This study analyzed human errors among 100 manual railway workers in Australia with over 1 year of experience. 80% of workers reported musculoskeletal disorders in at least one body region in the previous 12 months. The study aims to quantify the prevalence of human errors and how they can cause injuries, mortality and functional limitations among manual railway workers. Risk factors like repetitive tasks, forceful exertions, prolonged awkward postures and vibrations were found to increase the likelihood of musculoskeletal disorders and reduce work efficiency.

1. Title
Quantitative Risk Assessment of
Human Errors among Railway
Workshop Manual Workers in
Australia
Abstract:
Introduction: Human error frequently brings up as
a reason for mishaps, when all different elements
have been excluded. This doesn't imply that human
blunder can't be examined or measure by logical and
specific standards. Our study aims to find the
prevalence of human errors among manual workers
of the railway.
Objective: The objective of this study is to measure
the prevalence of human errors among railway
workshop manual workers with a work experience of
more than 1 year in relation to their job demand.
Methodology: Observational study with a sample
size of 100 male manual workers of Australia railway
workshop. Prevalence of human error in the last 12
months using the demographic questionnaire. The
power of our study is 80%, confidence interval of
95%, and p-value 0.05.
Results: 80% of manual workers reported functional
disorders in at least 1 body region in the previous 12
months.
Conclusion: This study represents the prevalence of
human errors among manual workers of Australia
railway that can cause further morbidities, mortality,
and functional limitations.
Keywords:
Prevalence, Human Errors, ETA, Quantitative
analysis
Introduction:
Human error alludes to something having been done
that was "not expected by the entertainer; not wanted
by a bunch of rules or an outer onlooker, or that drove
the assignment or framework outside its worthy
cutoff points". Human error has been referred to as
an essential driver contributing variable in
misfortunes and mishaps in businesses as different as
an atomic influence, flying, space investigation, and
medication [1] .
Human error frequently brings up as a reason for
mishaps, when all different elements have been
excluded. This doesn't imply that human blunder
can't be examined or measure by logical and specific
standards. Currently, there is an impressive interest
in exploring human error [2]. Endurance and
advancement is the endless topic of endeavors, and
security is the assurance of the topic. To forestall
mishaps and secure the wellbeing of endeavors is a
significant issue which we ought to continually
confront. It is exceptionally hard to give a good
meaning for human errors [2]. Most mishaps in the
undertaking creation are because of human error [3].
The viability and the security of railroad tasks rely
upon numerous components counting rail traffic
rules, hardware dependability, general and well-
being of the executives, furthermore, human
variables. Specifically, as to human variables, it very
well might be added that they are significant in the
railroad framework simply like on account of some
other complex framework [4].
According to the previous researches in Asia
prevalence of human errors, musculoskeletal
symptoms was 65% in Railway Sahayaks (coolie) of
India [5].
Manual work involves factors that are of physical,
psychological, and social origin such as repetitive
movements, forceful and heavy work, prolonged
awkward posture, mechanical stress, and vibrations
that cause adverse effects on the musculoskeletal
system [6].
The framework approach is that people are frail and
errors are normal, even in the best associations.
Blunders are viewed as results as opposed to causes,
having their roots less in the backwardness of human
instinct as in "upstream" fundamental components.
These incorporate repetitive blunder traps in the
working environment and the authoritative cycles
that offer ascent to them [7]. Transport configuration
might be improved through the presentation of
danger relieving measures, around 80% of sea
mishaps are caused (legitimately or in a roundabout
way) by human mistake [8].
Given that the Sanchi slammed into another boat, it's
almost certain human blunder assumed a comparable
function in this mishap. Human blunder can be
decreased through a stronger plan with more
prominent excess so that on the off chance that one
framework quits working, another dominates.
Customarily this has implied things like utilizing two
motors rather than one. Be that as it may, innovation,

2. for example, savvy sensors can likewise have any
kind of effect via consequently identifying when
issues happen, for example, issues in a frame
structure. Likewise, presenting more security
cautioning gadgets and improving team preparation,
management, and correspondence could help
forestall human mistakes and catch them before
when they do happen [8].
Research question:
Why human error cause morbidities, mortality, and
functional limitations? How it affects work
efficiency?
