There are many factors that can cause severity of rail accidents. Based on my findings, season is an important factor that causes more death. I find that more fatalities occur during summer season. The rate of change of fatalities during summer season is estimated to be about 0.22 with 95% confident interval between 0.04 and 0.4. So it is important for the FRA to put an extra safety when the train is running under summer season. Type of accident and cause of accident significantly affect the cost damage at 5% level. A train accident at RR grade crossing is more likely to cause cost damage. Putting a greater safety at RR Grade Crossing can reduced the severity of cost damage. Also, the FRA should train well their people about safety in order to minimize human error.

© All Rights Reserved

42 views

There are many factors that can cause severity of rail accidents. Based on my findings, season is an important factor that causes more death. I find that more fatalities occur during summer season. The rate of change of fatalities during summer season is estimated to be about 0.22 with 95% confident interval between 0.04 and 0.4. So it is important for the FRA to put an extra safety when the train is running under summer season. Type of accident and cause of accident significantly affect the cost damage at 5% level. A train accident at RR grade crossing is more likely to cause cost damage. Putting a greater safety at RR Grade Crossing can reduced the severity of cost damage. Also, the FRA should train well their people about safety in order to minimize human error.

© All Rights Reserved

- Road Traffic Safety (RTS) Management System ISO 39001:2012
- MOTOR TP CLAIM Investigation REPORT - National Insurance Company Limited
- Sbi Claim Form
- Case 9
- A Short Guide to Leading and Lagging Indicators of Safety Performance
- Motorcycle minds
- Untitled
- Traffic Accidents
- Performance Effect
- BJ-20151226-PG015-Z015-STATE.pdf
- Chapter 02
- Traffic Injuries Romania 2009
- Accident Details
- Rta
- Ch I Introduction to Regression and Least Squares
- SELECTION OF RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS FOR INVESTING IN SECURITY EQUIPMENT USING HYBRID DEMATEL-MARICA MODEL
- TR3 Accidents in the Netherlands
- 1.Factors Influencing the Profitability of Islamic Bank of Pakistan
- Text Chapter 3
- Navin Et Al - 2000

You are on page 1of 23

During

2001 2012

Imran A. Khan

Summary

There are many factors that can cause severity of rail accidents. Based on my findings, season is an

important factor that causes more death. I find that more fatalities occur during summer season. The rate of

change of fatalities during summer season is estimated to be about 0.22 with 95% confident interval

between 0.04 and 0.4. So it is important for the FRA to put an extra safety when the train is running under

summer season. Type of accident and cause of accident significantly affect the cost damage at 5% level. A

train accident at RR grade crossing is more likely to cause cost damage. Putting a greater safety at RR

Grade Crossing can reduced the severity of cost damage. Also, the FRA should train well their people about

safety in order to minimize human error.

Honor pledge: On my honor, I pledge that I am the sole author of this paper and I have accurately cited all

help and references used in its completion.

Imran A. Khan

1. Problem Description

1.1. Situation

According to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) data from 2001 2012[3], about 2,500 train

accidents occur annually in the U.S. These incidents cause injuries ranging from the moderately severe to

death and cost damage. Many of the incidents have small damage cost and do not lead to any death. On

average, a train accident happens in the last 12 years has zero number of injury as shown in Figure 1. I

observe that more than 13% of the accidents lead to high damage cost and about 1% lead to a lot of people

killed. These are the extreme values above the upper whisker of boxplots that are considered as severe

accidents.

Figure 1. Boxplot of severity metrics

Boxplot of Total Damage

10

5

0

4

0

Fatalities

15

Boxplot of Fatalities

For a given accident, many factors come into play. Table 1 shows that most of the accidents are because of

human error account 34% of train accidents, followed by rack, roadbed and structures failures account 32%.

Train derailment is the most common type of accident that leads to large cost damage (Table 2). However,

this type of accident has very minimum human damage. There are only 7% of train accidents at rail-highway

crossings but it lead to many fatalities (85%).

