Operation-driven Scheduling Approach for Fast, Frequent and Reliable Railway Services

1. Operation-driven Scheduling Approach for Fast, Frequent and Reliable Railway Services Alfons A.M. Schaafsma, Vincent A. WeedaProRail, Department of Traffic Control

2. Rail Transport Growth! • On existing network: Efficient capacity use (exactly right reservation, multifunctional) • Local measures (RailDelft, CompRail XI) now: Approach • Feedback: Continuous Improvement 2

3. Operation according to output standards? Yes No Schedule feasible according to standards? Yes OK. 1. Measures in operation. 2. Adapt the schedule to the operation. No Apply standards pragmatically Apply DTM measures Objective:Matching Schedule and Operation 3

4. Monitoring: Time Windows 4

5. Operation according to output standards? Yes No Schedule feasible according to standards? Yes Is gaining speed possible? 1. Measures in operation. 2. Adapt the schedule to the operation. No Apply standards pragmatically Apply DTM measures 2nd Train: Groningen .04 Hoogeveen .42 Meppel South .56/.57 1st Train: Leeuwarden .04 Zwolle Schedule: arr .52/ dep .53 Meppel: Synchronisation Point 5

6. Running time Hoogeveen-Meppel (min) 2nd Train runs into conflict Departure delay Hoogeveen (min) Meppel: Adverse Effects of Margins Dwell time Meppel (sec) 1st Train blocks way Arrival delay Meppel (min) 6

7. Operation according to output standards? Yes No Schedule feasible according to standards? Yes Is gaining speed possible? 1. Measures in operation. 2. Adapt the schedule to the operation. No Apply standards pragmatically Apply DTM measures Dordrecht Bridge • Hour pattern  Incidental capacity claim 6x/day 7

8. Distance Conflict (dotted line would be conflict-free) Early due to margin Saved travel time No margin on the route Time Standard headway Same headway Conflict-free Scheduling Approach • Choose sync. points (limited #) • Allocate margin just before sync. point 8

9. 4. Differentiate standards (incidental trains) Conflict-free Scheduling Approach • Choose sync. points (limited #) • Allocate margin just before sync. point • Use feasible headway & cross times 9

10. QUANTITY bottleneck Hourly capacity is not sufficient Example: Schiphol tunnel Platform capacity Conflicting routes QUALITY bottleneck Hourly capacity is sufficient, Customer specs. can not be met Example: Amsterdam- Utrecht Operation according to output standards? Yes No Schedule feasible according to standards? Yes Is gaining speed possible? 1. Measures in operation. 2. Adapt the schedule to the operation. No Apply standards pragmatically Apply DTM measures Apply DTM Measures 10

11. Amsterdam 3000 Hdr - Nm Example Quality Bottleneck Schiphol 3500 Shl - Ehv 33 29 Utrecht 32 26 First Come First Serve 11

12. 2. DTM arrangements for flow optimising 3. Effect on speed and width time window? 4. Defining of buffer after bottleneck 5. Measuring and fine tuning DTM: optimising the use of capacity in bottlenecks in 5 steps 1. Identification of bottlenecks 12

13. Operation according to output standards? Yes No Schedule feasible according to standards? Yes Is gaining speed possible? 1. Measures in operation. 2. Adapt the schedule to the operation. No Apply standards pragmatically Apply DTM measures Conclusion:Matching Schedule and Operation 13

14. Scheduling and Dispatching trains • Capacity Allocation • Capacity Growth Planning “Traveling without a timetable” enabled by A Different Approach to 14

15. Discussion Issues • Flexible standards make fair capacity management difficult. • Dense traffic requires local timetable solutions. • Bottleneck approach indentifies the capacity problems in a network. 15