Research Objective:
The objective of this research is to analyze the human
errors among railway workshops manual workers
with a work experience of more than 1 year in
relation to their job demand.
Literature review:
Work-related human errors and musculoskeletal
disorders are the most common problems seen in the
manual workers which mainly affects the Lower
back, neck, upper and lower extremities leading to
occupational diseases in the future. These problems
increase the risk of many painful conditions like
musculoskeletal disorders, morbidities, mortality,
and functional limitations.
Most common risk factors are awkward postures,
accidents, mishaps, prolong working hours,
repetitive movements, manual material handling,
forceful exertions, and vibrations. These conditions
deteriorate physical and emotional health and reduce
the productivity of work.
Jin Wang conducted research in 2018 that discusses
the ship design and Sanchi oil tanker accident. The
Sanchi big oil tanker was conveying 136,000 tons of
oil from Iran to South Korea when it crashed into the
Hong Kong-hailed freight transport CF Crystal. The
impact on January 6, 2018, caused a genuine fire. 30
Iranian and 2 Bangladeshi sailors died in this mishap.
The other vessel, CF Crystal was harmed at a
relatively minor scope and the entirety of its 21
Chinese teams was safeguarded. Despite the fact that
this was the main oil big hauler mishap since the
Prestige big hauler spilled 77,000 tons of weighty oil
into the Atlantic off the bank of Spain in November
2002, its natural effect was, at any rate, less serious
than other correspondingly enormous fiascos. The
mishap likewise occurred in the untamed ocean, a
long way from places where individuals live so the
effect on human movement is probably going to be
negligible [8].
Most mishaps in venture creation are because of
human errors. The reasons for human errors are
convoluted, for example, workers' own mental and
physiological elements, undertaking preparation,
defective administration framework, and helpless
social climate. This paper examines the fitting
reactions: First, reinforce fundamental
administration to guarantee great working
conditions; at that point upgrade wellbeing
consciousness of authority by fortifying
commendable good example, in order to improve the
general quality, and preparing security familiarity
with staff. Investigation of the reasons for human
mistake, at that point, take the proper measures to
lessen mishaps brought about by human errors [3].
Zhiru Wang and their coworker presents a creative
way to deal with displaying the causal connections of
human blunders in rail break episodes (RCI) from an
administrative viewpoint. A Bayesian conviction
network is created to display RCI by thinking about
the human mistakes of creators, makers,
administrators, and maintainers (DMOM) and the
causal connections included. A bunch of ward factors
whose mixes express the pertinent capacities
performed by each DMOM member is utilized to
demonstrate the causal connections. A sum of 14
RCI on Hong Kong's mass travel railroad (MTR)
from 2008 to 2011 are utilized to represent the
utilization of the model [9].
2007 human error railway. The viability and the
security of railroad tasks rely upon numerous
components counting rail traffic rules, hardware
dependability, general and well-being of the
executives, furthermore, human variables.
Specifically, as to human variables, it very well
might be added that they are significant in the
railroad framework simply like on account of some
other complex framework [4].
In July 2000, the Government distributed Transport
2010, its ten–year intend to improve Britain's
vehicle. This article surveys the proposition to
improve the railroad framework and analyzes their
possible impacts on the venture by the rail route

3. organizations and on traveler security. The creators
infer that the Government was arrogant in accepting
that an imperfect privatized structure could convey
the development it needed. The article shows that the
Government has been depending on insufficient and
failing to meet expectations instruments, over some
of which it had little control. This will presumably
proceed with except if the Rail track is rebuilt and
reclaimed into public possession. Progress so far has
been restricted, and the possibilities of achievement
are bad [10].
This literature review gives strength to our study by
emphasizing our tool and illuminating the
importance of work-related accidents or mishaps
due to human errors. As most of the hazards are
caused by unprofessional conduct or technical
issues.
Prevalence of MSDs in 9 different regions showed a
significant relation to some of the demographic
variables, disorders to work experience, level of
exertion, systemic disorders, and age [11]. Every
mishap/occurrence was related with numerous
contributing components, and, for every
mishap/episode, dynamic disappointments and idle
conditions were distinguished [12].
Research Methodology:
Study design:
It is an observational study with a quantitative based
cross-sectional study design. The data was collected
from every participant through direct interviews.
