, characterise and evaluate human capabilities and latent potential has lagged significantly behind other technological advances.

We posit that human competence should be regarded as an integral facet of assuring designs, products and services, especially those with safety, security, sustainability or mission critical profile. The continual assurance processes advocated by modern standards need to complemented with focus on human competence to face the modern challenges of high risks and ever increasing complexity. The framework offered uses systems thinking to address assessment and management of competence within a coherent solution for enhancing quality, safety, reliability and assuring integrity.

8. General Trends and Emerging Issues

The statistics published by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) in the United Kingdom [ 17 ] is a timely reminder of the rise in passenger demand over the recent past that seems to illustrate a rising trend of roughly 50% per decade ( Figure 8 ).

Rise in UK Railway Passenger Demand (ORR data)

Data from the World Bank relating to a rather similar period [ 18 ] seem to pint to a rising trend especially in the developing economies ( Figure 9 ).

Rise in Global Railway Passenger Demand (World Bank Databank)

Overall, rise in global demand for rail transportation needs to be matched by increasing infrastructure investment, technology development and rising consciousness about the carbon foot print and global warming impact of transportation. Given the highly advantageous position of rail transportation with respect to sustainability, energy efficiency, carbon footprint, convenience and the increasing speeds, this is a growth industry on a competition course with the airlines.

With the advancing technology, increasing automation, land speeds and demand for higher levels of safety, the key issues facing the industry from a safety and security perspective will be

Safety and security assurance of complex communications, supervisory and control systems comprising advanced hardware, hugely intricate heterogeneous software including some COTS components and vast amount of data.

Integration of diverse multi-sourced inter-operable systems into a safe operational railway system.

Understanding, addressing and monitoring of organisational and culture aspects of the human dimension.

Developing and adopting advanced evidence driven scientific frameworks for evaluation, assessment and certification of railway products, services and systems.

Integration of safety and security assessment and management frameworks [ 19 ] for enhanced effectiveness, efficiency and cost reduction.

Standardisation and harmonisation of operational rules across international borders.

Developing common methods and metrics for the evaluation and assessment of safety and security.

Finally, with the maturity of the ICT technologies employed and improvement of safety performance, the concern will shift towards security as a more likely cause for incidents and accidents than the traditional concern over safety. Increasing levels of automation in train driving, traffic management and control would expose the future railway environment to a range of security threats that may take the operators, IMs and the authorities by surprise unless security, alongside safety is taken into account throughout the life cycle of products, systems and processes.

To this end, a similar reference portfolio as developed for the UK national railway’s safety hazards is required to address security threats and vulnerabilities at railway system level. This will provide a rational, systematic and consistent support to the operators and the supply chain in the industry empowering them to effectively address the security requirements pertinent to the scope of their services, products, systems and processes.

9. Abbreviations

CBRN Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (attacks)

CDL Central Door Locking

CDM Construction, Design and Management (regulations)

Comms Communications

ConOps Concept of Operations

COTS Commercial-Off-the-Shelf

CRS Customer Requirements Specification

CSC Certificate of Safety Conformity

DRACAS Data Reporting and Corrective Action System

EMC Electro-Magnetic Compatibility

FMECA Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis

FRACAS Failure Reporting and Corrective Actions System

FSaR Functional Safety Requirements

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HAZAN Hazard Analysis

Hazid Hazard Identification

HAZOP Hazard And Operability Study

HRC Human Resource Competence

HSE Health and Safety Executive (UK)

HW Hardware

IHA Interface Hazard Analysis

IP Intellectual Property

ISA Independent Safety Assessor

IT Information Technology

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OHA Operational Hazard Analysis

