IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v176y2026ics0967070x25004408.html

Evaluation of railway intelligent transportation systems to construct safer railway transport systems with a novel decision-making model

Author

Listed:
  • Görçün, Ömer Faruk
  • Hussain, Abrar
  • Ullah, Kifayat
  • Pamucar, Dragan
  • Simic, Vladimir

Abstract

While end users typically perceive rail transport as safer than other forms of transportation, it still confronts substantial threats and risks that demand meticulous management. One of the most crucial challenges in rail transport is the management of dense railway traffic on limited infrastructure. The effectiveness of this management is critical to ensuring safety and reliability. To address these challenges, integrating and adapting Railway Intelligent Transportation Systems (RITS) into railway transport systems has become essential for creating a safer and more reliable railway system. A railway system that is poorly structured and does not use advanced technology appropriately struggles to manage these risks effectively. Therefore, the integration of RITS is crucial. Decision-makers must carefully evaluate and select the most suitable RITS to ensure safety and reliability. However, since many conflicting criteria and decision factors affect the evaluation process, selecting the most appropriate RITS is a complex decision problem. This study proposes a new decision-making model by considering these requirements. In this context, the TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) method, enhanced with Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets and reinforced by integrating Schweizer–Sklar Hamy Mean Operators, was developed as a practical solution to address the decision-making problem. According to the research results, reliability and the use of the most advanced technology are the effective criteria that influence the selection of appropriate RITSs. In addition, A3 Aselsan, one of the key players in the intelligent transport system manufacturing industry, has been determined to be the most suitable alternative for railway transportation systems. Ultimately, extensive reality tests involving sensitivity and comparative analysis were conducted to check the robustness of the model. The analysis proves the model's soundness and practicality.