#

%

Total

Number

Fatalities

Type of cause

Damage

Total

Number

Fatalities

($)

Mechanical and

Electrical Failures (E)

Train operation Human Factors (H)

Miscellaneous

Causes (M)

Signal and

Communication (S)

Rack, Roadbed and

Structures (T)

Damage

($)

3617

561,518,909

12%

0%

17%

10655

35

756,877,988

34%

7%

23%

6327

452

625,508,542

20%

90%

19%

589

24,838,419

2%

0%

1%

9785

16

1,377,074,145

32%

3%

41%

#

%

Total

Number

Fatalities

Type of accident

Derailment (1)

Damage

Total

Number

Fatalities

($)

Damage

($)

20694

22

2,552,192,579

67%

4%

76%

99

83,868,583

0%

2%

3%

218

66,591,167

1%

1%

2%

1221

121,312,370

4%

1%

4%

500

26,922,342

2%

0%

1%

62

4,455,089

0%

0%

0%

2309

428

160,160,623

7%

85%

5%

7,324,022

0%

0%

0%

Obstruction (9)

728

20

59,304,105

2%

4%

2%

Explosive (10)

12

18,268,351

0%

0%

1%

Fire (11)

231

37,921,122

1%

0%

1%

3428

134,453,596

11%

1%

4%

Others (13)

1469

11

73,044,054

5%

2%

2%

Total Damage vs. Season

10

5

0

Fatalities

15

Spring

Summer

Autumn

Winter

Spring

Summer

Season

Autumn

Winter

Season

Total Damage vs. Type of Accident

10

5

0

Fatalities

15

7

Type

10 11 12 13

7

Type

10 11 12 13

Total Damage vs. Cause of Accident

10

5

0

Fatalities

15

Cause

Cause

In this study, the predominant focus is on the severity of train accidents, i.e. any incident that lead to more

fatalities and expensive cost damage, and how they can be minimized. It appears that summer season lead

to more fatalities as compared to the other seasons but the total damage is almost similar across the four

seasons (Figure 2). Different type of accident will lead to different severity of rail accident. For severe

accident, it looks like explosive is the major type of accident that causing cost damage (Figure 3). Cause of

accident is another factor that affects the cost damage (Figure 4).

Figure 5 and 6 show that there is a relationship between speed and the severity metrics. High speed of train

tends to cause more fatalities and cost damage. The plots also tell me that the more people evacuated, the

more severity of rail accidents can be reduced. Gross tonnage of a train (TONS) and number of head end

locomotive (HEADEND1) are other important factors that related to severity metrics.

Figure 5. Scatterplot matrix between fatalities (TOTKLD) and the other quantitative variables

40

80

0 20000 50000

80

TOTKLD

2000

5000

40

TRNSPD

0 20000 50000

EVACUATE

HEADEND1

2000

5000

0 2 4 6 8

TONS

0 2 4 6 8

Figure 6. Scatterplot matrix between total damage (ACCDMG) and the other quantitative variables

40

80

30000 70000

1.5e+07

80

0.0e+00

ACCDMG

2000

5000

40

TRNSPD

30000 70000

EVACUATE

HEADEND1

0.0e+00

1.5e+07

2000

5000

0 2 4 6 8

0 2 4 6 8

TONS

The biplot displayed in Figure 7 tell me that many factors related to fatalities and cost damage as many

vectors pointing in the same direction as TOTKLD as well as ACCDMG. This confirms my findings as the

scatterplot matrix displayed in Figure 5 and 6 and those vectors are potential factors in causing severity

metrics.

Figure 7. Biplot for human and cost damage

Fatalities

10

Total Damage

20

-60

-40

-20

40

20

0.04

0.02

-20

-40

-0.02

-0.04

Comp.2

-10

CARSDMG

CARSHZD

CARS HEADEND1

TRNSPD

EVACUATE

TONS

ACCDMG

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

-0.04

Comp.1

-0.02

-60

Latitude

-0.2

60

TEMP

-20

-0.2

0.00

20

10

0.1

0.0

-0.1

Comp.2

Longitud

40

Longitud

Latitude

TONS TEMP

CARS TOTKLDTRNSPD

HEADEND1

EVACUATE

CARSHZD

CARSDMG

20

60

-10

0.2

-20

0.00

0.02

0.04

Comp.1

1.2. Goal

The purpose of this study is to provide recommendations, so that FRA can take their action to reduce the

severity of railroad accidents in terms of fatalities and total damage.

1.3. Metrics

I utilize multiple linear regression models to measure the severity metrics. I consider several potential

factors such type of accident, cause of accident, and season to predict the severity of rail accidents. I use

significance level of 5% for the analysis throughout this study. If the confidence level (p-value) is less than

0.05, then my (null) hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative. Alternatively, if p-value is greater

than 0.05, the null should not be rejected. I also use adjusted R2, AIC and BIC criteria to compare between

models.

1.4. Hypothesis

Based on my observation in Figure 2, 3, and 4, I have three hypotheses regarding the severity of rail

accidents:

Hypothesis 1:

Ho: Season does not cause to more death

H1: Season causes to more death.