OHL Over-Head Line

Ops Operations

OPSEC Operational Scenarios

OSHA Operation and System Hazard Analysis

PHA Preliminary Hazard Analysis

PSP Product, System or Process

PW People-ware, the human element in a control system

QMS Quality Management System

RAM Reliability, Availability, Maintainability

SDS System Design Specification

SDSS System Design Safety Specification

SHA System Hazard Analysis

SSHA Sub-system Hazard Analysis

SIL Safety Integrity Level

SLSR Railway System Level Safety Requirements

SMS Safety Management System

SMIS An old UK Safety Management Information System data base

SRS System Requirements Specification

SSHA Subsystem Hazard Analysis

SSRS Subsystem Requirements Specification

SW Software

THR Tolerable Hazard Rate

UML Unified Modelling Language

V&V Verification & Validation

VTR Validation Test Report

• 1. BS EN 50129:2003, Railway applications. Communication, signalling and processing systems. Safety related electronic systems for signalling.
• 2. BS ISO/IEC 15288:2002, Systems engineering. System lifecycle processes.
• 3. CLC/TR 50451:2007, Railway applications. Systematic Allocation of Safety Integrity Requirements.
• 4. Hessami, A. (1999). Safety Assurance, A Systems Paradigm, Hazard Prevention. Journal of System Safety Society, Volume 35, No. 3, pp. 8–13.
• 5. Risk Profiling of Railways Report (1997). Can access a copy that includes the Hazards Portfolio at: https://vegaglobalsystems.com/Resources.html. Look in Public Resources/Safety Research online library for the file.
• 6. European Guide to Good Practice in Knowledge Management, Work Item 5: Culture Working Draft 6.0, CEN-ISSS, July 2003.
• 7. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/
• 8. Managing health and safety in construction, Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (2007). (CDM) Approved Code of Practice, HSE Books, ISBN 9780717662234.
• 9. Railway Safety Principles and Guidance: Part 3 Section A (2002). Developing and Maintaining Staff Competence HSG197, HSE Books, ISBN 0 7176 1732 7.
• 10. +Safe Version 1.2, A Safety Extension to CMMi-DEV Version 1.2, Defence Materials Organisation, Australian Department of Defence, March 2007.
• 11. BS EN 50128:2011, Railway applications. Communications, signalling and processing systems. Software for railway control and protection systems.
• 12. Hessami, A. and Gray, R. (2002) Creativity, the Final Frontier? The 3rd. European Conference on Knowledge Management ECKM 2002, Trinity College Dublin, 24–25 September 2002.
• 13. OSCEng (2006). The Occupational Standards Council for Engineering publishes Occupational Standards for Engineering and Manufacturing (www.osceng.co.uk).
• 14. IRSE (2007). Institution of Railway Signal Engineers Licensing Scheme (www.irselicences.co.uk).
• 15. IET (2007). Competence Framework – Assessing Competence, The Institution of Engineering and Technology, UK (www.theiet.org/careers/cpd/competences).
• 16. ORR (2007). The Office of Rail Regulator Railway Safety Publication No 1 Developing and Maintaining Staff Competence.
• 17. ORR (2015). http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/statistical-releases
• 18. World Bank (2015). http://databank.worldbank.org/data/
• 19. Hessami, A.G. (May 2004). A Systems Framework for Safety & Security – The Holistic Paradigm. Systems Engineering Journal USA Volume 7, No 2.
• 20. Hessami, A.G. and Moore, M. (2010). Manage Competence Not Knowledge, Integrated Systems Design and Technology 2010, Knowledge Transfer in New Technologies, Springer, ISBN 978-3-642-17384-4.

© 2015 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

Railway research.

Published: 16 December 2015

By Sanjeev Kumar Appicharla

2815 downloads

By Jacek Kukulski

2805 downloads

By Hitoshi Tsunashima, Hirotaka Mori, Masayuki Ogino ...

2584 downloads

Digital Safety in Railway Transport—Aspects of Management and Technology pp 33–47 Cite as

Safety Management in Rail Transport: Theoretical Assumptions and Practical Implications

• Adam Jabłoński 6  
• First Online: 16 March 2022

280 Accesses

Part of the book series: Springer Series in Reliability Engineering ((RELIABILITY))

Purpose : The aim of this chapter is to present the key assumptions for understanding rail transport safety management.

Design/Methodology/Approach : A critical literature review and theoretical and practical reflections aimed at explaining the complexity of technological rail transport management, have been adopted as the methodology for this chapter.

Findings : This chapter presents the interdisciplinary nature of rail transport safety issues.

Research limitations/Implications : The limitations of the analytical and evaluation study stem from the difficulties in identifying those issues which are of the utmost importance in fully explaining the role of safety management against the background of specialist issues and contextual safety determinants of railway systems.

Practical implications : The practical nature of the issues discussed has been demonstrated in the resultant nature of the proposed methods and approaches to attempts to clarify the selected aspects of shaping approaches to rail transport safety.

Originality/Value : The originality of the analytical and research intention is the comprehensive identification of various concepts such as the role of railway market operators, the specificity of the functioning of the railway system, the value chain in rail transport, the safe operation of railway vehicles and the place and role of safety management systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Barnatt N, Jack A (2018) Safety analysis in a modern railway setting. Saf Sci 110:177–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.08.005

Article   Google Scholar  

Bieder C (2021) Safety science: a situated science, An exploration through the lens of Safety Management Systems. Saf Sci 135:105063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105063

Bolbot V, Theotokatos G, Bujorianu LM, Boulougouris E, Vassalos D (2019) Vulnerabilities and safety assurance methods in Cyber-Physical Systems: a comprehensive review. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 182:179–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2018.09.004

Defence Research and Development Canada (2006) A Technology Maturity Measurement System for the Department of National Defence. The TML System. Contract Report DRDC Atlantic CR 2005-279

Google Scholar  

Directive (EU) 2016/798 of The European Parliament and of The Council of 11 May 2016 on railway safety

IEC 6150801:2010 Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems—Parts 1

Kelessidis V (2001) Technology audit. Report Produced for the EC Funded Project INNOREGIO: Dissemination of Innovation and Knowledge Management Techniques. Thessaloniki Technology Park

Mankins JC (1995) Technology Readiness Levels—a white paper. Advanced Concepts Office, Office of Space Access and Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Washington, DC, USA

Pawlik M (2019) Referencyjny model funkcjonalny wspierania bezpieczeństwa i ochrony transportu kolejowego przez systemy z transmisją danych. IK, Warszawa

U.S. Department of Defense (2016) Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) guidance. U.S. Government Accountability Office

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Management and Quality Institute, WSB University in Poznań, Poznań, Poland

Adam Jabłoński

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Jabłoński .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Jabłoński, A. (2022). Safety Management in Rail Transport: Theoretical Assumptions and Practical Implications. In: Digital Safety in Railway Transport—Aspects of Management and Technology. Springer Series in Reliability Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96133-6_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96133-6_4

Published : 16 March 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-96132-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-96133-6

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Are Trains Safer Than Planes?

