Critical Analysis of Train Derailments in Canada through Process Safety Techniques and Insights into Enhanced Safety Management Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s rail transportation network is a critical part of Canada’s integrated supply chain which connects industries, consumers, and resource sectors to ports on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. One transportation activity that is essential to most industries, especially oil and manufacturing, is the rail transport of dangerous goods (DG). Although rail transportation of DG is beneficial to Canada’s economy, not paying attention to the safe transportation of these types of goods can have irreparable effects on the economy, human lives, and the environment. Recent rail accidents, such as Lake Wabamun in 2005 and Lac-Mégantic in 2013, have shown that there is still room to increase the safety of transportation of DG by rail through improving railways’ safety management systems (SMS). As a result, investigations to increase the safety of rail transportation of DG have been started. This work is part of these initiatives focusing on enhancing railways’ SMS, particularly DG main-track train derailments. The current study applied detailed root cause analysis (RCA), the bow tie analysis (BTA), and incident databases to identify the main causes and consequences of these types of accidents (2007–2017). Then, the relationship between these factors and gaps in SMS elements were identified and the frequency of each factor was investigated. The results showed that the main gaps are related to process and equipment integrity, incident investigation, and company standards, codes, and regulations. Furthermore, some useful recommendations are presented to improve the management of each SMS element and reduce these gaps.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".