Hypothesis 2:

Ho: Type of accident does not affect cost damage.

H1: Type of accident affects cost damage.

Hypothesis 3:

Ho: Cause of accident does not affect cost damage.

H1: Cause of accident affects cost damage.

2. Approach

2.1. Data

The data set is obtained from the FRA railroad accidents period 2001 2012[3]. In total, there are 42033

accidents over the 12 years with 140 relevant variables. I find 20% of data points are duplicated. I also find

one data point with extreme value in terms of evacuation in year 2002. The reported numbers is 50000

people evacuated in an accident which is very unlikely to happen. I spot this extreme value as typo because

it shows very large value as compared to the other cases (Figure B1, Appendix B). Thus, I do not include

them in the analysis. I also do not consider data points from September 11, 2001 due to the chances of that

happening again is almost zero. The cost damage is significantly higher than the other cases. This leads to

30973 data points used in this study.

Since my interest is to examine severe accidents, only extreme cases above the upper whisker boxplot of

severity metrics is taken into account, that are accidents with at least one fatality and cost damage with at

least $143,861. I use all potential predictor variables, including confounding variables, in the initial models.

In total, there are 21 predictors: 10 continuous variables and 11 categorical variables, including SEASON

created as a new variable (Table A1, Appendix A). I remove any missing cases from data since the

methodology required complete observations. In total, I use 391 cases to model fatality (TOTKLD), and

2954 to model total damage (ACCDMG).

2.2. Analysis

In the modeling of severity metrics, I perform multiple linear regression analysis using R software with a

general model.

= 0 + 1 1 + 2 2 + . + +

The stages of data analysis are as follows:

1. I convert all categorical predictor variables into dummy variables. For example, TYPE has 13 levels

and R automatically encodes these 13 levels into 12 dummy variables with derailment as the base

case. See Table A1 in the Appendix for details base case selected for each categorical variable.

2. I utilize simple linear regression analysis for each of the 21 potential predictor variables.

Continuous predictor with p-value > 0.25 is not considered in the initial model (Full Model).

3. I reduce the full models by dropping all the non-significant predictors (Reduced Model). I use

Partial F test to examine if smaller set of predictors can be retained.

4. I also perform an alternative model selection, i.e. stepwise selection procedure, to select important

predictors in the full model (Step Model).

5. I then compare the reduced model and the step model by adjusted R2 and AIC criteria to select the

best model. I cannot use cross validation for model comparison due to the regression model on a

fold in which certain levels of the factor variable are not present.

6. I introduce second order model and interaction term for the selected model.

7. I carry out graphical diagnostic plots to examine how well the regression assumptions are satisfied.

8. I transform the response variable if the regression assumptions are violated.

For fatalities model, there are 10 predictor variables in the full model (Table B1, Appendix). This model

can be reduced by dropping 7 variables, i.e. TRNSP, TONS, HEADEND1, TYPE, TYPTRK, TRKCLAS,

and CAUSE with F-statistic 0.913 and p-value 0.5743. The reported BIC show that the step model is a

better model with smaller BIC value (881.76). But the AIC and the adjusted R2 values agree that the reduced

model is a preferable model (Table B2, Appendix). Furthermore, a second order model including interaction

term is considered in the reduced model. I find that second order model does not fit better than the first

model. I use partial F-test to check for this and I get F-test 1.39 with p-value 0.24. This means the interaction

terms and the second order of EVACUATE are not important in the model and the first order model is

preferable. A further investigation with diagnostic plots shows that the fitted model is moderately violated

the regression assumptions. The residual points are generally scattered randomly throughout the range of

fitted values. The points also generally fall around the line in QQ plot (Figure B2, Appendix). Transforming

the response variable with Box-Cox method does not do any better (Figure B3, Appendix), thus the fitted

model without interaction and second order term is chosen for ease of interpretation. Table 3 summarizes

the estimated coefficient (standard error) and the corresponding p-value for the first and second order

model.