Tuesday's devastating Amtrak crash that has left eight dead and more than 200 injured — and sparked a showdown over Amtrak funding in Congress — has put a glaring spotlight on train safety. Though train derailments are actually quite common, each time a deadly incident like this occurs, it's normal to question the entire mode of transportation in general. While most people might know that motorcycle and car travel are the most risky forms of transportation, in light of the Amtrak crash, you might be wondering one thing: is riding on trains safer than flying on airplanes ? If you're a frequent train traveler, you might not like the answer.

That sounded pretty foreboding, so let me give a disclaimer that, regardless of the comparison, train travel is still a very safe mode of transportation. Train accidents, like plane crashes, get a lot of attention precisely because they're so rare. According to a 2013 study by economist Ian Savage, trains are the second-safest mode of transportation in the U.S. Between 2000 and 2009, the number of deaths per billion passenger-miles caused by trains was 0.43. In comparison, the number of deaths caused by cars was 7.3 and the number of deaths caused by motorcycles was a disturbing 213.

But trains are still only the second-safest option, with the first-safest option being — you guess it — flying.

According to that same study, the number of deaths per billion passenger-miles caused by airplanes is a measly 0.07 . And this statistic is just one of many that illustrate just how safe air travel is.

Last September, the Swiss-based Bureau of Aircraft Accidents listed the average rate of crashes was 2.1 per one million flights, which means you have a one in 15,000,000 chance of being in a plane crash. You are 15 times more likely to get struck by lightning . And this statistic was determined after the series of high-profile crashes that made aviophobes swear off flying for good, like the mysterious MH370 disappearance and the downing of MH17.

Similarly, in 2012, The New York Times cited Arnold Barnett, a professor of statistics at M.I.T., for this statistic: between 2008 and 2012, the odds of dying in a plane crash for passengers in the U.S. were one in 45 million flights . The Times further emphasized the point by revealing that with those odds, a passenger could fly every single day for an average of 123,000 years before dying in a plane accident.

And a Forbes report from March, which came out in the wake of the Germanwings crash, went even more specific by listing the odds of dying in a plane crash on one of the 39 bottom-ranked airlines with the worst accident rates as one in 2 million . Still very unlikely.

But, as I mentioned before, the overwhelming evidence that flying is safe should not take away from your confidence in train travel. Ultimately, it is also very rare to die in a train crash, especially for passengers. According to the National Transportation Safety Board's stats, of the 891 train deaths in the U.S. in 2013, only six of them were passengers . The vast majority were pedestrians or drivers who were struck by a train.

Another factor to consider in comparing train accidents and plane crashes? While trains have more accidents, plane crashes typically kill a lot more people per incident. In 2014, there were 990 plane-related deaths, but only 21 fatal airliner accidents. That's an average of 47 deaths per flight. So if you think of accidents in terms of how deadly they are of average, then flying would be significantly more deadly than riding a train.

But at the end of the day, the main point through all these statistics is: both flying and riding in trains are safe ways to travel. When you're in a car, however, always wear your seat belt. And just try to avoid motorcycles altogether. Images: Getty Images (3)

Rail Safety in the U.S.A.

Read our latest report on the central role rail should play in making America’s transportation system safer.

Rail plays an important role in the nation’s transportation system. It is not only energy efficient and environmentally sustainable. It is also vital for economic development, constantly transporting freight and people across the United States. Above all, rail is historically a safe mode of travel, and with continued investment and technological innovation, is becoming even safer.

Related Content

Train Control and Safety: Public Policy Meeting

Introduction, key information, implementation deadlines, positions of the stakeholders, key interactions.

Public policy meetings are an essential part of the legislative process in the United States. The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee oversees matters related to technology, science, consumer affairs, transportation, communications, and more (“Senate Committee,” 2018). The Committee consists of 27 members and includes seven subcommittees in specific fields of jurisdiction. Train safety is a crucial concern in the United States, where many people rely on rail transport for travel and commute (Kamga, 2015). The present paper will provide information about a recent hearing on train safety, during which the Committee discussed the implementation of positive train control technology.

The public policy meeting on train safety aimed to discuss the issue of applying positive train control (PTC) technology, which could help in preventing accidents by stopping a train automatically. The agenda items of the meeting were the implementation process, deadlines, noncompliance with the implementation requirements, and the consequences of noncompliance for the public, organizations, and transport authorities.