Setting:
The study was conducted at railway premises in
Australia. After ethical approval from the internal
review board, the research work was conducted. The
data was collected after the approval of the
Workshop Manager from the Carriage and Wagon
shop and Locomotive Workshop
Data collection:
Quantitative risk analysis tool and techniques:
1. The first level of "relevant" examination
(before the mishap) makes it conceivable to
consider the different elements preferring
the creation of the human mistake at the
starting point of the mishap;
2. The second "intellectual" level (during the
mishap) plans to recognize blunders
identified with the human psychological
cycle engaged with a given circumstance of
instability;
3. The third degree of conduct investigation
(after the mishap) centers on evaluating the
results of an awful activity regarding harm
to people, the climate, and the human-
machine framework.
Sampling Technique:
A purposive sampling technique was used based on
predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Inclusion criteria:
1. Male workers
2. Age 18yrs – 60yrs
3. Have been doing manual work for a
minimum 40hr/week
Exclusion criteria:
1. Computer operators and clerical staffs/desk-
based jobs
Data Collection Procedure:
Interviewing technique:
Before the data collection procedure, approval was
taken from the Works Managers of Carriage and
Wagon shop and Locomotive Workshop. After
getting the authority’s permission the verbal consent
was taken from every participant individually. A
research questionnaire was administered in one-to-
one interviews.
Figure. 1: Articulation ofthe main levels involved in
the analysis of human error in the accident.
before the
accident
• situational analysis
• centeral
during the
accident
• cognitive analysis
• level of activity
afterthe
accident
• behavioural analysis
• obserbale

4. Decision Tree Analysis:
Figure.2: Examples ofthe Quantitative Risk Analysis
Technique: Human Error related to the activity or in
processing steps, error cause by the train driver and
error cause by the operator.
The Human Factors Analysis
The Human Factors Analysis and classification
System (HFACS) give a methodological structure to
examining and ordering human blunders engaged
with mishaps and episodes. In view of James
Reason's "Swiss Cheese" human mistake model
(Reason, 1990), the HFACS framework is organized
around four degrees of progressive investigation of
dynamic disappointments and idle (Wiegmann and
Shappell, 2003) [13].
1. Risky acts: Skill-Based Errors (e.g., an absence of
consideration), Decision Errors (for example wrong
system, rule-based mistake), Perceptual Errors (for
example at the point when a choice is made
dependent on mistaken data), Routine Violations and
Exceptional Violations;
2. Preconditions for dangerous acts: Physical
Environment (for example heat, vibration, lighting),
Technological Environment (for example helpless
plan of hardware and controls, human-machine
interfaces), Adverse Mental State (for instance,
stress, mental weariness, inspiration), Adverse
Physiological State (for example disease, actual
exhaustion, hypo watchfulness), Physical/Mental
Limitation (for example visual impediments,
insufficient response time), Crew Resource
Management (for example correspondence,
coordination) and Personal Readiness (for example
liquor utilization or pharmaceuticals);
3. Perilous management: Inadequate Supervision,
Plan Inappropriate Operation, Fail to Correct Known
Problem and Supervisory Violation (for instance, ill-
advised utilization of methods and regulations);
4. Authoritative or social influences: Resource
Management, Organizational Climate, and
Operational Process.
5. from the Event Tree analysis it has been estimated
that out of 100 a total of 76% workers were at risk
because of the use of inappropriate work style during
the working hours on site.
Figure.3: Human Errors related to the types of
equipment in the System
preception/
interpretation
Contextual
Analysis
before accident
non respect
railwaysignaling
faliure to observe
crossing stop
signal
large accerlation
Cognitive Analysis
diagnosis
planning
action
Behavioural
Analysis
mistakes
knowledge base
rule base
skillbase
Analysis/diagnosis
TypesofSystemEquipment
Safety
equipment
train loction system
speed setting system
anti-collision system
Fuctional
equipment
train movement
management system
human error at the
rail road switch
Survillance
equipment
radio alert processing
system
online voltage
monitoring system

5. Results:
This research work represents the prevalence of
human error among 100 manual workers of the
Australia railway. The participants in our study were
all male of which 49.4% participants were below the
age of 50 with a mean of 48.61 Among our workers
66% had a working experience of fewer than 30
years with a mean of 25.20. In consideration of the
working posture 11% of workers used sitting
posture, 76.6% used standing posture and others
work in both sitting and standing posture throughout
the duty hours.