Table 3. Comparison the first and second order model for fatalities

First order model

Estimate (Std. Error)

(Intercept)

P-value

P-value

1.07 (0.08)

<0.0001

1.07 (0.08)

<0.0001

0.001 (0)

<0.0001

0 (0.002)

0.87

TYPEQ 2

0.46 (0.09)

<0.0001

0.46 (0.09)

<0.0001

TYPEQ 3

0.1 (0.14)

0.46

0.09 (0.14)

0.51

TYPEQ 4

-0.3 (0.7)

0.67

-0.3 (0.7)

0.67

TYPEQ 6

-0.07 (0.7)

0.92

-0.07 (0.7)

0.92

TYPEQ 7

0.19 (0.35)

0.58

0.18 (0.35)

0.60

TYPEQ 8

0.02 (0.2)

0.93

0.01 (0.2)

0.95

TYPEQ 9

-0.3 (0.5)

0.55

-0.3 (0.5)

0.55

TYPEQ A

-0.3 (0.7)

0.67

-0.3 (0.7)

0.67

TYPEQ C

0.08 (0.35)

0.82

0.1 (0.35)

0.78

TYPEQ D

0.43 (0.41)

0.29

0.44 (0.41)

0.28

TYPEQ E

Season(base case:

Spring)

Summer

-0.07 (0.7)

0.92

-0.07 (0.7)

0.92

0.23 (0.1)

0.02

0.22 (0.1)

0.03

-0.07 (0.11)

0.51

-0.06 (0.11)

0.61

0.03 (0.1)

0.74

EVACUATE

Type of consist

(base case = TYPEQ 1)

Autumn

Winter

0.03 (0.1)

0.80

4.7E-7 (1.8E-6)

0.80

EVACUATE x Summer

0.003 (0.004)

0.43

EVACUATE x Autumn

0.0001 (0.003)

0.97

EVACUATE x Winter

-0.001 (0.009)

0.95

EVACUATE2

For total damage model, there are 16 predictor variables considered in the initial model (Table B1,

Appendix). There are 7 variables that are not significant in the full model. Thus, only 9 predictors are kept

in the reduced model, i.e. CARSHZD, EVACUATE, TRNSPD, TONS, TYPE, TRNDIR, REGION, TYPTRK, and

CAUSE. A partial F-test shows that the reduced model explains total damage better with F-statistic 1.74 and

p-value 0.08. The reported BIC show that the reduced model is a better model since the BIC value is smaller

(87957.48). However, the model based on stepwise selection procedure is selected as the best model since

the AIC is smaller and the adjusted R2 is larger than the reduced model (Table B3, Appendix). As shown

in Table 4, the selected stepwise model that includes second order and interaction terms (Model 2) is found

to be better with p-value < 0.0001. Model 2 is then reduced by performing stepwise selection procedure. I

find that some interaction and second order terms can be dropped from the model so Model 3 can be retained

(p-value = 0.99).

Table 4. Partial F-test

model)

Res. Df

RSS

Df

2906

1.32E+15

2883

1.24E+15

23

2886

1.24E+15

Sum of

F-test

P-value

7.80E+13

7.89

<0.0001

4.35E+10

0.03

0.99

Square

second order and interaction terms

(second order model)

Model 3: Model 2 after

performing stepwise selection

procedure

The diagnostic plot shows that the selected model (Model 3) is moderately violated the regression

assumptions (Figure B4, Appendix). Similar as fatalities model, transforming the response variable with

Box-Cox method does not fit any better (Figure B5, Appendix). Therefore, the fitted model with second

order terms without any transformation to the response variable is chosen for ease of interpretation. Table

5 summarizes the estimated coefficient, standard error, and p-value.

Estimate (Std. Error)

P-value

746000 (393000)

0.058

CARSDMG

8660 (6180)

0.161

CARSHZD

110000 (31500)

<0.0001

283 (102)

0.006

-24100 (4930)

<0.0001

26.9 (4.12)

<0.0001

Head on collision

1470000 (134000)

<0.0001

Rearend collision

465000 (106000)

<0.0001

251000 (73000)

0.001

111000 (140000)

0.429

-199000 (221000)

0.369

-302000 (82000)

<0.0001

6760000 (658000)

<0.0001

Obstruction

242000 (123000)

0.049

Explosive detonation

266000 (658000)

0.686

-56300 (113000)

0.620

104000 (73000)

0.155

-47600 (111000)

0.667

South

-70600 (65200)

0.279

East

-116000 (61000)

0.058

West

-158000 (63900)

0.013

Region 2

-71000 (107000)

0.509

Region 3

-260000 (107000)

0.015

Region 4

-133000 (103000)

0.196

Region 5

-207000 (96700)

0.033

Region 6

-196000 (98600)

0.046

Region 7

81800 (107000)

0.443

Region 8

-108000 (105000)

0.306

Intercept

EVACUATE

TRNSPD

TONS

Type of accident (base case:

derailment)

Side collision

Raking collision

Broken train collision

Hwy-rail crossing

RR Grade Crossing

Other impacts

Others

Train direction (base case:

north)

case: Region 1)