A total of 18 participants attended the meeting, most of whom were from the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. Representatives of the Federal Railroad Administration, New Jersey Transit Corporation, Government Accountability Office, and Amtrak also participated in the meeting. The hearing was held in a large office, with participants seating at a rounded table and other staff and journalists seated on the sides of the room.

Each seat at the table was equipped with a microphone, which allowed participants to hear one another easily. The meeting was opened by John Thune, who is the chair of the Committee (“Train safety,” 2018). Throughout the meeting, Committee members supported the discussion of key agenda items, and witnesses provided reports on the implementation progress and issues. The meeting was concluded by John Tune after all agenda items were addressed in sufficient depth.

One of the main topics that were discussed as part of the hearing was the deadlines for implementing PTC. The Committee process for this topic began with the report by Ronald Batory, the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration.

He reported on the progress of national railroads with regards to PTC implementation (“Train safety,” 2018). The topic was also supported by Susan Fleming, the Director of the Government Accountability Office for physical infrastructure issues, and other witnesses who were present during the hearing. The witnesses confirmed that the established schedule was not sufficient for railroads to implement the PTC technology without service disruptions. The discussion involved potential solutions, such as defining penalties for noncompliance with deadlines and criteria for allowing extensions.

However, as was noted by Fleming, few railroads will qualify for extensions, as the criteria included at least six other requirements (“Train safety,” 2018). Thus, although railroads have achieved substantial progress already, they might not qualify for an extension due to the complex criteria. Based on this example, the Committee process involves introducing the topic, gathering information from witnesses, making suggestions, and initiating discussion of any related issues.

The meeting involved two critical groups of stakeholders: the members of the Committee and the witnesses. The members of the Committee generally believed that deadlines should remain in place and extensions should only be awarded to railroads that meet the criteria (“Train safety,” 2018). However, some Committee members voiced their concerns with regards to penalties for noncompliance with deadlines because they feared that they would contribute to interruptions in service. The witnesses, on the other hand, mostly argued for allowing some railroads to complete the implementation by a different date due to the complex nature of the process.

The first important interaction occurred at the beginning of the meeting when witnesses were sharing their concerns regarding the deadlines for completing the project. This interaction was informative, as it provided critical data on the implementation process and the influence of constraints on railroad operations. The second significant interaction occurred at the middle of the hearing, when Scot Naparstek, the COO of Amtrak, and Cory Gardner discussed the financial issues associated with the installation of PTC technologies.

Naparstek highlighted that financial constraints contribute to the problems faced by railroads in completing the implementation by the set deadline. Gardner, on the other hand, noted that railroads received substantial federal funding that should have covered their expenses during the implementation process. This interaction highlighted the fact that processes that are technologically complex might result in increased expenditures, and thus it is more difficult to predict the exact amount of funding needed.

The meeting was initially designed to collect information on the progress of railroads all over the country in completing the project by the set deadline. This goal was achieved during the meeting, and new topics emerged as a result of the discussion. The first focus topic that was determined is funding since the witnesses highlighted that some railroads might require further financial support. The second focus topic is deadline feasibility, which was among the key issues indicated by the witnesses. Lastly, the witnesses also expressed their hopes that the Committee will consider making changes to the criteria for deadline extensions. According to Fleming, this would enable most railroads to complete the project on time without interrupting their services.

Kamga, C. (2015). Emerging travel trends, high-speed rail, and the public reinvention of US transportation. Transport Policy, 37 (1), 111-120.

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation . (2018). Web.

Train safety . (2018). Web.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, May 23). Train Control and Safety: Public Policy Meeting. https://studycorgi.com/train-control-and-safety-public-policy-meeting/

"Train Control and Safety: Public Policy Meeting." StudyCorgi , 23 May 2021, studycorgi.com/train-control-and-safety-public-policy-meeting/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'Train Control and Safety: Public Policy Meeting'. 23 May.

1. StudyCorgi . "Train Control and Safety: Public Policy Meeting." May 23, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/train-control-and-safety-public-policy-meeting/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Train Control and Safety: Public Policy Meeting." May 23, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/train-control-and-safety-public-policy-meeting/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "Train Control and Safety: Public Policy Meeting." May 23, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/train-control-and-safety-public-policy-meeting/.

This paper, “Train Control and Safety: Public Policy Meeting”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: May 30, 2021 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Essay on Train Accident

The rhythmic hum of wheels on tracks, the distant whistle announcing arrival or departure—trains are iconic symbols of connectivity and travel. However, with their massive size and intricate systems, accidents involving trains can result in devastating consequences. In this essay, we delve into the somber reality of train accidents, exploring the factors that contribute to their occurrence and the profound impact they have on individuals and communities.