Figure. 4: Estimated proportion of accident caused
by broken rails by method of operation and analysis
(error bars represent 95% confidence interval)
The investigation proposed a methodological
structure for the examination, assessment, and
classification of human mistakes associated with
railroad mishaps and episodes. These elements
concern not just the wrong conduct of human
administrators engaged with the security and the
executives of railroad chances, yet in addition the
specialized disappointments of the vehicle
framework just as the adjustment of ecological
conditions.
Table.2: PSR
Factors related to psychosocial risks (PSR)
Work requirements
Emotional requirement
Autonomy and room for maneuver
Social relations and relationships at work
Conflicts of professional or personal values
Economic insecurity (uncontrolled change of
task, conflict, risk of losing one's job)
Specific accentuation has been set on factors
influencing human performance such as physical,
physiological, mental, conduct, word related,
sociological, Chrono-natural, and psychosocial
hazard factors. These individuals, proficient and
hierarchical components are firmly connected and
collaborate to influence human unwavering quality.
It is consequently critical to comprehend and
adequately deal with these presentation factors by
actualizing all-around focused answers to diminish
the danger of mistake. At the framework level, the
architect and the security and human variables pros
must recognize and envision (as a matter of fact
input) the potential human blunders identifying with
each sort of hardware and specifically the basic gear,
for example, the wellbeing capacities that deal with
the speed directions.
Table.1: Main factors affecting human
performance
Physical
factors
Sensory disabilities Motor
disability
Vision Traumatic brain injury
Hearing Neurological
conditions
Illusion
Psychological
factors
Personality: panic, stress
Mood
Emotional state
Behavioral
factor
Lifestyle: night activities
Habits: alcohol, drugs, etc.
Boredom - distraction
Apprehension - trust
Panic - stress
Social factors Family issues
Bad social environment
Visitor, inspector, instructor
Team structure
Physiological
factors
Health
Nutrition
Sleep
Tired
0
2
4
6
8
Nonsignaling Signaling <20MGT >20MGT
Estimated Proportion of Accident
Series 1 Series 2 Series 3

6. Discussion:
Safety is the most fundamental human requirements.
Initiatives wellbeing creation is an establishment
which guarantees human security life, and the
fundamental mean of stopping mishaps. To show the
plausibility and the legitimacy of this new
methodology, we have utilized some genuine models
from the field of railroad security and specifically the
TGV-Nord fast framework, the driverless metro type
ALV (Automatic Light Vehicle), the Magalia
framework from Lyon, and the Transman he Fixed
Link framework. As we would see it, the primary
commitment of this methodology lies in the identic
cation of the principle ideas identifying with the
human administrator, to be considered as ahead of
schedule as the information assortment and
investigation stage after a mishap or a railroad
episode (experience input). This methodology
additionally makes it conceivable to indicate, at each
degree of examination, a rundown of potential
human blunders that add to the event of railroad
mishaps and that must be considered in the
experience input (REX) to improve the degree of
security of the new vehicle frameworks. At last, this
commitment makes it conceivable to react to
European guidelines and mandates whose essential
target is to officially and methodically coordinate
human elements into railroad security examines. By
the by, this methodology requires its execution in
other genuine modern conditions, to approve and, if
important, improve what stays a proposition.
Risk Reduction Strategies:
An investigative system is introduced to assess
hazard decrease by executing three risk reduction
strategies, including broken rail avoidance, tank
vehicle armada update, and train speed decrease.
Avoidance of broken rails speaks to a mishap
counteraction methodology to decrease the
likelihood of a tank vehicle crash, while tank vehicle
update and speed decrease influence the likelihood
of a crashed vehicle discharge.
Sensitivity Analysis:
The sensitivity analysis has been conducted for both
Event Tree Analysis and for Human Factor Analysis.
As the probability values for both of the risk analysis
was same i.e. 76% out 100 workers were at risk
because of using a working position which is not
appropriate. So the results for the sensitivity analysis
were also the same for both ETA and HFA. The
analysis was being conducted using the Excel. The
results are given below:
Figure.5: Sensitivity Analysis using the values ofboth
ETA and HFA
Limitations:
 The participants of this study were all males.
 This study was conducted in only two railway
premises of Australia according to the
researcher’s convenience.