TYPEQ -NA)

TYPEQ 1

-225000 (383000)

0.556

TYPEQ 2

-18500 (392000)

0.962

TYPEQ 3

562000 (417000)

0.177

TYPEQ 4

-411000 (409000)

0.315

TYPEQ 5

-426000 (440000)

0.333

TYPEQ 6

83500 (398000)

0.834

TYPEQ 7

-85300 (384000)

0.824

TYPEQ 8

-54500 (401000)

0.892

TYPEQ 9

-117000 (426000)

0.783

TYPEQ A

-39800 (418000)

0.924

TYPEQ B

560000 (610000)

0.359

TYPEQ D

-502000 (611000)

0.411

-83900 (64900)

0.196

Siding

377000 (132000)

<0.0001

Industry

-27800 (110000)

0.801

-340000 (76400)

<0.0001

-12400 (76100)

0.871

-214000 (195000)

0.271

-253000 (68400)

<0.0001

-2820 (1230)

0.022

232 (42.3)

<0.0001

0 (0)

0.032

Longitud2

12.3 (3.92)

<0.0001

TRNSPD x South

96.2 (2410)

0.968

TRNSPD East

7690 (2290)

<0.0001

TRNSPD x West

7900 (2400)

<0.0001

TRNSPD x Region 2

2290 (3780)

0.545

TRNSPD x Region 3

19500 (3770)

<0.0001

TRNSPD x Region 4

12600 (3550)

<0.0001

TRNSPD x Region 5

15700 (3370)

0.000

Main)

Yard

case: E)

CARSHZD2

TRNSPD2

2

TONS

TRNSPD x Region 6

17300 (3400)

<0.0001

TRNSPD x Region 7

9200 (3690)

0.013

TRNSPD x Region 8

12100 (3690)

<0.0001

TRNSPD x Yard

-7370 (5980)

0.218

TRNSPD x Siding

-25500 (7220)

<0.0001

-12200 (10200)

0.231

TRNSPD x H

16400 (2740)

<0.0001

TRNSPD x M

4740 (2490)

0.056

TRNSPD x S

4680 (10200)

0.646

TRNSPD x T

14800 (2190)

<0.0001

TRNSPD x Industry

3. Evidence

I find that season is an important factor that leads to more fatalities. The partial F-test shows that season

cannot be eliminated from the model (F-statistic: 3.49, p-value: 0.016). The p-value for summer season is

0.03, meaning that I have a strong evidence to reject my (null) hypothesis. The resulting coefficient

indicates that the number of fatalities is higher during summer season. The rate of change of fatalities during

summer season is estimated to be about 0.22 with 95% confident interval between 0.04 and 0.4. Based on

the final model for fatalities, I observe that TYPEQ is another important factor causing more death.

For total damage, cause and type of accident are important factors to the severity of total damage. Different

cause and different type of accident will lead to different cost damage and they are statistically significant.

With 95% confidence, these effects cannot be dropped from the model with F-statistics 5.82 and p-value <

0.0001. Therefore, I can reject my hypothesis that cause and type of accident do not affect total damage. It

should be noted that the train speed and cause of accident has an interaction effect on cost damage (Figure

B6, Appendix). This means that the relationship between total damage and cause of accident depend on the

train speed. I observe that at high train speed, human error comes into play to cause more cost damage.

Furthermore, given the other factors are fixed, the expected total damage for severe accident is higher at

RR Grade Crossing, i.e. $7,506,000 and the evidence is highly significant at 5% level.

4. Recommendation

It is evidence that several number of factors can lead to severe train accidents. This includes season, type

of accident, and cause of accident. The best models to answer my hypotheses have pretty high validation

to predict the severity of rail accidents, i.e. about 25% based on the adjusted R2 (Table B2-B3, Appendix).

With 95% confidence, the effect of season to fatalities is statistically significant. The rate of change of

fatalities during summer season is estimated to be about 0.22 with 95% confident interval between 0.04 and

0.4. The effect of type of accident and cause of accident are also significant to total damage. At 5% level,

these factors cannot be eliminated from the model, so I can be sure that they are important to severity of

train accidents. This confirms my findings based on the plots shown in Figure 2, 3, and 4. The results tell

me that the FRA should put an extra safety requirement when the train is running during summer season.

Human errors are often unavoidable. This is what I obtain from modeling the cost damage. I find that human

error is one of the most important factors that causing more cost damage. The FRA should train well their

people about safety, so that human error failures can be minimized. In addition, it is important to put greater

safety for train at RR Grade Crossing.