Quick Overview:

• Train accidents can stem from mechanical failures, including issues with brakes, signals, or the overall functioning of the train’s components.
• Malfunctions in critical systems can compromise the train’s ability to operate safely, leading to potential collisions or derailments.
• Human error, such as mistakes made by train operators, signalmen, or maintenance crews, can contribute to accidents.
• Miscommunication or failure to follow established procedures may result in trains moving onto the same track or disregarding vital safety protocols.
• The condition of railway infrastructure, including tracks, bridges, and signaling systems, is crucial to preventing accidents.
• Poor maintenance, inadequate inspections, or outdated infrastructure can lead to accidents, especially during adverse weather conditions.
• Adverse weather conditions, such as heavy rain, snow, or extreme temperatures, can impact the safety of train operations.
• Slippery tracks, reduced visibility, and challenges in maintaining traction contribute to the heightened risk of accidents during inclement weather.
• Train accidents can be influenced by factors beyond the railway environment, such as trespassing, vehicular crossings, or intentional actions like vandalism.
• Ensuring the safety of railway zones requires addressing not only railway-specific issues but also broader societal factors contributing to accidents.

Understanding the Causes and Consequences:

Train accidents are often the result of a complex interplay of mechanical failures, human errors, and environmental factors. Mechanical failures, ranging from brake malfunctions to signal issues, pose a significant risk to train safety. When critical components fail to function as intended, it can compromise the train’s ability to navigate tracks safely, potentially leading to collisions or derailments.

Human errors and miscommunication also play a crucial role in train accidents. Mistakes made by train operators, signalmen, or maintenance crews can have severe consequences. Failure to adhere to established procedures, misinterpretation of signals, or lapses in communication can result in trains moving onto the same track or neglecting vital safety protocols, creating conditions conducive to accidents.

The condition of railway infrastructure is paramount in preventing accidents. Poor maintenance, inadequate inspections, or outdated infrastructure can lead to hazardous conditions, particularly during adverse weather. Adverse weather conditions, including heavy rain, snow, or extreme temperatures, present additional challenges. Slippery tracks, reduced visibility, and difficulties in maintaining traction increase the risk of accidents during inclement weather.

Beyond the railway environment, human factors such as trespassing, vehicular crossings, or intentional actions like vandalism can contribute to accidents. Addressing the broader societal aspects that influence train safety is essential to ensuring the well-being of both passengers and communities living near railway zones.

Conclusion:

Train accidents are tragic events that demand a comprehensive understanding of the multiple factors contributing to their occurrence. Mechanical failures, human errors, infrastructure issues, weather-related challenges, and broader societal factors all play pivotal roles in the dynamics of train accidents. Recognizing the complexity of these incidents is crucial for developing effective preventive measures and safety protocols. As we reflect on the impact of train accidents on individuals, communities, and the transportation industry, it becomes imperative to prioritize safety measures and technological advancements that can mitigate the risks associated with train operations. Only through a holistic approach can we work towards a future where the tracks are not only symbols of connectivity but also corridors of safety and well-being.

Rahul Kumar is a passionate educator, writer, and subject matter expert in the field of education and professional development. As an author on CoursesXpert, Rahul Kumar’s articles cover a wide range of topics, from various courses, educational and career guidance.

Related Posts

How To Write An Argumentative Essay On Political Science?

Creative Essay Writing Techniques: How To Write a Creative Essay

10 Lines on My Mother in English

Short Essay on Safety First [100, 200, 400 Words] With PDF

In today’s session, you will learn to write short essays on the popular term ‘Safety First.’ There are going to be three individual sets of short essays written on the topic covering different word limits.  

Short Essay on Safety First in 100 Words

Safety is the most important measure to take in our lives for any kind of emergency. We are often told about safety first. Safety means protection. We always try to avoid dangers or stay away from any harm. We work very carefully so that we do not get harmed by any problem.

Danger can come at any moment and any place. We are unaware as to when it will attack us. So having safety is our first and foremost priority. Whenever we are at home or outside, we must remember about it. We must never hurry into anything because that can cause us lots of risks. Also, we must keep a safety kit or a first aid box handy. This will help us to tackle any emergency when needed.

Short Essay on Safety First in 200 Words

Safety means any kind of protection that we observe regularly. And safety first also means making safety our biggest priority. Maintaining safety is extremely important to us. It will keep our family and society safe and sound.

The country must have responsible citizens who can maintain safety. So being safe is for the good of everyone. We must always maintain safety measures. Be it in our home or outside, it will help us to live much better. Today we observe how difficult it is to walk peacefully on the roads. It is because people do not follow safety measures.

Some bike riders drive very rashly. They do not care about the pedestrians or people walking on the road. Often it creates accidents. These accidents are fatal and can kill them as well. The drivers do not consider driving safely and slowly. They drive the car or the bus at full speed. As a result, many people daily meet accidents on the roads.

Even animals are not free of these dangers. Little kids and aged people feel scared to go alone on the roads. Even in our homes, we forget to follow safety measures. So we face several problems and are hurt severely. The dangers can become serious if we ignore our safety. So safety first is our greatest duty to everyone in our country.

Short Essay on Safety First in 400 Words

Safety means protection from any sort of danger. The term safety first is, at present, a frequently used term. Safety is something that we prioritize first. Whenever there is danger, we must take an immediate measure of safety to survive the situation. Thus keeping safety as our biggest priority is the best task to do in our lives. We will stay prepared for any hazards that may arrive on our way.