 This study was not aimed to describe any reason
behind musculoskeletal disorders, accidents and
mishaps.
Conclusion:
The methodology of examination of human blunder
that we have expounded includes three degrees of
reciprocal investigation:
The first level of logical investigation (before the
mishap) makes it conceivable to contemplate the
different elements preferring the creation of the
human mistake at the inception of the mishap. These
elements identify with the human administrator, his
workplace, the framework and the different
collaborations of people with the framework and the
environment.
The second degree of psychological examination
(during the mishap) means to recognize human
mistakes identified with the human intellectual cycle
engaged with a given circumstance of instability.
1
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
10%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
20%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
30%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
40%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
50%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
60%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
70%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
80%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Event Tree Analysis
HumanFactorAnalysis
Sensitivity Analysis

7. The third degree of conduct investigation (after the
mishap) centers on evaluating the results of wrong
activity as far as damage to people, the climate and
the framework.
The human blunder is a significant factor to influence
security creation. To decrease human errors, study
the happening component is especially significant.
This paper dependent on the investigation of the
human blunder or errors, advances the important
control measures, has explicit and relevance and has
certain elevating hugeness to the exploration a d
development of human mistake. With the expanding
multifaceted nature of modern frameworks and
particularly guided or robotized rail transport
frameworks, significant advancements have
occurred in the perspective and understanding of the
job and spot of man in the wellbeing of human-
machine frameworks. In this unique situation, human
components assume a significant part in wellbeing
dissects and particularly after the event of mishaps
(criticism of involvement) that occasionally lead to
human misfortunes and the decimation of the climate
and framework hardware. It is along these lines
important to execute a cycle of criticism of
involvement (Rex) to remember and underwrite all
mishaps and episodes and consequently maintain a
strategic distance from in any event the propagation
of new mishaps comparable.
Future work:
This study provide some basis to do future research
regarding this population. Further researches can be
conducted to find the reason behind this prevalence
of human errors that related to musculoskeletal
disorders.
Quantification of the interactive effects of accident
causes; for example, it is necessary to understand the
reduction of track-related causes by preventing
mechanical defects, particularly wheel defects, and
vice versa;
Consideration of the effectiveness of preventing
other accident causes (e.g., mechanical failures or
human factors)
References
[1] "Human error,"13 October2020.
[2] S. Salminen,"Humanerror," Finnish Instituteof
OccupationalHealth.
[3] S. Wenwen,J.Fuchuan,Z.Qiangand C. Jingjing,
"AnalysisandControl of HumanError," vol.26, pp.
2126-2132, December2011.
[4] "Human Error inRailways,"Springer,London,pp.
77-90.
[5] N.K. Singhand R. M. Khan,"prevlence of
musculoskeletal disordersamongIndiarailway
sahayaks,"vol.24, no. 102, pp.27-37, 27 August
2018.
[6] F. A.P, C. R, L. M andG. T. John,"prevlence of low
back paininthe UK," vol.6, 2016.
[7] J. Reason,"Humanerror,"vol.172, no.6, pp.393-
396, Jun 2000.
[8] J. Wang,"Sanchi oil tankerdisaster:howspillsand
accidentscan make shipssafer," journalisticflair,
30 january2018.
[9] G. S. M. S.J. C. A.P. C. C. &. B. X.ZhiruWang,
"Human Error RiskManagementMethodologyfor
Rail Crack Incidents,"21 January2016.
[10] R. J. GeraldCrompton,"Core Articles:Delivering
BetterTransport?An Evaluationof the Ten–Year
Planfor the RailwayIndustry," PublicMoney &
Management, vol.22,no.3, pp. 41-48, 15 Mar
2010.
[11] K. V.A.S.Thaker,"Investigationof Musculoskeletal
DisordersandTheirAssociatedRiskFactors
AmongIndianRailwayCoolies - A CrossSectional
Study,"2018.
[12] A. V.StephenReinach,"Applicationof ahuman
error frameworktoconducttrain
accident/incidentinvestigations,"vol.38,no.2,
pp.396-406, April 2006.
[13] H. HADJ-MABROUK,"NEW APPROACHOF
ASSESSINGHUMAN ERRORS IN RAILWAYS,"vol.8,
no.2, pp.1-17, 2018.