Involvement of Human and Organizational Factors in Railway Accidents: Application of the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System and Bayesian Network

Abstract

The occurrence of railway accidents is not always the result of error/violation on the operator’s end; rather, there are many organizational factors involved. This research investigated 97 railway accident reports from the West Zone of Bangladesh Railway between 2015 and 2019 to categorize factors within the institution that contribute to accidents. The accidents were divided into four categories (collision, derailment, locomotive failure, and signal passed at danger [SPAD]) and were applied to the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) framework. The HFACS framework systematically identifies direct and hidden factors that lead to an accident. A total of 225 human and organizational factors were found involved in 97 accidents, of which 106 (47.11%) were organizational-level factors and 119 (52.89%) were front-line/operation-level factors. To understand the association between factors, a Bayesian network was created following the naive Bayes algorithm, keeping “accident type” as the class variable. Analysis revealed that “Collisions” occur because of organizational factors such as the structure of command, planned inappropriate operations, and operation-level factors such as perceptual errors, and personal unreadiness. “Derailment” was influenced by organizational reasons, such as equipment issues, company safety culture, and inadequate supervision, whereas operation-level factors were crew and resource management and skill-based error. “Locomotive failure” was found to be associated with only organizational factors, such as equipment issues and inadequate supervision, and SPAD mostly occurred because of exceptional violations at the operational level. The identified issues, if addressed properly, can help ensure a safer railway industry.

Keywords

rail rail safety human factors human factors in crashes safety safety performance and analysis Bayesian methods

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bangladesh Railway. Information Book 2019. Bangladesh Railway, Dhaka, 2020, p. 134.

Reinach

Viale

Application of a Human Error Framework to Conduct Train Accident/Incident Investigations. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2006, pp. 396–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.10.013.

Reason

Human Error. Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Rasmussen

Skills, Rules, and Knowledge; Signals, Signs, and Symbols, and Other Distinctions in Human Performance Models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-13, No. 3, 1983, pp. 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1983.6313160.

Shappell

S. A.

Wiegmann

D. A.

The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System–HFACS. Report. Office of Aviation Medicine Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 20–46.

Cao

J. L.

Zhou

Xiang

Y. C.

Comparative Study of HFACS and the 24Model Accident Causation Models. Petroleum Science, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2017, pp. 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12182-017-0171-4.

Zhang

Zheng

Wang

A Human and Organizational Analysis Method for Chinese High-Speed Railway Accidents/Incidents Based on Bayesian Network. Proc., 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, ITSC, Maui, HI, IEEE, New York, 2018, pp. 1781–1786. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569558.

Iridiastadi

Ikatrinasari

Z. F.

Indonesian Railway Accidents - Utilizing Human Factors Analysis and Classification System in Determining Potential Contributing Factors. Work, Vol. 41, Supplement 1, 2012, pp. 4246–4249. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0126-4246.

Baysari

M. T.

McIntosh

A. S.

Wilson

J. R.

Understanding the Human Factors Contribution to Railway Accidents and Incidents in Australia. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 40, No. 5, 2008, pp. 1750–1757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2008.06.013.

10.

Madigan

Golightly

Madders

Application of Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) to UK Rail Safety of the Line Incidents. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 97, 2016, pp. 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.08.023.

11.

Zhan

Zheng

Zhao

A Hybrid Human and Organizational Analysis Method for Railway Accidents Based on HFACS-Railway Accidents (HFACS-RAs). Safety Science, Vol. 91, 2017, pp. 232–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.08.017.

12.

Hulme

Stanton

N. A.

Walker

G. H.

Waterson

Salmon

P. M.

Accident Analysis in Practice: A Review of Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) Applications in the Peer Reviewed Academic Literature. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2019, pp. 1849–1853. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631086.

13.

Liu

Cause Analysis of Unsafe Behaviors in Hazardous Chemical Accidents: Combined With HFACs and Bayesian Network. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2020, p. 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010011.

14.

Wang

Y. F.

Roohi

S. F.

X. M.

Xie

A New Methodology to Integrate Human Factors Analysis and Classification System With Bayesian Network. Proc., IEEM2010 - IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, IEEE, New York, 2010, pp. 1776–1780. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2010.5674564.

15.

Xia

Zou

P. X. W.

Liu

Wang

Zhu

A Hybrid BN-HFACS Model for Predicting Safety Performance in Construction Projects. Safety Science, Vol. 101, 2018, pp. 332–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.09.025.

16.

Hawkins

F. H.

Orlady

H. W.

Human Factors in Flight. Avebury Technical, Aldershot, 1993.

17.

Cohen

T. N.

Wiegmann

D. A.

Shappell

S. A.

Evaluating the Reliability of the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System. Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance, Vol. 86, No. 8, 2015, pp. 728–735. https://doi.org/10.3357/AMHP.4218.2015.

18.

Hayes

A. F.

Krippendorff

Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data. Communication Methods and Measures, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2007, pp. 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664.

19.

Landis

J. R.

Koch

G. G.

The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1977, pp. 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.

20.

Wang

Vassileva

Bayesian Network Trust Model in Peer-to-Peer Networks. In Agents and Peer-to-Peer Computing ( Moro

Sartori

Singh

M. P.

, eds.), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003, pp. 23–34.

21.

Tang

Chatzimichailidou

M. M.

Jun

G. T.

Waterson

A Hybrid Human and Organisational Analysis Method for Railway Accidents Based on STAMP-HFACS and Human Information Processing. Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 79, 2019, pp. 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.12.011.

22.

Zhou

J. L.

Lei

Paths Between Latent and Active Errors: Analysis of 407 Railway Accidents/Incidents’ Causes in China. Safety Science, Vol. 110, 2018, pp. 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.12.027.

23.

Ebrahimi

Sattari

Lefsrud

Macciotta

Analysis of Train Derailments and Collisions to Identify Leading Causes of Loss Incidents in Rail Transport of Dangerous Goods in Canada. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 72, 2021, p. 104517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104517.

24.

Park

S. H.

Goo

J. M.

C. H.

Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve: Practical Review for Radiologists. Korean Journal of Radiology, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2004, pp. 11–18. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2004.5.1.11.

25.

Lenné

M. G.

Salmon

P. M.

Liu

C. C.

Trotter

A Systems Approach to Accident Causation in Mining: An Application of the HFACS Method. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 48, 2012, pp. 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.05.026.