Unfortunately, people nowadays do not consider safety as the primary need. As a result, we often face severe disasters. The biggest danger takes place outside our homes when we are on the road. The bike riders dive their bikes at high speed. They drive rashly over the roads and highways. Hence it becomes very difficult for the aged and the pedestrians to walk on the roads.

Anytime they can meet an accident, and can also die on spot. Similarly, for other vehicles like a bus or a car, we observe the same picture. The buses collide with other trucks and cars while breaking the traffic rules. It is a bad habit to violate the traffic rules and traffic signals for personal benefits. Maintaining safety on roads is for the benefit of everyone. We must follow the signals and use a zebra crossing while moving to a different route. Walking in between vehicles in a hurry or jumping down a bus while it’s moving can cause serious harm. 

Even on rail lines, we must be cautious. It is always advisable never to cross a rail line while a train is approaching. Similarly, standing near the door while the train is running at full speed can cause tremendous destruction. Some people often take selfies while standing on railways and even use them as fun places. However, it is stupid to take such things lightly. Everyone should remember the safety that can help them to live better.

Safety first applies to our household as well. If there is a little child or an aged person in the house, then these safety measures become very important. One must keep away all sharp objects, fire, oil, and other poisonous goods from their reach. Burners and cylinders should be switched off to avoid any danger. The doors should be closed so that babies cannot crawl outside the house.

Also, basic hygiene is a part of safety. Keeping the house clean will make it safe. Keeping a first aid box and some emergency medicines will protect us from any immediate need. Hence these basic yet important tips can enable us to live better. 

If you have any doubts regarding today’s lesson, kindly let me know through the comment section below. To read more such sessions, keep browsing our website.

Join us on Telegram to get all the latest updates on our upcoming sessions. Thanks for being with us. All the best.

More from English Compositions

• 100, 200, 400 Words Paragraph and Short Essay [With PDF]
• Madhyamik English Writing Suggestion 2022 [With PDF]
• Write a Letter to the Editor for Unfair Means in the Examination
• Short Essay on Work is Worship [100, 200, 400 Words] With PDF
• Notice Writing Format, Type, Writing Tips, Examples [PDF]
• [FREE PDF] From The Diary Of Anne Frank MCQs | CBSE Class 10 English Chapter 4 [TERM 1]
• Report Writing Format | How to Write a Report | Example [PDF]
• Write a Letter to the Editor about the Electricity Problem in your Locality [4 Examples]
• Short Essay on Importance of Outdoor Games [100, 200, 400 Words] With PDF
• Short Essay On A Busy Railway Station [100, 200, 400 Words] With Pdf
• Short Essay on Save Animals [100, 200, 400 Words] With PDF
• Short Essay on the Beauty of Nature [100, 200, 400 Words] With PDF

East Palestine was a disaster. Inaction on railroad safety since then is dangerous | Opinion

Behind the roaring silence in congress regarding railroad safety, lurk a host of corporate lobbyists more concerned with corporate wealth than the public’s safety and health..

A train derailment — thankfully not a disastrous one like in East Palestine — hit Wyoming and Lockland on the evening of April 20. Yet, that averted disaster could still happen unless folks, especially clueless and/or compromised politicians, wake up soon, very soon, and finally enact stringent safety measures for America’s railroads.

In the aftermath of the East Palestine catastrophe, U.S. Senator Brown, along with J.D. Vance and two U.S. senators from Pennsylvania, introduced the Rail Safety Act on March 1, 2023. Since then, this bill, as well as its companion in the U.S. House, House Resolution 1674, have been forcibly placed in a corporate lobbyist-induced coma. Both bills remain stuck in a congressional quagmire.

Are trains carrying hazardous material any safer a year after East Palestine derailment?

Behind the roaring silence in Congress regarding railroad safety, lurk a host of corporate lobbyists more concerned with corporate wealth than the public’s safety and health. Foremost among this gang in the suites is Koch Industries, which spent nearly $8 million in the past year alone lobbying Congress against railroad safety legislation, according to lobbying disclosure forms from the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Consequently, only 12 senators co-sponsor the Railroad Safety Act, and only 17 House members, none from Ohio save for Rep. Marcy Kaptur, are listed as co-sponsors of House Resolution 1674.  A vapid alternative to the Rail Safety Act, is the RAIL Act (Reducing Accidents in Locomotives Act), which was introduced by former Rep. Bill Johnson on March 12, 2023, and now has the stated support of the entire Ohio congressional delegation, except for six representatives: Warren Davidson, Jim Jordan, Bob Latta and Brad Wenstrup.

Failure to support Rail Safety Act, RAIL Act is infuriating

The abject failure of Davidson to support either the Rail Safety Act or the RAIL Act is particularly ironic and infuriating. Wyoming and Lockland are communities he purports to represent. And it was only by some miracle that the derailed rail car, an antiquated one, reportedly filled with isoprene, a carcinogenic flammable volatile organic compound, did not explode releasing poisonous gases throughout our area. Congressional inaction on railroad safety is playing with the lives of Ohioans and all Americans.