5. References

[1] D. E. Brown and L. Barnes, Laboratory 1: Train accidents," August 2013, assignment in class SYS

4021.

[2] D. E. Brown and L. Barnes, Laboratory 1: Train accidents template," August 2013, assignment in

class SYS 4021.

[3] F. R. Administration, Federal railroad administration office of safety analysis," August 2012.

[Online]. Available: http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officesafety/

Appendix A

Table A. Accident Description

No

Field Name

Description

Type

TOTKLD

Response variable

ACCDMG

Response variable

CARS

Continuous variable

CARSDMG

Continuous variable

CARSHZD

Continuous variable

EVACUATE

# of persons evacuated

Continuous variable

TEMP

Continuous variable

TRNSPD

Continuous variable

TONS

Continuous variable

10

HEADEND1

Continuous variable

11

Latitude

Continuous variable

12

Longitud

Continuous variable

13

TYPE

type of accident:

Categorical variable

side collision,05= raking collision,06= broken train collision,07= hwy-rail

crossing,08= RR Grade Crossing, 09= obstruction,10= explosiv detonation,

11= fire / violent rupture,12= other impacts,13= other (described in narrative)

14

VISIBILTY

daylight period:

Categorical variable

15

WEATHER

weather conditions:

Categorical variable

16

TRNDIR

train direction:

Categorical variable

17

REGION

Categorical variable

18

TYPEQ

type of consist:

Categorical variable

train,5=single car,6= cut of cars,7= yard / switching,8= light loco(s),9= maint

/ inspect,car,A= spec. MoW q

19

TYPTRK

type of track:

Categorical variable

20

TRKCLAS

Categorical variable

21

RCL

Categorical variable

transmitter,2= remote control tower operation, 3= remote control portable

transmitter (more than one remote control)

22

CAUSE

Categorical variable

M=Miscellaneous Causes, S=Signal and Communication, T=Rack, Roadbed

and Structures

23

SEASON

1=spring (Mar May) ( (base case), 2=summer (Jun Aug), 3=autumn (Sep

Nov), 4=winter (Dec Feb)

Categorical variable

Appendix B

Fatalities

Total

Damage

CARS

0.96

0.89

CARSDMG

0.40

0.00

CARSHZD

0.86

0.00

EVACUATE

0.00

0.00

TEMP

0.27

0.74

TRNSPD

0.01

0.00

TONS

0.13

0.00

HEADEND1

0.10

0.81

Latitude

0.82

0.00

Longitud

0.71

0.00

factor(TYPE)

0.00

0.00

factor(VISIBLTY)

0.99

0.24

factor(WEATHER)

0.34

0.69

factor(TRNDIR)

0.83

0.00

factor(REGION)

0.28

0.00

factor(TYPEQ)

0.05

0.00

factor(TYPTRK)

0.00

0.00

factor(TRKCLAS)

0.17

0.00

factor(RCL)

NA

0.00

factor(CAUSE)

0.01

0.05

factor(SEASON)

0.05

0.46

*NA: cannot be estimated since only one level available under RCL variable for fatalities model

Full Model

Response variable

Reduced Model

Stepwise Model

TOTKLD

EVACUATE, TRNSPD,

TONS, HEADEND1,

Predictor variables

TRKCLAS, CAUSE,

EVACUATE, TYPEQ,

EVACUATE, TRNSPD,

SEASON

CAUSE, SEASON

SEASON

R2

33.22%

29.6%

26.66%

adjusted R2

26.43%

26.79%

25.32%

AIC

867.419

846.043

846.044

BIC

1018.23

913.51

881.76

F-statistic: 10.51 on 15

2.2e-16

16

Overall significance

Reduced Model

Full Model

Response variable

Reduced Model

ACCDMG

CARSDMG, CARSHZD,

Predictor variables

Stepwise Model

EVACUATE, TRNSPD,

CARSHZD,

EVACUATE, TRNSPD,

REGION, TYPEQ,

REGION, TYPTRK,

CAUSE

CAUSE

CARSDMG, CARSHZD,

EVACUATE, TRNSPD,

TONS, Longitud, TYPE,

TRNDIR, REGION,

TYPEQ, TYPTRK,

CAUSE

R2

27.2%

25.14%

26.67%

adjusted R2

25.61%

24.29%

25.49%

AIC

87725.23

87747.80

87714.55

BIC

88114.63

87957.48

88008.11

F-statistic: 29.71 on 33

F-statistic: 22.49 on 47

2.2e-16

2.2e-16

Overall significance

Reduced Model

F-test:1.74, p-value:0.08

Figure B 1. Boxplot for fatalities and number of people evacuated for each year to identify potential

outliers

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

50000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Year

Normal Q-Q

1924

27762

38066

-2

2 4 6

-2

Residuals

Residuals vs Fitted

1924

38066 27762

Standardized residuals

Figure B 2. Diagnostic plot for the selected fatalities model before transformation

