MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193446884 · doi:10.1177/03611981211036878

Effects of Hazmat Train Speed Restrictions on Train Delay Performance and Railroad Line Capacity: Comparative Study with Two Railway Simulation Tools

2021· article· en· W3193446884 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew M. Parkes, C. Tyler Dick, Adrian Diaz de Rivera

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Systems and Energy Efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrainTransport engineeringRange (aeronautics)Track (disk drive)Speed limitLevel crossingComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringSimulationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to multiple derailments involving hazmat trains, in early February 2020 Transport Canada released ministerial order (MO) 20-02, imposing speed restrictions of 20 to 25 mph on trains transporting a sufficient quantity of hazardous material. Since much of the North American freight network is used by multiple train types, the extreme speed heterogeneity created by this mandate substantially reduced train performance. Although this order was replaced within 2 weeks by new speed restrictions that were in turn replaced in May, MO 20-02 introduced the most extreme levels of train speed heterogeneity. The research team investigated the corresponding capacity effects to better understand the effects of train speed heterogeneity at low speed and inform agencies on future speed restrictions in this range. Using Rail Traffic Controller and General Train Movement Simulator, we quantitatively investigated the capacity loss from these speed restrictions and found that MO 20-02 can double or triple average train delay and lead to mainline capacity loss in excess of 60% on a representative single-track mainline.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicRailway Systems and Energy EfficiencyFrench-language works237,207