Railway Signaling Safety Factors Quantitative Analysis Using an Improved 5M Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author

-It is better for sentences “When the variance of 5M subfactors is greater than 70%, the principal factors can be achieved” in line 178-179 in page 6 Give a valid reference.

- It is better to use references from other countries. Most of the references are from China.

-The English text needs to be edited moderately. 

Sincerely

Author Response

Thanks for your advice.

Response 1: I have added the reference [16], which points out that the principle factors can be achieved when the variance contribution is greater than 70%. So, this method is the acceptable.

Response 2: Due the rail signaling safety research may mostly occurring in China, so this research cited some Chinese references and standards. According to the comments, we have added the reference [16].

Such as:

16. R. B. J. S Williams. The essentials of factor analysis. Contemporary Sociology, 1974, 3(5), 411.

Response 3: We have carefully polished the language of the article according to the comments. The modified sections are marked as red color in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

This work discusses an application of 5M model to analyze the railway signaling accidents. Real accident data has been collected and analyzed using association rule mining. The relationship between 5M factors has been established and the results are discussed. The article is interesting and fits within the scope of the journal. However, it can be improved in the following areas before any decision is taken.

1. There is a strong need to improvise English for the entire manuscript. There are grammatical errors, punctuation and missing articles throughout the text. A careful revision of manuscript is suggested.
2. Although the topic of the study is interesting, it novelty need to be advocated strongly. A crisp review of contemporary literature can be provided as a separate section to demonstrate the standing of the manuscript.
3. It is not getting clear what is an “improved 5M model”. Are the authors proposing a new model or applying the 5M model innovatively?
4. Authors mention about comparison of the results of 5M model with AHP. However, the details are missing. In particular, reader might be interesting in knowing the expert inputs, weights of the criteria and results of AHP in terms of final weights of 5M model criteria. This part needs a clear demonstration.
5. Discussion and conclusions part can be further strengthen.

Author Response

Thanks for your advice.

Response 1: We have carefully polished the language of the article according to the comments. The modified sections are marked as red color in the manuscript.

Response 2: We have concluded the innovation of this article in the “Introduction”. Such as, from line 78 to 88, which not only conclude the defects of 5M model, but also introduces the creative plan of this research.

In addition, the literature review is fully concluded in the “Introduction” section, so we think the literature review needn’t be provided as a separate section. Such as, “For the sake of improving the railway signaling safety, a lot of efforts have been made by governments, regulators and researchers.”

Response 3: The improved 5M model is a method combined the association rule model with factors analysis method, it can quantitatively evaluate the 5M factors and 5M subfactors. While the common 5M model just qualitatively evaluate 5M factors and 5M subfactor. Moreover, the definition and advantages of improved 5M model have been described in section 2.1.2.

Response 4: the details of 5M model with AHP have been added, which are from line 342 to 345. To balance the article content, we briefly introduce the procedure of AHP. Such as, “The detailed procedures are given as [24]: 1) first of all, the hierarchy model need be established according to the rail signaling accident of factors and subfactors; 2) then the pairwise comparison matrix of the weights for second level subfactors are eventually calculated.”

Response 5: Discussion and conclusions have been strengthened according to the comments.

Such as, Discussion “Meanwhile, the results represent the subfactors of improved 5M model have more obvious influence on rail signaling accidents than the subfactors of 5M model. Consequently, rail signaling safety factors quantitative analysis using the improved 5M model is more practical and reliable than AHP and other popular safety evaluation method. Furthermore, the improved 5M model also can help improve the safety of the rail signaling system and sustainability of the urban.”

Such as, Conclusion “In view of qualitative analysis of rail signaling accident, this paper proposes the improved rail signaling 5M accident cause hierarchical model to cover this defect. And a railway signaling system safety evaluation system by the improved 5M model quantitative analysis method is established. Through the data mining, the actual data of rail signaling accident is achieved. Based on the enough data, the association rule analysis and factor analysis are conducted, so the weights of 5M factor and subfactor are measured respectively. The analysis results show that Management of 5M factor occupies the first place. While Mission factor cannot be ignored, because it is the foundation of safety analysis and hazard identification of the entire system. Besides, the obvious influential subfactors are material fault or fatigue of signaling equipment, poor construction management, external man construction affecting signaling system, and construction safety with hid-den dangers, etc. Compared with the other safety evaluation method, the influence rate of the secondary subfactors for improved 5M model have reached 78.15% and 52.66% respectively, and the quantitative influence is increased by 98.2% and 84.64%. The results show that the improved 5M model not only can comprehensively measure the rail signaling accident, but also can quantitatively analyze the railway signaling safety factors. Therefore, the improved 5M model is rather reliable and feasible, so we can use it to improve the safety level of the rail signaling system and promote the sustainable development of the railway.”

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper titled "Railway Signaling Safety Factors Quantitative Analysis Using an Improved 5M Model" is relatively well written as a research paper, and it has a sound approach to answer the research question. However, it is recommended for the authors to prepare a revision to answer the following questions and comments.

• The labeling of Figure 6 needs to be clearer.
• The citations also should be added in the figures caption.
• In the discussion section, the results of the Improved 5M Model are far from the previous models in the literature, so how to determine the correctness of the Improved 5M Model? Is there a way to verify it?

Author Response

Thanks for your advice.

Response 1: The Figure 6 has been modified, and the labeling of Figure 6 has been clearer.

Response 2: The citations have been added in the article.

Response 3: Response 5: Discussion and conclusions have been strengthened according to the comments.

Such as, Discussion “Meanwhile, the results represent the subfactors of improved 5M model have more obvious influence on rail signaling accidents than the subfactors of 5M model. Consequently, rail signaling safety factors quantitative analysis using the improved 5M model is more practical and reliable than AHP and other popular safety evaluation method. Furthermore, the improved 5M model also can help improve the safety of the rail signaling system and sustainability of the urban.”

The comparison can prove that the improved 5M model is reliable and feasible. In addition, the rail signaling accident is probability event, which always causes the huge loss. So we can’t verify the safety evaluation method in the practice.