Research on causes of urban rail delay risk based on HFACS model

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.05.0503

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to explore the causes of UR train delays and find out the key factors causing delays, firstly, an HFACS-UR model based on HFACS method was proposed for analyzing UR train delay. Secondly, the causes analysis of UR trains delay was carried out from four aspects: unsafe acts, preconditions for unsafe acts, unsafe supervision and organizational influences. Pearson correlation coefficient method was used to analyze the correlation between factors. Finally, prevention suggestions for UR train delays were proposed. The results show that unsafe behaviors focus on skill errors and decision-making errors. The premise of unsafe behavior is mainly manifested in the lack of personal skills and improper reporting and communication. Unsafety supervision is mainly reflected in inadequate supervision and improper operation plan. The organizational impact involves the organizational process and resource management, which is reflected in the imperfect standard regulations, emergency procedures and personnel training.

Key words: urban rail(UR), train delays, human factor analysis and classification system (HFACS), causative factor, Pearson correlation coefficient

LI Lei, LI Jiang'e, REN Yufei, TANG Xiaoxiao. Research on causes of urban rail delay risk based on HFACS model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(5): 152-157.

Figures/Tables 4

Tab.1

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.2

References 14

[1]	New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer. The economic cost of subway delays[EB/OL].(2021-10-01). https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/the-economic-cost-of-subway-delays.
[2]	WALES J, MARINOV M. Analysis of delays and delay mitigation on a metropolitan rail network using event based simulation[J]. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 2015, 52: 52-77. doi: 10.1016/j.simpat.2015.01.002
[3]	江志斌, 苗秋吉. 城轨交通列车运行延误影响及其减缓措施[J]. 现代城市轨道交通, 2009(5):59-62.
	JIANG Zhibin, MIAO Qiuji. Delay influence and its mitigation measures of train operation in urban rail transit[J]. Modern Urban Transit, 2009(5):59-62.
[4]	WENG Jinxian, ZHENG Yang, QU Xiaobo, et al. Development of a maximum likelihood regression tree-based model for predicting subway incident delay[J]. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 2015, 57: 30-41. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2015.06.003
[5]	乔珂, 赵鹏. 城市轨道交通列车运行延误及其调整方法[J]. 都市快轨交通, 2013, 26(1):41-45.
	QIAO Ke, ZHAO Peng. Train delay and adiusting strategies for urban rail transit[J]. Urban Rapid Rail Transit, 2013, 26(1): 41-45.
[6]	BRAZIL W, WHITE A, NOGAL M, et al. Weather and rail delays: analysis of metropolitan rail in Dublin[J]. Journal of Transport Geography, 2017, 59:69-76. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.01.008
[7]	解熙, 蒲琪. 城市轨道交通列车延误统计指标及评价指标体系研究[J]. 城市轨道交通研究, 2018, 21(4):75-78.
	XIE Xi, PU Qi. Research on statistics index and evaluation index system of urban rail trasit delay[J]. Urban Mass Transit, 2018, 21(4):75-78.
[8]	LIU Fuze, WANG Shouyang. Predicting subway incident delays using text analysis based accelerated failure time model[J]. Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, 2021, 13(3): 340-356.
[9]	CHEN Yufu, HSUEH, K C, LAI Y C. Identification of high-risk driving behavior and sections for rail systems[J]. Transportation Research Record, 2021, 2675(12):1379-1392. doi: 10.1177/03611981211033856
[10]	SHAPPELL S A, WIEGMANN D A. Human error analysis of commercial aviation accidents: application of the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS)[J]. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 2001, 72 (11):1006-1016. pmid: 11718505
[11]	王军武, 王梦雨, 刘登辉, 等. 基于HFACS-BN的地铁车站施工高处坠落可能性评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31 (6): 90-98. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.06.012
	WANG Junwu, WANG Mengyu, LIU Denghui, et al. Evaluation of falling possibility at height in subway station constructin based on HFACS-BN[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(6):90-98. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.06.012
[12]	许素睿. 基于HFACS的电梯事故人因分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(7):70-75. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.07.012
	XU Surui. Analysis of human factors of elevator accidents based on HFACS[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(7): 70-75. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.07.012
[13]	EBRAHIMI H, SATTARI F, LEFSRUD L, et al. Analysis of train derailments and collisions to identify leading causes of loss incidents in rail transport of dangerous goods in Canada[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2021,72:DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104517. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104517
[14]	WANG Xin, QU Zhaowei, SONG Xiaoming, et al. Incorporating accident liability into crash risk analysis: a multidimensional risk source approach[J]. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2021,153:DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2021.106035. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2021.106035

HFACS-UR	子因素	频次	比例
层1不安全行为	技能差错	36	0.480
	决策差错	20	0.267
	违规	24	0.320
层2不安全行为前提	身体/智力局限	11	0.147
	技术环境	21	0.280
	汇报沟通不恰当	36	0.480
	个人技能不熟练	30	0.400
层3不安全监督	监督不充分	32	0.427
	运行计划不适当	25	0.333
	没有纠正问题	12	0.160
	监督违规	27	0.360
层4组织影响	人员培训	56	0.747
	设备资源	17	0.227
	提醒警示标志	5	0.067
	信息沟通	20	0.267
	标准规章	39	0.520
	操作/应急流程	30	0.400
	安全管理	40	0.533

HFACS模型不同层次间致因因素关联分析	Pearson检验		HFACS模型不同层次间致因因素关联分析	Pearson检验
HFACS模型不同层次间致因因素关联分析	相关系数 \|r\|	P值	HFACS模型不同层次间致因因素关联分析	相关系数 \|r\|	P值
层1与层2间:技能差错×是否充分汇报	0.931	0.021	层3与层4间:监督不充分×操作/应急流程	0.982	0.003
层1与层2间:决策差错×个人技能不熟练	0.879	0.050	层3与层4间:监督不充分×安全管理	0.845	0.072
层1与层2间:违规×个人技能不熟练	0.965	0.008	层3与层4间:运行计划不适当×提醒警示标志	0.938	0.018
层1与层2间:违规×是否充分汇报	0.891	0.043	层3与层4间:运行计划不适当×操作/应急流程	0.912	0.031
层2与层3间:身体/智力局限×运行计划不适当	0.818	0.091	层3与层4间:没有纠正问题×人员培训	0.845	0.071
层2与层3间:是否充分汇报×监督不充分	0.996	0.000	层3与层4间:没有纠正问题×安全管理	0.836	0.077
层2与层3间:是否充分汇报×运行计划不适当	0.858	0.063	层3与层4间:监督违规×人员培训	0.973	0.005
层2与层3间:是否充分汇报×监督违规	0.831	0.081	层3与层4间:监督违规×信息沟通	0.890	0.043
层2与层3间:个人技能不熟练×没有纠正问题	0.903	0.036	层3与层4间:监督违规×标准规章	0.918	0.028
层2与层3间:个人技能不熟练×监督违规	0.937	0.019	层3与层4间:监督违规×安全管理	0.966	0.008