The last meaningful action on Senator Brown’s Rail Safety Act came in May of last year, when Senator Vance joined other senators in modifying it with an "amendment in the nature of a substitute." The innocuous sounding amendment, in reality, altered the original legislation and replaced it, among other deleterious provisions, with one no longer calling for a timely replacement of dangerous puncture-susceptible tank cars with new high-quality ones.

Even if Rail Safety Act passes, it is woefully insufficient

Based upon a Department of Transportation directive adopted in 2015, older 1960s-era tank cars (DOT-111 cars) need to be retrofitted or replaced with a much-improved design (DOT-117 cars) by May 2025. This phaseout timeline was echoed in the original version of the Rail Safety Act, but was changed in the Vance version to December 2027 or possibly later, a shift major corporations like Dow, DuPont and 3M warmly greeted. Unfortunately, this means that even if and when the Rail Safety Act is passed, communities throughout America will still be threatened for years by probable catastrophic derailments of antiquated tank cars carrying hazardous materials through heavily populated areas.

Issue 22 analysis: The 3 reasons Cincinnatians voted to sell their railroad

As necessary as passage of the Rail Safety Act is, even in its diluted form, it is woefully insufficient. What is desperately needed is something well beyond begging or even demanding railroad owners and operators change their behavior and policies endangering the public; something that our wise forbearers had done with great success over a century ago — nationalization of America’s railroad industry. Public ownership of railroads — something a $6 million propaganda campaign tragically obviated in Cincinnati last fall — is the fast express to public safety, and it is long overdue.

Werner Lange lives in Wyoming.

Essay on Train Journey for Students and Children

500+ words essay on train journey.

First of all, a journey refers to traveling from one place to another. When it comes to journeys, train journeys take the top spot. A train journey certainly is a wonderfully joyous occasion. Furthermore, train journeys fill individuals with a feeling of intense excitement. This mode of the journey is best when the travel distance is long. A train journey creates an aura that cannot be experienced with other types of journeys.

My Experience of Journey by Train

I have always been an avid supporter of train journeys. My involvement with train journeys began in childhood . I live in Lucknow and from here I have undertaken many train journeys. Furthermore, since childhood, I have paid several visits to the hill station of Almora to meet my relatives. Almora is a hill station located in the state of Uttarakhand. Most noteworthy, Almora is situated in the Himalayan mountain region. Due to this, trains cannot travel directly to Almora. Consequently, Kathgodam is the last town station accessible by trains before the mountain range begins.

The trip from Lucknow to kathgodam is quite a lively experience. I have always ensured the reservation of my seats beforehand. So, my train journey begins from Lucknow railway station. As the train undergoes motion and leaves the Lucknow railway station, my excitement begins to rise. Moreover, as the train gathers speed, a thrilling feeling overtakes me.

My train journey from Lucknow to Kathgodam is probably 8-10 hours duration. However, I enjoy every minute of it in spite of the journey being so long. Furthermore, all along the journey, one can purchase items of food and drinks. I almost always purchase meals and refreshments at least twice in the journey.

When slumber overtakes me, I make use of the sleeping berth. I personally find sleeping on the train berth very comfortable. When I wake after a deep sleep, mountains are visible from a distance. Moreover, as the train approaches Kathgodam with menacing speed, the view of mountains gets bigger and bigger. Also, my amusement greatly rises as I see the Himalayas draw closer. Finally, as the train stops at Kathgodam, my delightful train journey comes to an end.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Why Do I Like to Travel by Train?

Comfort is one of the biggest advantages of a train journey. Most noteworthy, one can move freely in a train cabin. Furthermore, in trains, there is a possibility of an ample foot room. Moreover, trains offer comfortable sleeping berths. All of this makes the train journey a relaxing experience.

Beautiful sightseeing is another noteworthy benefit of train journeys. As the train travels, one can enjoy the views of the countryside, farms, forests , factories, etc. This makes train journeys more comprehensive than journeys by air or road.

Train journeys offer a variety of opportunities to pass time. Furthermore, the train offers a sociable environment. In train journeys, conversations between passengers almost always take place. One can make new friends with traveling passengers on the train easily. Also, one can spend time in a handsome manner on a train journey. In a train journey, one can spend time reading something, listening to music, watching videos, sleeping/resting comfortably, etc.

To sum it up, train journeys are truly one of a kind. The train journey offers uniqueness like no other journey. Most noteworthy, the charm of such a journey is unmatchable. The train journey certainly offers an unforgettable rich experience.

Q1 Why does the writer sleeps so deeply in trains?

A1 The writer sleeps deeply in trains because he finds sleeping on the train berth very comfortable.

Q2 What makes train journeys so journeys so comfortable?

A2 Trains journeys certainly are very comfortable. First of all, one can move freely in a train cabin. Furthermore, there is ample foot room possibility and comfortable sleeping berths on the train.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

StarTribune

Lakeville public safety training facility gets $800k in federal funding.