-3

-2

Fitted values

Residuals vs Leverage

6

1924

41250

-2

1.5

Standardized residuals

Scale-Location

1924

38066 27762

Theoretical Quantiles

0.0

Standardized residuals

Fitted values

-1

18969

1

0.5

0.5

1

Cook's distance

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Leverage

0.8

Figure B 3. Diagnostic plot for fatalities model after transformation with Box-Cox method (Lambda=-2)

20

40

60

10

1924

27762

38066

40

0

20

38066 27762

-20

Residuals

Normal Q-Q

Standardized residuals

Residuals vs Fitted

1924

80

-3

-2

60

10

5

18969

4535

1.0

40

1924

0.5

1

0.5

1

Cook's distance

-5

Standardized residuals

38066 27762

20

Residuals vs Leverage

2.0

3.0

Scale-Location

1924

Theoretical Quantiles

0.0

Standardized residuals

Fitted values

-1

80

0.0

0.2

0.4

Fitted values

0.6

0.8

Leverage

0e+00

2e+06

4e+06

20

18324

41076

20237

5 10

41076

20237

Normal Q-Q

1e+07

18324

0e+00

Residuals

Residuals vs Fitted

Standardized residuals

Figure B 4. Diagnostic plot for the selected total damage model before transformation

6e+06

-3

2e+06

4e+06

Fitted values

6e+06

Residuals vs Leverage

15

18324

41076

20237

-5 0 5

4

1

41076

20237

Standardized residuals

Scale-Location

18324

0e+00

-1

Theoretical Quantiles

Standardized residuals

Fitted values

-2

1

0.5

0.5

1

Cook's distance

0.0

0.2

0.4

Leverage

0.6

0.8

Figure B 5. Diagnostic plot for the selected total damage model after transformation with Box-Cox

method (lambda=-0.5)

-1000

1000

38066

41076

10

38066

41076

-3

-2

-1

Scale-Location

Residuals vs Leverage

18324

38066

36985

2.0

1.0

0.0

10

Theoretical Quantiles

Standardized residuals

Fitted values

38066

41076

500

18324

18324

3.0

Standardized residuals

500

Normal Q-Q

18324

Standardized residuals

Residuals

3000

Residuals vs Fitted

0.5

1

Cook's distance

0.0

0.2

Fitted values

0.4

0.6

1

0.5

0.8

Leverage

CAUSE

4.0e+06

8.0e+06

M

E

H

S

T

0.0e+00

ACCDMG

1.2e+07

Figure B 6. Interaction plot train speed and cause with damage cost of accident

0 4

13

19

25

31

37

43

49

55

TRNSPD

61

67

75

90

- Road Traffic Safety (RTS) Management System ISO 39001:2012Uploaded bySubhash Mukherjee
- MOTOR TP CLAIM Investigation REPORT - National Insurance Company LimitedUploaded byPrasannaKadethota
- Sbi Claim FormUploaded byvrevatienterprises
- Case 9Uploaded byHealthyYOU
- A Short Guide to Leading and Lagging Indicators of Safety PerformanceUploaded byMohd Khairul Md Din
- Motorcycle mindsUploaded bykeepingbusy
- UntitledUploaded byeurolex
- Traffic AccidentsUploaded byTareq Zayed
- Performance EffectUploaded byPdr Raoo
- BJ-20151226-PG015-Z015-STATE.pdfUploaded byAlbuquerque Journal
- Chapter 02Uploaded bytresna22
- Traffic Injuries Romania 2009Uploaded byCsata István
- Accident DetailsUploaded byAjithBN
- RtaUploaded byMohit Agrawal
- Ch I Introduction to Regression and Least SquaresUploaded byDoobie Doobie
- SELECTION OF RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS FOR INVESTING IN SECURITY EQUIPMENT USING HYBRID DEMATEL-MARICA MODELUploaded byDragan Pamučar
- TR3 Accidents in the NetherlandsUploaded byFahad Ibrahim
- 1.Factors Influencing the Profitability of Islamic Bank of PakistanUploaded byMahbub Alam
- Text Chapter 3Uploaded byvictorvikram
- Navin Et Al - 2000Uploaded byJason Tutt
- Regression ForecastingUploaded byNazakat Hussain
- Jurnal Swasembada Kambing Internasional 7Uploaded byratna
- 16 12 28 A01 WED.pdfUploaded byMatt Hutton
- Two Way Mixed ANOVAUploaded bySunu Wibirama
- Term Paper - Impact of Economic Freedom on Growth Rate - A Panel Data AnalysisUploaded byTanvir Ahmed Khan Tanu
- MACP 390 2016.docUploaded bySANTOSH KATARIYA
- Notice of Accident or Dangerous Occurences Resulting in Death or Bodily Injury(Form 18).pdfUploaded bysugumar
- HNSC 7150X Fundamentals of Biostatistics RevisedpptUploaded byOgbonnaya Jr Akpara
- Modeling Crash Frequency and Severity Using Historical Traffic AnUploaded bylakshmi
- Rural Road Safety Action Plan_BiharUploaded byRajeev Lochan