Suggested Citation

  • Görçün, Ömer Faruk & Hussain, Abrar & Ullah, Kifayat & Pamucar, Dragan & Simic, Vladimir, 2026. "Evaluation of railway intelligent transportation systems to construct safer railway transport systems with a novel decision-making model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:176:y:2026:i:c:s0967070x25004408
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.103897
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X25004408
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.103897?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kim, Gyutai & Park, Chan S. & Yoon, K. Paul, 1997. "Identifying investment opportunities for advanced manufacturing systems with comparative-integrated performance measurement," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 23-33, May.
    2. Liu, Jintao & Schmid, Felix & Li, Keping & Zheng, Wei, 2021. "A knowledge graph-based approach for exploring railway operational accidents," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    3. Vladimir Simić & Radovan Soušek & Stefan Jovčić, 2020. "Picture Fuzzy MCDM Approach for Risk Assessment of Railway Infrastructure," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-29, December.
    4. Qaisar Khan & Hizbullah Khattak & Ahmad Ali AlZubi & Jazem Mutared Alanazi & Naeem Jan, 2022. "Multiple Attribute Group Decision-Making Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Schweizer-Sklar Generalized Power Aggregation Operators," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2022, pages 1-34, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hyungjin Shin & Gyumin Lee & Jaenam Lee & Sehoon Kim & Inhong Song, 2023. "Assessment of Agricultural Drought Vulnerability with Focus on Upland Fields and Identification of Primary Management Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-16, February.
    2. Dindar, Serdar & Kaewunruen, Sakdirat & An, Min, 2022. "A hierarchical Bayesian-based model for hazard analysis of climate effect on failures of railway turnout components," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 218(PA).
    3. Almoghathawi, Yasser & Barker, Kash & Rocco, Claudio M. & Nicholson, Charles D., 2017. "A multi-criteria decision analysis approach for importance identification and ranking of network components," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 142-151.
    4. Prabhat Kumar & Puneet Tandon, 2019. "A paradigm for customer-driven product design approach using extended axiomatic design," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 589-603, February.
    5. Rihab Khemiri & Khaoula Elbedoui-Maktouf & Bernard Grabot & Belhassen Zouari, 2017. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach for managing performance and risk in integrated procurement-production planning," Post-Print hal-01758604, HAL.
    6. Wang, C. & Mandelli, D. & Godbole, C.M. & Agarwal, V. & Movassat, M. & Mori, B. & Liang, D. & Nur, E. & Birjandi, A. & Lobo, B. & Jacome, N., 2026. "Fusion of equipment reliability data through knowledge graphs," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 267(PB).
    7. Shin-Liang Chan & Wann-Ming Wey & Pin-Huai Chang, 2014. "Establishing Disaster Resilience Indicators for Tan-sui River Basin in Taiwan," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(1), pages 387-418, January.
    8. Askarany, Davood & Yazdifar, Hassan, 2012. "An investigation into the mixed reported adoption rates for ABC: Evidence from Australia, New Zealand and the UK," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 430-439.
    9. Chaoxun Cai & Shiyu Tian & Yuefeng Shi & Yongjun Chen & Xiaojian Li, 2024. "Influencing Factors Analysis in Railway Engineering Technological Innovation under Complex and Difficult Areas: A System Dynamics Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-20, June.
    10. Singh, Prashant & Pasha, Junayed & Moses, Ren & Sobanjo, John & Ozguven, Eren E. & Dulebenets, Maxim A., 2022. "Development of exact and heuristic optimization methods for safety improvement projects at level crossings under conflicting objectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    11. Berrah, L. & Mauris, G. & Montmain, J., 2008. "Monitoring the improvement of an overall industrial performance based on a Choquet integral aggregation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 340-351, June.
    12. Yan, Dongyang & Zhu, Qiaozhen & Gu, Shuang & Wang, Qian, 2026. "Integrating potential risk paths into railway accident causation analysis: A complex network approach with cascading failure and multimodal data," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 267(PB).
    13. Mohammed Said Obeidat & Tarek Qasim & Aseel Khanfar, 2018. "Implementing the AHP multi-criteria decision approach in buying an apartment in Jordan," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 53-71, January.
    14. Chia-Liang Lin & Jwu-Jenq Chen & Yu-Yu Ma, 2023. "Ranking of Service Quality Solution for Blended Design Teaching Using Fuzzy ANP and TOPSIS in the Post-COVID-19 Era," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, March.
    15. Ferenc Bognár & Balázs Szentes & Petra Benedek, 2022. "Development of the PRISM Risk Assessment Method Based on a Multiple AHP-TOPSIS Approach," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    16. Hegazy Rezk & Basem Alamri & Mokhtar Aly & Ahmed Fathy & Abdul G. Olabi & Mohammad Ali Abdelkareem & Hamdy A. Ziedan, 2021. "Multicriteria Decision-Making to Determine the Optimal Energy Management Strategy of Hybrid PV–Diesel Battery-Based Desalination System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, April.
    17. Valcamonico, Dario & Baraldi, Piero & Macêdo, July Bias & Moura, Márcio Das Chagas & Brown, Jonathan & Gauthier, Stéphane & Zio, Enrico, 2025. "A systematic procedure for the analysis of maintenance reports based on a taxonomy and BERT attention mechanism," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 257(PA).
    18. Yuefeng Shi & Shiyu Tian & Yongjun Chen & Chaoxun Cai & Honghao Guan & Xiaojian Li, 2025. "Risk Assessment Method of Railway Engineering Technology Innovation in Complex Areas," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    19. Liu, Jintao & Chen, Keyi & Duan, Huayu & Li, Chenling, 2024. "A knowledge graph-based hazard prediction approach for preventing railway operational accidents," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).
    20. Wu-E Yang & Chao-Qun Ma & Zhi-Qiu Han, 2017. "Linguistic multi-criteria decision-making with representing semantics by programming," International Journal of Systems Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(2), pages 225-235, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:176:y:2026:i:c:s0967070x25004408. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.