Funding for a proposed public safety training facility in Lakeville is coming together, with the project gaining $800,000 in federal funding this week.

The center would provide a training space for law enforcement, fire departments and emergency medical technicians throughout the south metro. It would include virtual training areas, tactical training rooms, a firing range, classrooms and meeting areas, and would cost $18 million to $23 million.

It would have movable walls and an outdoor courtyard for scenarios involving cars. Training could be conducted whenever first responders' shifts were scheduled – even at night.

"There's nothing like it in the south metro, for sure," said Lakeville Mayor Luke Hellier,adding that the changing landscape of police work in recent years makes the center necessary.

He noted how many more mental health calls police departments now receive, and the need to train for virtual situations in addition to physical ones.

The project received $8 million from the state last year and officials are hoping for another $8 million in this year's bonding bill. Another federal request for $5 million is up for consideration, Hellier said, and the city recently discussed using franchise fees for funding.

City officials are still figuring out which agencies and higher education institutions would use the center The state and federal governments are the main funding partners so far, said City Administrator Justin Miller.

"We continue to have preliminary discussions with various law enforcement agencies (cities, counties, state and federal agencies) as well as higher education law enforcement programs," Miller said in an email.

Hellier said about a dozen agencies are involved in talks so far: "Our hope is to broaden this to include as many jurisdictions as possible."

The $13 million SMART Center – which stands for Safety and Mental Health Alternative Response Training – in Inver Grove Heights opened in late 2021. Though it also provides training space related to public safety, Hellier said it primarily serves the county's east side and is more classroom-based.

Erin Adler is a suburban reporter covering Dakota and Scott counties for the Star Tribune, working breaking news shifts on Sundays. She previously spent three years covering K-12 education in the south metro and five months covering Carver County.

• Reusse: There's no doubt Finch is the right coach for the Wolves
• DFL senator's burglary charge casts uncertainty over Minnesota legislative session's end
• How 'the Squad' and like-minded progressives have changed their party
• Al Shaver, voice of the North Stars, dies at 96
• Her son bought a fake pill via Snapchat. Fentanyl killed him. Hastings mom is on a mission.
• Minnesota state senator's burglary arrest puts private family drama in the election year spotlight

DFL senator's burglary charge casts uncertainty over Minnesota legislative session's end

A Minnesota sailor killed at Pearl Harbor to come home, 83 years later

Minnesota TikTokers react to app's ban in the U.S.

Minnesota state senator's burglary arrest puts private family drama in the election year spotlight

Minnesota sales, cleanups and other events to celebrate Earth Day and Arbor Day

• Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan school district selects new superintendent • South Metro
• Lakeville public safety training facility gets $800K in federal funding • South Metro
• Southwest News Media to shut down its metro newspapers by end of April • South Metro
• Retiring Lakeville South principal put students first • South Metro
• Goats help manage invasive plants at Three Rivers park • South Metro

© 2024 StarTribune. All rights reserved.

Gig workers are writing essays for AI to learn from

• Companies are hiring highly educated gig workers to write training content for AI models .
• The shift toward more sophisticated trainers comes as tech giants scramble for new data sources.
• AI could run out of data to learn from by 2026, one research institute has warned. 

As artificial intelligence models run out of data to train themselves on, AI companies are increasingly turning to actual humans to write training content.

For years, companies have used gig workers to help train AI models on simple tasks like photo identification , data annotation, and labelling. But the rapidly advancing technology now requires more advanced people to train it.

Companies such as Scale AI and Surge AI are hiring part-timers with graduate degrees to write essays and creative prompts for the bots to gobble up, The New York Times reported . Scale AI, for example, posted a job last year looking for people with Master's degrees or PhDs, who are fluent in either English, Hindi, or Japanese and have professional writing experience in fields like poetry, journalism, and publishing.

Related stories

Their mission? To help AI bots "become better writers," Scale AI wrote in the posting.

And an army of workers are needed to do this kind of work. Scale AI has as many as tens of thousands of contractors working on its platform at a time, per the Times.

"What really makes the A.I. useful to its users is the human layer of data, and that really needs to be done by smart humans and skilled humans and humans with a particular degree of expertise and a creative bent," Willow Primack, the vice president of data operations at Scale AI, told the New York Times. "We have been focusing on contractors, particularly within North America, as a result."

The shift toward more sophisticated gig trainers comes as tech giants scramble to find new data to train their technology on. That's because the programs learn so incredibly fast that they're already running out of available resources to learn from. The vast trove of online information — everything from scientific papers to news articles to Wikipedia pages — is drying up.

Epoch, an AI research institute, has warned that AI could run out of data by 2026.

So, companies are finding more and more creative ways to make sure their systems never stop learning. Google has considered accessing its customers' data in Google Docs , Sheets, and Slides while Meta even thought about buying publishing house Simon & Schuster to harvest its book collection, Business Insider previously reported.

Watch: Nearly 50,000 tech workers have been laid off — but there's a hack to avoid layoffs

• Main content