- IEEE - Smartphone Application for Transmission of ECG Images in PreHospital STEMI TreatmentUploaded byimmi1989
- Air Traffic Control, Reliability Analysis and Cargo Operations - Imran A. KhanUploaded byimmi1989
- Imran a. Khan – Online Presence, IEEE Papers, Research Papers, Data Analysis Writing Samples & PostersUploaded byimmi1989
- Smartphone Application for Transmission of ECG Images in Pre-Hospital STEMI Treatment - PosterUploaded byimmi1989
- Imran a. Khan - Research Jobs and ExperiencesUploaded byimmi1989
- IEEE - Personalized Electronic Health Record System for Monitoring Patients With Chronic DiseaseUploaded byimmi1989
- Facebook Integrated Survey Application - PosterUploaded byimmi1989
- Cardiac Rhythm ClassificationUploaded byimmi1989
- Imran a. Khan - Qualification and Motivation in Seeking Advanced DegreeUploaded byimmi1989
- Building a Quantitative Case for the Medical and Economic Potential of Symptom Tracking ToolsUploaded byimmi1989
- 30-Day Readmission Trends and Variables of UVA Hospital Dementia PatientsUploaded byimmi1989
- Spam FilteringUploaded byimmi1989
- UVA Transplant ProjectUploaded byimmi1989

- Coach.nationalexpressUploaded byraj_sristi
- Shrinkage MethodUploaded byRodrigo Cortés Castillo
- Fly Smiles Member GuideUploaded bynihal lokuliyana
- Internship - BajajUploaded byRoyal Projects
- The Best Way for Non shielding coatingUploaded byJAMBULGORENG
- Full Manual Peugeot 208Uploaded bydiseo2mx
- The Canned Tuna Industry in the Philippines 4Uploaded byMark Banaria
- SQA Stability Section B answersUploaded byMandy Conquers
- Honda Civic GX Service Manual 1998-1999Uploaded byCabral RA
- Global Surveillance Solution BookletUploaded bySergio
- Used Formosa Boats for SaleUploaded byIñaki Gonzalez
- Contingency Procedures NAT RegionUploaded byflyspannerr
- International TradeUploaded byDon Pelicio Ngoho
- Moral GPS: A Positive Ethic for Our Multicultural WorldUploaded byLeonard Bowman
- Rolling Service Door Systems BrochureUploaded byjanni
- Antec Dark Fleet DF-30Uploaded byPeter Earl Formilleza
- How to Setup Freight for AutoInvoice and the Transactions Workbench (Doc ID 1096942.1)Uploaded byNathan
- Kcs Cmt Nmri Test ProgUploaded byChien Manh Nguyen
- Thermador PRL486EDGUploaded byPurcellMurray
- Forklift GuideUploaded byKhoa Pham
- 2017 Chevrolet Cruze quote (2).pdfUploaded byEvelyn
- 4 RunnerUploaded bySpencer Rooney
- Bertaud, A. (2014). Cities as Labour Markets. Marrion, NYUUploaded byHenil Dudhia
- Anoop CVUploaded byAnoop Vijayakumar
- Nikola Tesla :: My Submarine DestroyerUploaded byrealm_of_arcadia
- Absorption (1).pdfUploaded byKusha Kumar
- MCQ Questions(Regular Course) - ECE.pdfUploaded byrgecmani
- Caselet Price Elasticity and Total RevenueUploaded bynisajames
- Cat 944FUploaded byForomaquinas
- Solid Dddd DdddUploaded byanepameer