Picture of boy being examining by doctor at a tuberculosis sanatorium

Understanding our future through Open Access research about our past...

Strathprints makes available scholarly Open Access content by researchers in the Centre for the Social History of Health & Healthcare (CSHHH), based within the School of Humanities, and considered Scotland's leading centre for the history of health and medicine.

Research at CSHHH explores the modern world since 1800 in locations as diverse as the UK, Asia, Africa, North America, and Europe. Areas of specialism include contraception and sexuality; family health and medical services; occupational health and medicine; disability; the history of psychiatry; conflict and warfare; and, drugs, pharmaceuticals and intoxicants.

Explore the Open Access research of the Centre for the Social History of Health and Healthcare. Or explore all of Strathclyde's Open Access research...

Image: Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust. Wellcome Collection - CC-BY.

A comparison of data-driven and model-based approaches to quantifying railway risk

Bedford, T.J. and Quigley, J.L. and French, S. (2004) A comparison of data-driven and model-based approaches to quantifying railway risk. In: Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management. Springer-Verlag, London, pp. 2765-2771. ISBN 9781852338275

[img]
Preview
PDF (BedfordQuigleyFrenchPSAM2004-approaches-to-quantifying-railway-risk)
A_Comparison_of_Data_Driven_and_Model_Based_Approaches_to_Quantifying_Railway_Risk.pdf
Preprint

Download (127kB) | Preview

Abstract

This paper presents some of the results of a project sponsored by the UK Railway Safety and Standards Board (RSSB). An earlier statistical evaluation of a previous version of the RSSB Safety Risk Model (SRM), a combined Fault/Event Tree, conducted by Prof Andrew Evans had concluded that the model was unduly pessimistic. We have constructed a hypothesis test based on the relative likelihood techniques using the most recent version of the SRM as the null hypothesis. The results support the SRM being consistent with the historical data. Two significant differences between these two studies are the statistical methods employed to support the analysis and the removal of certain significant conservative assumptions from updating the versions of the SRM. The paper discusses the demands that different model purposes place on these models, and explores the question of whether or not it is meaningful to compare their outputs. The use of expected fatalities as a metric for expressing risk in both models is questioned because of the heavy-tailed form of the distribution for fatality numbers given a fatal accident.