A direct comparison of physical block occupancy versus timed block occupancy in train timetabling formulations

Steven Harrod; Thomas Schlechte

doi:10.1016/j.tre.2013.04.003

A direct comparison of physical block occupancy versus timed block occupancy in train timetabling formulations

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Abstract

Two fundamental mathematical formulations for railway timetabling are compared on a common set of sample problems, representing both multiple track high density services in Europe and single track bidirectional operations in North America. One formulation, ACP, enforces against conflicts by constraining time intervals between trains, while the other formulation, RCHF, monitors physical occupation of controlled track segments. The results demonstrate that both ACP and RCHF return comparable solutions in the aggregate, with some significant differences in select instances, and a pattern of significant differences in performance and constraint enforcement overall. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Original language	English
Journal	Transportation Research. Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review
Volume	54
Pages (from-to)	50-66
ISSN	1366-5545
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2013.04.003
Publication status	Published - 2013

Keywords

Business and International Management
Management Science and Operations Research
Transportation
Railway scheduling
Timetabling
Track allocation
Train pathing
comparative study
performance assessment
railway transport
train
Europe
North America
ENGINEERING,
OPERATIONS
TRANSPORTATION
ECONOMICS
OPTIMIZATION
MODELS

Access to Document

10.1016/j.tre.2013.04.003

OpenUrl availability

Full text

Cite this

@article{7d790a1840ef40df8874bab20e915e5b,

title = "A direct comparison of physical block occupancy versus timed block occupancy in train timetabling formulations",

abstract = "Two fundamental mathematical formulations for railway timetabling are compared on a common set of sample problems, representing both multiple track high density services in Europe and single track bidirectional operations in North America. One formulation, ACP, enforces against conflicts by constraining time intervals between trains, while the other formulation, RCHF, monitors physical occupation of controlled track segments. The results demonstrate that both ACP and RCHF return comparable solutions in the aggregate, with some significant differences in select instances, and a pattern of significant differences in performance and constraint enforcement overall. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.",

keywords = "Business and International Management, Management Science and Operations Research, Transportation, Railway scheduling, Timetabling, Track allocation, Train pathing, comparative study, performance assessment, railway transport, train, Europe, North America, ENGINEERING,, OPERATIONS, TRANSPORTATION, ECONOMICS, OPTIMIZATION, MODELS",

author = "Steven Harrod and Thomas Schlechte",

year = "2013",

doi = "10.1016/j.tre.2013.04.003",

language = "English",

volume = "54",

pages = "50--66",

journal = "Transportation Research. Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review",

issn = "1366-5545",

publisher = "Pergamon Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A direct comparison of physical block occupancy versus timed block occupancy in train timetabling formulations

AU - Harrod, Steven

AU - Schlechte, Thomas

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Two fundamental mathematical formulations for railway timetabling are compared on a common set of sample problems, representing both multiple track high density services in Europe and single track bidirectional operations in North America. One formulation, ACP, enforces against conflicts by constraining time intervals between trains, while the other formulation, RCHF, monitors physical occupation of controlled track segments. The results demonstrate that both ACP and RCHF return comparable solutions in the aggregate, with some significant differences in select instances, and a pattern of significant differences in performance and constraint enforcement overall. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

AB - Two fundamental mathematical formulations for railway timetabling are compared on a common set of sample problems, representing both multiple track high density services in Europe and single track bidirectional operations in North America. One formulation, ACP, enforces against conflicts by constraining time intervals between trains, while the other formulation, RCHF, monitors physical occupation of controlled track segments. The results demonstrate that both ACP and RCHF return comparable solutions in the aggregate, with some significant differences in select instances, and a pattern of significant differences in performance and constraint enforcement overall. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

KW - Business and International Management

KW - Management Science and Operations Research

KW - Transportation

KW - Railway scheduling

KW - Timetabling

KW - Track allocation

KW - Train pathing

KW - comparative study

KW - performance assessment

KW - railway transport

KW - train

KW - Europe

KW - North America

KW - ENGINEERING,

KW - OPERATIONS

KW - TRANSPORTATION

KW - ECONOMICS

KW - OPTIMIZATION

KW - MODELS

U2 - 10.1016/j.tre.2013.04.003

DO - 10.1016/j.tre.2013.04.003

M3 - Journal article

SN - 1366-5545

VL - 54

SP - 50

EP - 66

JO - Transportation Research. Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review

JF - Transportation Research. Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review

ER -

A direct comparison of physical block occupancy versus timed block occupancy in train timetabling formulations

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

OpenUrl availability

Fingerprint

Cite this